Remarks by Rouben Shugarian  to the Second Armenia-Diaspora Conference

Mr. Chairman, distinguished participants, Ladies and Gentlemen, It is difficult, if right at all, to be a government official and speak on lobbying issues. So my appearance here today is rather justified by my previous experience as Armenia’s Ambassador to Washington, the heart of lobbying, than by my present position of a deputy foreign minister. Yet it is perfectly legal to try to assess the current state of affairs and to try to outline the dynamics in the field of lobbying, as well as to think and speak about the advocacy and promotion of the issues related not only to the agenda of the State, but the Armenian people at large. I think few would disagree that lobbying is a purely American, or maybe Anglo-Saxon phenomenon which has recently outgrown the coast-to-coast limitations and found its new roots in Europe and Russia. And so did the Armenian lobbying that has diversified its geography from Washington to Brussels, Paris and Moscow. Strange as it may seem, to some extent we were and are one of the recent transatlantic exporters of this powerful political tool which can do miracles in the hands of those who know how to use it. One can only wonder at the rapid success of the Union of Russia’s Armenians, headed by Mr.Ara Abrahamian or at a patient and tireless effort of Armenian National Committee of Europe. There are also new very promising signs shown by the young Belgian-Armenian and Swedish-Armenian lobbyists. This is a rough map of the present day Armenian lobbying, North America, Europe, including international organizations, and Russia. There are also some very good opportunities in South America, mostly as far as the economic lobbying is concerned, yet it will take some time before one would be fully justified to speak about the developed advocacy infrastructure there. Middle East is a specific case in each and every country where we have Armenian communities. We cannot speak about the possibilities of lobbying there in the classical sense of the word, though there are certain opportunities there as well, but it is a different subject for a different discussion.  But let us now return to Washington to try to look at the lobbying effort in its historical sequence only because it could also give us the vivid picture of the conceptual evolution and future dynamics of its contents and objectives.  The Armenian lobbying in the US could conventionally be divided into three stages. The first one goes as far back as 1965, the 50th anniversary of the Genocide. As far as its mechanisms and methods are concerned it was completed in 1991, when Armenia regained her statehood. As for its contents and goals, they graduated well beyond and survived Armenia’s independence, for they rather belong to the national than the state realm. This advocacy effort, since there was yet no state to support and because of the dozens of years of denial, was justly aimed and directed against the policy of Turkey. Thus there was “against” but no “for” in the pre-independence Armenian lobbying. After 1991, when the second stage of Armenian advocacy in the US was about to take shape, “against” was complemented by the Section 907 of the Freedom support Act and Azerbaijan was penalized for blockading Armenia. But the very important “for” element diversified the effort and goals of the Armenian-American organizations. As a result, Armenia has become the second per capita recipient of the US humanitarian assistance in the world. The newly-independent state has not only given the diasporan groups a new venue for advocacy, but gradually securing its decent and dignified place in the international community, it has made the whole lobbying effort and the stance of the Armenian-American community much stronger. Interestingly enough this new kind of lobbying for the State, has been masterfully put to work by Armenians in Russia, when talks were held in 1993-1994 in Moscow on the re-opening of the Metzamor Nuclear Power Plant. Once again, I would like to stress that the lobbying “for” is by no means a substitute for the lobbying “against”, both proved that they can perfectly coexist if one is not overzealously promoted at the expense of the other. But more importantly, the state interest can invaluably enrich the whole concept of lobbying taking it above and beyond the traditional national aspirations.  During the first stage of the Armenian lobbying in the US, alongside with making a lot of friends, our organizations made a lot of enemies. This is but natural for “against” always presupposes enemies, and besides, to be a success in Washington it is always good to have a few powerful adversaries to respect you, and to make yourself a name. The second stage, the Section 907 added a sound new group of adversaries mostly in the oil companies and some ethnic organizations. To cap it all this legislation was in discord with what was described as the US national interest by some administration officials. But a lot of respect was gained at that time by the Armenian Assembly and the ANC in the diplomatic, academic and business circles in the US, for Section 907 was successfully preserved against all odds and in the teeth of a very powerful opposition. It was not 907 itself that mattered, for it lost its initial importance through numerous legal exemptions and carvings. The really important thing was the ability to win, and to make friends among the adversaries. It is all about winning in Washington.  During the first two stages it was either the national or the state interest of Armenia that was promoted by our lobbying organizations and individuals. It can catch the eye, it can gain respect, and we certainly did, but it cannot take the country and the community beyond certain limits. But what, in my opinion, we should gradually strive for, is a search for a common interest between Armenia, the ethnic lobbying organizations, the community at large on the one hand and the host country on the other hand. And this brings us to what I call the third stage, which is just beginning. Sep. 11 leaves its impact and creates an additional context for that. And again, this does not mean that the previous two stages are finished or substituted by the new one. The third stage is most sophisticated and demanding. In conclusion, I would like to say a few words on the modus operandi between the state and the lobbying organizations. One of the most important things in foreign policy and advocacy is the right timing. So far during ten years of independence there have been almost no contradictions between what was done by advocacy groups and Armenia’s foreign policy agenda. Or at least, other countries with large diasporas had a lot more problems. In our case, it is often not a question of what to do, but rather of when to do. It should become the responsibility of the state to present to the advocacy groups the clear-cut foreign policy agenda on a more regular basis to exclude possible misunderstanding and ambiguity. And last, but not least. Until now the modality of the relationship between the state and community organizations was: “The state can tell the advocacy groups what to do, but it cannot tell them what not to do”. It has been and still is a very comfortable formula in many senses. Yet we need a more advanced form of communication and coordination to face the present day challenges both as a state and as a nation.

close