Whose Heart Aches for the Army?

Lately some people have been trying to discredit the army for political purposes and have beenspeculating on the griefof the parents of soldiers who committed suicide or who were murdered in the army.

The October 22nd broadcast of “Tesaketneri Khachmeruk” (Intersection of Viewpoints) Programon Azatutyun Radio Station began with the discussion of the above statement of military expert, Artsrun Hovhannisyan. A. Hovhannisyan’s opponent was human rights activist, ArturSakunts, Chairman of Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly-Vanadzor, and the host was Anna Israyelyan.

Mr. Sakunts spoke convincingly, passionately, and rationally, and, as a listener, I did not and still do not have any reason to accuse him of discrediting the army intentionally. Moreover, the wave of public outcry against the tragic incidents in the army has already yielded positive results, both in terms of raising the overall military vigilance and in terms of activating steps towards solving specific crimes.

The human rights activists and the public have already promoted the re-establishment of justice.

Nevertheless, several questions were not addressed in the program. The first question concerns the name of the Army in Reality Group. (Mr. Sakunts is a member of this group). created in Facebook, a Social Network forum. On the page, the group exclusively posts information about crimes in the army and the demonstrations organized against these crimes. 

It seems that everything we knew about the achievements and the fighting capabilities of the Armenian Army was a myth, and ‘in reality’ the army is a terrifying environment that generates and nourishes crimes.  Thus, this is what the group is trying to convey with the Army in Reality title.  As A. Hovhannisyan correctly stated during the broadcast, the group could have been given a more accurate name, such as “No to Murders in the Army” or “Punish the Guilty Officers” or “Who Killed my Son?”or eventually “Justice in the Army.”

But no, the name of the group is the Army in Reality, and let someone dare post something other than murders, suicides, and torture of soldiers, such as: the courage of the Armenian Soldier, prevention of the intrusion of a sabotage-intelligence group, receiving gold medals at international competitions, receiving high rewards from high-ranking officers of NATO for service in international peacekeeping missions, or hitting all targets at military trainings. Who will allow that? There is neither a courageous deed of an Armenian Soldier, nor of diligent service, nor fighting skills; there is only murder or forcing a suicide; there is only concealing crime; there is only officer bribery, indifference, irresponsibilityand an atmosphere of widespread impunity.

Is it right? Sakunts states: “It is good that the army carries out its functions. But we are not going to speak about that, we are going to speak about the issues which are connected with human rights. Let the ministry speak about the good things.” You are absolutely correct, respectable human rights activist, your task is to protect human rights, including in the army. So why don’t you name your group just like that: “Human Rights in the Army,” why do you want to use the Army in Reality title to create an impression that the reality in the army is only unsolved murders? Unfortunately, that question remained unanswered.  

The next question: when military expert, Artsrun Hovhannisyan tried to bring examples from other countries to justify his opinion on the relationships between non-governmental organizations, human rights activists and the army, Mr. Sakunts interrupted him, saying “you are deviating from the topic.” But why is it deviating? Why can human rights activists refer to the European Standards of Human Rights and military officers are prevented from doing the same? After all, as Artsrun Hovhannisyan correctly stated, our army is only 20 years old and, whether we want it or not, we need to study international practices. And the practice shows that even in the armies of developed countries there are murders and suicides happening, and so far no army has been able to exclude such cases and the situation in our army is not worse that in the armies of developed countries.

And what does Mr. Sakunts say? “The Supreme Commander-in-Chief is DIRECTLY responsible for ANY violation of statutory interactions or ANY death case.” (Emphasisadded by A. Y.)So if at a frontline military base, a sergeant slapsa serviceman or a serviceman slapsa sergeant, is the RA President, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the RA AF directly responsible for it and can we demand his resignation?

This is what the respectable human rights activist does. Does Mr. Sakunts understand that what he says is nonsensical,and that nobody demands the resignation of any president, in any country for violations of statutory relationships in the army or even serious military crimes, because it would be the same as demanding that a school headmaster resigns because of a fight between students? And don’t these and other statements by Mr. Sakunts prove that he (intentionally or unintentionally) is trying to politicize the issue of tragedies in the army? Unfortunately, this question was not answered either.

The next question refers to the recent accusation towards Mr. Sakunts that his heart does not really ache for the army. The respectable human rights activist was apparently offended by the accusation and it is understandable. After all, God is the one who examines the hearts; people can only examine the words. And Mr. Sakunts’ words are more than weighed; he seasons every criticism with the word “unfortunately”: “Unfortunately, society does not have accountability,” “Institutional changes are needed, but, unfortunately we do not see any steps towards them,” “This statistics shows that, unfortunately, those steps and actions are not adequate,”  “On cannot make such statements because, unfortunately,” and so on and so forth. How can you argue that the person’s heart is not aching?

At the same time, the respectable human rights activist makes a noteworthy statement which I am quoting directly: “And I can clearly state the following, that the Ministry of Defense is, UNFORTUNATELY, in such a state that … (pauses for a second) First of all, the department of defense and the armed forces stopped being a tool of political use. Unequivocally! That is, the ‘sacred’ institution, which was marvelous, and so on and so forth, and was always used for the purposes of our foreign and internal policy, cannot be used anymore, because we demonstrated that the army has the same illnesses as the other entities of society.”

Sakunts said that “The political administration and the AF administration were trying to present it as ‘sacred’. When we first sued theMinistry of Defense, many people were surprised: how can you start a legal procedure against the Ministry of Defense? We overcame it.” (The emphasis and comments are by A. Y.) Did the word ‘unfortunately’ said in the first sentence refer to the continuation? Hardly, because it is difficult to believe that Mr. Sakunts regrets that the armed forces have stopped being a political tool. And if it did not refer to the continuation, it means that the respectable human rights activist started a sentence, said the redundant words, meanwhile he came up with his main point and continued on with his idea. Doesn’t this mean that ‘unfortunately’ is just a routine, ‘stray’ word, like ‘so,’  ‘say,’ ‘you see,’ or ‘you know’. Unfortunately, this question was not answered either.

And here is another question regarding the same paragraph. One should have seen how victoriously Mr. Sakunts declared that he ‘was able’ to ‘drop’ the “veil of sanctity”from the army as an institution, to reveal its faults and to ‘prove’ to society that its impressions of the army were false and the army is much worse than society thought it to be. Mr. Sakunts was simply enjoying declaring all this and his whole posture was saying: “I did it!” “We overcame it!”

Let us assume for a moment that Sakunts ‘opened society’s eyes’ and exposed the reality. What do his actions and joy look like? To me, they look like telling a minor about a crime committed by his father or the unchaste behavior of his mother, disgracing the parents in his eye. Let everyone decide for themselves how moral this is. Of course, Mr. Sakunts is going to argue that ‘dropping the veil of sanctity’ was exclusively for the sake of having a perfect army. I would gladly believe but you can see that mentioned as a negative phenomenon that “Our political authorities always used this ‘sacred institution’ in the foreign politics as well. Now it is not possible anymore.” And what is bad about our government using the ‘sanctity’ and powerfulness of the Armenian Army in our foreign policy? Why doesn’t Mr. Sakunts like it? Isn’t it because he is not led by the interests of the army but by his own political preferences? Unfortunately, this question was not answered either.

Nevertheless, I have to disappoint Mr. Sakunts. Nobody can question that our army is the most established structure, for the simple reason that although the citizens of our country have problems with receiving quality education, health care, social security or protection of rights in court, in any case, the citizens do not have a problem of being protected from the external enemy. Our citizens are protected from the external enemy, so our army fulfills its obligations. Thus, with all its faults and shortcomings, it is sacred. In any case, it is more sacred than society.

Arsen Yalanuzyan
Lieutenant Colonel

Source: www.hayzinvor.am