Special for the Armenian Weekly
On Nov. 26, the two Houses of the Bolivian Parliament (the Plurinational Legislative Assembly of Bolivia) unanimously approved measures recognizing the Armenian Genocide. The resolutions express solidarity with the Armenian cause and condemn “all denialist policy regarding the Genocide and crimes against humanity suffered by the Armenian nation.”
In an exclusive interview with the Armenian Weekly, Khatchik Der Ghougassian, professor of international relations at Universidad de San Andrés in Argentina, discussed the passage of the resolution and outlined the potential for strengthened Armenian-South American relations in the coming years.
***
Rupen Janbazian: The Buenos Aires-based “Agencia Prensa Armenia” reported that on Nov. 26, 2014, the two houses of the Bolivian Parliament unanimously approved measures to recognize the Armenian Genocide with the approval of the Bolivian Foreign Ministry. It is interesting that this resolution passed in Bolivia, a country with no major Armenian population, or even any Armenian diplomatic representation. How did this resolution come about? Was the greater South American-Armenian community involved in any way?
Khatchik Der Ghougassian: Not only does an organized Armenian community not exist in Bolivia, but I also doubt if there are any Armenians actually living in the country. While there may be some Armenians involved in business in Bolivia, it is evident that the idea for the resolution came from the Bolivians themselves. Two members of the Argentine-Armenian community traveled to La Paz during the last phase of the initiative to help write the final resolution. One of them, Roberto Malkasian, is an expert in law and, as far as I know, had a big part in putting the resolution into words. It must be emphasized, however, that the initiative came from the most progressive sector of the ruling party in Bolivia, and not from Armenians. It is also very interesting that the resolution is unique in the fact that it emphasizes aspects of the Armenian cause that have not appeared in similar resolutions in other countries.
R.J.: The Bolivian Parliament is dominated by political allies of President Evo Morales, who has been in power since 2006. How does the passage of this resolution fit into the foreign policy agenda of President Morales and his Movement for Socialism Party?
K.D.G.: To understand the initiative and the way it fits into the foreign policy agenda of President Morales, we have to consider the importance of ethical considerations for small countries like Bolivia and Uruguay in taking positions in international affairs. This sounds a little bit naive, as foreign policy is usually based on more practical and “material” interests. But the Movement for Socialism Party came into power with a strong commitment for justice. For almost 500 years, the native Bolivians were enslaved—first by Spanish conquerors, then by the ruling elite after independence. Bolivia was and continues to be a country rich in natural resources. For centuries, conquerors have looted the silver of Potosi and left the population in poverty. In the 1980’s, Bolivia became the first country where [U.S. President Ronald] Reagan’s so-called “war on drugs” policy was first implemented, using the military to repress ethnic communities. It was also where, in the 1980’s, the neoliberal policies of “shock therapies” were applied for the first time, leading to further concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a minority.
‘Unfortunately, Armenian diplomacy in South America has not been as strong as it should have been over the past decade…[when there were] important breakthroughs in Uruguay, Argentina, Venezuela, and Chile. While focusing on Moscow, Washington, and Brussels, Yerevan has ignored the south in general and South America in particular, even though Argentina was among the first countries where Armenia had diplomatic representation right after independence. … Armenia has never considered the potential of alternative strategic alliances with emerging powers like Brazil, or champions of human rights and anti-imperialism such as Argentina, Uruguay, or Venezuela.’
However, Bolivia is also a country with a rich tradition of popular uprisings and a quest for justice. Ernesto Che Guevara was killed in Bolivia; leading guerilla figures, such as the current vice president, Alvaro Garcia Linera, were also well-known intellectuals. Neoliberal policies in the 1990’s were particularly harmful for the people. It was at this time that Evo Morales, a simple peasant, rose as a representative of the emerging social protest. He was harassed and his candidacy for presidential elections was “vetoed” by Washington. The final episode of the privatization process came in 2003, when the then president, Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, wanted to sell Bolivia’s natural gas to a Californian firm, prompting popular protests and what became known as the bloody “gas war,” which eventually led to the president’s resignation and exile to the United States. It is this strong alliance of progressive intellectuals and popular leaders that came into power in 2006, when Bolivia joined the “left-turn” process in South America, despite foreign pressure. Morales received strong support from Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Nestor Kirchner of Argentina, and Inacio Lula Da Silva of Brazil. Since then, not only has he been consistent in addressing centuries-old injustices, but has also put the country on the developmental path and sustained a principled approach in international affairs. The ethical commitment to just causes shapes Morales’ Bolivia’s identity.
Following the passage of the resolution, the head of Bolivia’s Senate, Zonia Guardia Melgar, was invited to Buenos Aires by the Argentine-Armenian community. While there, she spoke at the Saint Gregory Church and mentioned Che Guevara as an example of commitment to just causes, and in her interview to Prensa Armenia, gave full support to Armenians and Kurds in their struggle.
R.J.: While relations between Turkey and Bolivia are limited, trade volume between the 2 countries totals about $8 million. Do you believe the passage of the resolution will affect relations between the two countries?
K.D.G.: Actually, both Turkey and Azerbaijan have been actively promoting investment and economic cooperation in the field of energy and other sectors of Bolivia. Considering the lack of Armenian diplomatic representation in the country, Turkish and Azeri activism has been successful in lobbying in Bolivia, though this has been based on mostly empty promises and falsifications. For example, they have pushed to pass a resolution on the so-called “genocide” in Khojaly [Karabagh], as they did in Mexico. However, they must have underestimated the commitment to righteousness of the ruling party.
While it is true that Turkey has some trade with Bolivia, the volume is actually very small. Still, it is important, considering that Armenia has no trade whatsoever. I do not think that the resolution will have any impact on the trade relationship of the two countries. Moreover, the Turkish-Azeri neo-denialist strategy will probably promise to invest even more into the country—perhaps try to buy political will, seduce some soccer team, etc. In other words, they will try to do more to try to show that Bolivia’s real interests lie with them, not Armenia and the Armenians.
R.J.: Armenia’s Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian has issued a statement commending the passage of the resolutions. What does the recognition of the genocide mean for Armenia-Bolivia relations and Armenia-South America relations in general?
K.D.G.: Nalbandian’s statement was much appreciated in Bolivia and is a good starting point for relations. Unfortunately, Armenian diplomacy in South America has not been as strong as it should have been over the past decade. During this time, there have been important breakthroughs in Uruguay, Argentina, Venezuela, and Chile. While focusing on Moscow, Washington, and Brussels, Yerevan has ignored the south in general and South America in particular, even though Argentina was among the first countries where Armenia had diplomatic representation right after independence. Diplomatic protocols have always been properly respected; however, Armenia has never considered the potential of alternative strategic alliances with emerging powers like Brazil, or champions of human rights and anti-imperialism such as Argentina, Uruguay, or Venezuela.
South America has been very important for Armenia’s economy, especially when considering the Argentine businessman Eduardo Eurnekian, who is the first individual investor in Armenia. Unfortunately, Yerevan never considered the relationship as a means to open doors in South America to look for new opportunities. While I understand that serious material limitations may exist, I am sure that strategic planning can overcome these limitations. The situation has seemed to change since 2011-12. Azerbaijan has been pursuing an aggressive diplomatic campaign, investing their petrodollars in the social, economic, and political sectors of countries from Mexico to Argentina, all while their representatives publically declare that their objective is to counter-balance the presence of organized Armenian communities in the region.
Today, Armenia has embassies in three Latin American countries, and President [Serge] Sarkissian’s visit to Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile last July was a great success. Nevertheless, there is still a lot that could be done. Bolivia’s passage of the resolution proved that it is possible to think outside of the box when it comes to their foreign policy.
R.J.: Leading up to the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide, do you foresee any other countries in the area taking similar steps recognizing the genocide?
K.D.G.: It all really depends on how active Armenia’s diplomacy is in the area. There is much to capitalize on considering the important political and juridical successes that local Armenian communities have achieved over the years.
One thing I am sure of is that Turkey’s policy of denial will be very active in the area over the coming year, and they will surely combine their efforts with Azerbaijan. We already see a sort of division of labor in this respect: While Azerbaijan remains in charge of the “hard” denial, such as questioning the historical existence of Armenia, Ankara promotes a “softer” brand of denial, such as [President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan’s offerings of condolences of a so-called “common suffering.” Moreover, Turkish organizations, such as the Gulen movement, which are falsely branded as humanitarian initiatives, are very actively penetrating civil society and promoting a false image of a tolerant Ottoman past with important investments in the educational field. While the relations between the Gulen movement and the ruling party seem to have been turbulent in recent days, they are both actively working to deny the Armenian Genocide.
Rupen Janbazian
Latest posts by Rupen Janbazian (see all)
- Battle Everlasting - October 6, 2021
- Aram Manoukian’s bust unveiled in Yerevan’s ARF Aram Manoukian Youth Center - October 1, 2021
- Thursdays with (Unger) Michael - August 6, 2020
Armenia was first recognized by Lithuania, Romania, followed by Russia, the United States ….
So, we have the first SMALL country Lithuania.
If Nagorno Karabakh Republic will be following a similar process of recognition, the first country can be Uruguay or / and Argentina, Bolivia, Argentina, Venezuela, and Chile.
Then, it will be much easier to achieve recognition by Russia, the US and European countries.
It would be very helpful if the Armenian Diaspora of the USA, Europe and Russia to support the Armenian Diaspora of Uruguay, Argentina, Venezuela, and Chile in the process of recognition of Nagorno Karabakh Republic.
Wonderful interview… only scratches the surface of this interesting story and leaves everything on the table for discussion.
Some takeaways that should really give us pause:
i. Bolivia has recognized and condemned the genocide with essentially zero lobbying! Only a country with a truly grassroots socialist movement would take such a stance with no ulterior motives. So solidarity between the oppressed people is thus still viable. Sincere allies are out there if we are willing to look beyond the North Atlanticist bloc.
ii. Armenia only has three measly embassies in Latin America!? [This is a little bit misleading because Armenia has ambassadors to Guatemala, Costa Rica and Panama who reside in Mexico, as well as to Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay who reside in Argentina. It has only physical embassies in Brazil, Argentina and Mexico.] Armenia should certainly have an embassy in Uruguay, even if it is overkill, and now one in Bolivia. Mujica and Morales are exemplars as world leaders – they basically stand alone as far as I am concerned – so any and every increased contact will only serve to civilize us politically. We clearly should have diplomatic relations with Venezuela and Cuba as well, not to mention Ecuador, because these countries have proved willing to stick their neck out for their allies in the developing world (with energy, guerrillas, arms, doctors, you name it…)
iii. Ghougassian makes the point that Armenia has neglected Latin America implying that it has been more concerned with Europe. This cannot be overstated, we think Europe is the center of universe. The folly in this is that the left-turn in Latin America has made these countries more ethical, expansive, independent, and coherent as actors on the world stage. Every country or cause that lobbies Brussels or Washington does so at cross-purposes, so ironically, initiative is highly constrained. Latin America is freer now to build alliances and seek new partners because it is ascendant and inherently anti-imperialist. And this whole sphere is open to us because Russia and Iran are sympathetic to emergent Latin American assertiveness and because our diasporas are well-loved there. The only thing that has stopped us from pursuing these alliances is narrow-mindedness. Countries like Brazil are on the rise while Europe is stagnant but we still are fixated on our European future, begging for Europe’s scraps. Armenia could easily disintegrate in European markets it should be noted.
iv. What also comes across in this interview is that the left-turn in Latin America is deeply rooted in liberation movements of generations past. In the past few decades the Armenian cause has become pretty dissociated from its origin as a liberation movement. Building alliances across the social-justice-seeking south helps to redress this. Apparently to Bolivians our tragic history resonates with their tragic history of imperialism and neo-liberal exploitation.
v. Small detail, but let’s note that Zonia Guardia Melgar mentioned her support for the Armenian and Kurdish struggles in one breath. The Kurdish movement has wide appeal in South America and obviously is intricately linked to Armenians. The more we make clear that the two causes are inextricably linked, the more purchase our own cause gets – in fact other people are doing this for us as the speaker of the Bolivian Senate demonstrated. Though we have blown hot and cold on this, we, Armenians in the diaspora but also and especially the Republic of Armenia, could be much much more active in hitching the wagon to an inevitable winner by supporting the Kurdish movement. Bayik, Karayilan, Demirtas, Salih Muslim and the new leadership of the PKK, PYD, HDP/BDP, all seem like ascendant and progressive actors with more and more reach, relevance, and clout – both globally and regionally. This is precisely the moment when we should be vocally supporting them, nurturing the fraternal feelings that do exist, and locking down these alliances.
vi. Greater unity with Latin America should suggest that eventually there will come a point where Armenians will have to choose between: the reclusive crony-capitalism that exists now; the neo-liberal free-fall that the US/EU wants to export all over the globe; some form of socialism and economic independence. What is happening in Latin America is just the very first, very tenuous, steps away from the hegemonic neo-liberal order. No illusions about that. But we should be at as close proximity as possible to this evolving experiment as we can be to capitalize on it and learn from it and tailor the model to Armenia if we can.