Gagik Tsarukyan Issues Statement on Installation of Christ Statue

Former MP Gagik Tsarukyan wrote on his Facebook page: “Carefully following the recent public discussions around the Christ statue, I want to present just three arguments that reveal the positive potential of this idea and the appropriateness of implementing this project at this time. This does not mean that I am not familiar with all existing opinions or do not respect their authors; however, I am confident that the public, psychological, and economic benefits of the project will be several times more viable than the counterarguments.

Argument One: The idea of the Christ statue is based on overcoming internal division, promoting national solidarity, and fostering Armenian unity. Is there any doubt that we currently face a serious problem of internal division and barricading? This is very dangerous for any country or society. Divided societies lead their states into new problems and failures. Historically, it has turned out that only a small part of our people lives in the homeland. Millions of Armenians live in Russia, Europe, the USA, and the Middle East—everywhere. If the Christ statue can become a unifying structure for Armenians in the diaspora and at home, if it becomes a calling project that brings our globally dispersed compatriots back to Armenia, then we can consider the idea a success. If Armenians with different political and other views come together at the statue, creating an environment free of internal animosity and barricading, then the idea is successful. The idea of the Christ statue, its entire construction phases, and its significance will serve as a message for internal harmony and pan-Armenian unity.

Argument Two: The statue will be a strong catalyst for tourism. For any country, tourism is a crucial source for economic development and increasing budget revenues. Is our economy, and the social situation of our citizens, in such good condition that we are easily ready to abandon tourism-promoting projects? Armenia has the lowest number of tourists in the region. There are objective reasons—we have no sea, we lack railways connecting us with the world, etc. Most importantly, we are unable to present to the world what we have and do not take steps to become more interesting and attractive. The Christ statue will be a signal for the multi-million Armenian world and tens of millions of tourists from various nations to come to Armenia. Will the state not benefit from this? Will small and medium businesses not benefit? Will citizens in Armenia not benefit? If everyone stands to gain from an idea, then why should we oppose it?

Argument Three: No matter where the statue is built in Armenia, that region will become a place for new infrastructure formation and development. New roads, hotels, recreational areas, museums, guesthouses, residential construction, and more. This is what economic development means, creating new jobs and solving the issue of employment. State policy is directed toward solving these problems, and state policy is aimed at developing tourism in Armenia, and here comes the private investor with such an idea and expresses readiness to turn it into reality. The countries we admire for their success have developed in this way—through targeted state policies, private investments, and reduced bureaucracy. The idea of the statue should not be debated in the context of ‘to build or not to build,’ but rather ‘where in Armenia should it be built,’ because that location will have noticeable economic development. For me, as the author of the idea, that question is not primary, because the Christ statue is for all of Armenia, for the entire Armenian people; it will benefit the entire state.

God bless us all...