“Haykakan Zhamanak” blasts President Serzh Sarkisian’s recent public comments that he “cannot insist that all possible consequences of the initialed Armenian-Turkish protocols can be calculated”.
“A strange and amazing confession for the flagman of football diplomacy – to draw the whole nation and state into a game without calculating its possible consequences simply reveals his mind of a genius,” the daily comments tartly. “And this confession of Sarkisian reminds of [Georgian President] Mikheil Saakashvili’s biting his necktie during the days of the Russo-Georgian war. Saakashvili, too, had failed to calculate all possible consequences of the Georgian-Ossetian war, because even Bill Gates’ office does not have a computer that could make that calculation.”
“Aravot” takes the protests organized in some Diaspora communities during the visits of President Serzh Sarkisian in their stride.
The daily’s editor writes: “I am sure that the members of the Armenian delegation were not taken aback by such Diaspora behavior. People detached from their native land either preserve their identity by dreaming about that land or lose this identity, getting culturally assimilated in their adopted homelands. The word ‘Turk’ for our compatriots living overseas is not just the name of an ethnic group, but a curse, a symbol of violence and barbarianism. Weren’t it so, the Diaspora Armenians would have ceased to be what they are and would have become ordinary Frenchmen, Americans and Lebanese with Armenian origins. This is neither good nor bad. This is a reality to be reckoned with. It is another question whether it is worth basing state policy on this ‘survivor’ mentality. I think this was one of the biggest mistakes of the [second president] Robert Kocharian’s decade.”
“Hayots Ashkhar” editorializes on the same subject, writing that the Diaspora consists of varied sections of living humans that differ one from another by their way of life, world outlook and feelings.
“Therefore, no one has the right to speak, let alone protest, on behalf of the whole Diaspora,” the paper concludes.
“Chorrord Ishkhanutyun” sees the Tuesday announcement by a dozen political parties of a joint action against the signing of the Armenia-Turkey protocols as the implementation of “a project of creating a new opposition pole of national forces.”
“And so, this ‘project’ that has been in the air for more than a year has become a reality. A national opposition pole is being formed in Armenian politics, with the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun) in its forefront. Despite strong-worded statements, however, this pole looks quite ‘constructive’ as instead of demanding the resignation of Serzh Sarkisian, it urges him to take ‘pro-Armenian’ steps. Classically, this is how a ‘constructive opposition’ should act – it should point out the government’s mistakes and urge it to make correct steps. And the ‘radical opposition’, as a rule, does not have any positive expectations from the authorities and demands their immediate resignation. Time will show which of the two oppositions get more public support. But the problem at this moment is that the crucial developments are taking place not in Armenian-Turkish relations but in the Karabakh settlement. Meanwhile, the emerging ‘opposition pole’ does not pay attention to this matter at all.”
“Hraparak” raises the issue of political prisoners that it says has been neglected in the midst of the “Armenian-Turkish hullabaloo”.
“Amid the emotional talk about genocide, opening of the border, Armenian centuries-old sense of vengeance, we have forgotten about living persons, the persons who are in jail today for their political views and civil position. We have forgotten that the foreign and domestic policies are the two sides of one coin. One and the same government cannot be cruel and illegitimate in domestic matters and law-abiding and democratic in foreign affairs.”