|
|
|
||
|
COMMENTARY By Barbara J. Merguerian A Status for Diasporan Armenians? As the opening next week of the Armenia/Diaspora conference in Yerevan approaches, it remains unclear how the conference will be structured, what the agenda will be, or who has been invited. But a safe supposition is that one of the issues bound to arise is that of dual citizenship for Armenians in the diaspora. Ever since the establishment of the independent republic in 1991, there has been sentiment in favor of such a step. Any movement in that direction was blocked by former president Levon Ter-Petrossian, who was opposed to dual citizenship for diaspora Armenians. President Robert Kocharian, one the other hand, has voiced some support for the concept in the past, but his government doesn't seem to have taken any concrete steps to bring it about. The argument in favor of dual citizenship is based on the need to marshal the diaspora to assist the homeland in all ways possible. To enjoy citizenship, it is said, would encourage diaspora Armenians to feel that they are an integral part of the homeland, and therefore responsible to help build the nation and make it strong. On the other hand, it can be argued that it hardly makes sense to designate diasporan Armenians as full citizens. Such a status would give the right to vote in Armenia's elections to individuals who do not live in Armenia and who therefore would not enjoy (or suffer from) the results of their voting. The support for dual citizenship is based on the model of the Jews, many of whom in the diaspora have become citizens of Israel. But there have been some bizarre consequences. Take the case in the news recently of a Jewish teenager in the state of Maryland who fled from his home to Israel to escape prosecution in a particularly grisly murder of another teenager. The young man, Samuel Sheinbein, was born and raised in the United States, but the Israeli Supreme Court upheld his claim of Israeli citizenship by virtue of his father's birth in 1944 in what was then British-occupied Palestine. Israel has refused US requests for the extradition of the teenager to face a trial in Maryland and it claims the right to try Sheinbein in Israel. But prosecutors in the United States have been both angry and frustrated by difficulties of holding a trial in Israel as well as by what they see as a manipulation of the legal system to provide a much more lenient punishment to a suspect than what he could expect if he were to be tried and convicted in the United States. The situation violates the Americans' sense of fair play and has resulted in some tensions in the US/Israeli relationship. Of course dual citizenship can be defined in many different ways. An interesting suggestion has been made by one diaspora Armenian who is now living in Armenia. Edward Balassanian has suggested that the Armenian government might issue an Armenian Identity Certificate (Andznagir) to any individual who presents credible evidence of being Armenian, or of Armenian descent. Not a citizenship paper, the document would provide entry to Armenia without a visa, indefinite stay in Armenia, and the right to conduct legal business there. The certificate would not represent citizenship, however. The right to vote and run for office would be given to persons holding an Andznagir only if they are permanent residents of Armenia (i.e., if they are registered as a resident, have physically resided there for at least nine months of each of the preceding three calendar years, and have paid income tax in Armenia for these years). Balassanian argues that every Armenian, irrespective of place of birth, residence, or country of citizenship, has the inalienable right to Armenian identity and that the constitution of such an identity should be established legally and made official. In this way, the relationship between Armenians in the diaspora and those residing within the boundaries of present-day Armenia would be based on "philosophical and psychological equal grounds, with no difference, whatsoever." Whether an Identity Certificate would make a significant difference in a diaspora Armenian's relationship with the homeland is questionable, but it is a concept worthy of exploration. As for the Armenia/Diaspora conference itself, foreign minister Vartan Oskanian (who is the co-chair, along with Prime Minister Vazken Sargisian) has made a convincing argument for the need to build a new relationship between the diaspora and the homeland. One can criticize the government for its failure to include diaspora representatives more closely in the planning of this conference, even though the fractured nature of the diaspora makes such inclusion difficult. Those of us planning to attend the conference look forward to an interesting and stimulating event. No one believes that a two-day conference (three days in the case of press representatives) made up of some 600 representatives of Armenians from the diaspora and the homeland will suddenly come up with a magical formula or create a new organization to break down old barriers and establish new relations. But the conference is an important first step, and one can only hope that it marks the beginning of a process that will allow Armenians to reap the benefits of our dual existence in homeland and diaspora, even as we have suffered from the consequences of our separation in the past. The Armenian Mirror-Spectator,
September 18, 1999 MY TURN Diaspora-Armenia Conference: Show of Unity, Show of Strength We are only a week away from the much-anticipated Diaspora-Armenia Conference, which will bring together for the first time 600 representatives of all Armenian organizations worldwide, a few experts, several prominent individuals, as well as government leaders from Armenia and Karabagh. It is not an easy task to organize such a massive conference. Most of the burden has fallen on the shoulders of Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian who is the co-chairman of the organizing committee along with Prime Minister Vazgen Sargisian. In between his continuous travels and heavy duties as foreign minister, Oskanian had to manage the difficult and delicate task of trying to accommodate the competing and sometimes antagonistic interests of various groups and individuals. The biggest nightmare was the choosing of diaspora representatives. The Armenian government was forced to involve itself in the messy business of deciding who should represent the diaspora in the absence of any mechanism in making these selections in such a short time. I'm sure there have been plenty of aggravations and frustrations for the organizers as well as the invitees, not to mention those who were terribly offended for not being invited. For those of us who were invited, we have yet to receive the agenda of the conference even though it was promised by the end of August. It is quite difficult to prepare for a productive meeting without the benefit of an agenda. The organizers must have received a lot of advice, some useful and some useless, from a lot of people over the past nine months. In fact, Oskanian held a series of preliminary meetings in several countries soliciting advice and opinion. I attended two of them - one in Washington, DC, and the other in Los Angeles. I don't know if Oskanian heard anything useful in these meetings. I certainly did not, even though I listened intently without uttering a single word. Not to be left out from the business of giving advice, I wrote a column last January suggesting that the foreign minister appoint a researcher to find out how other countries with large diasporas have organized their relationships with their kin abroad, in order not to reinvent the wheel! I assume the foreign minister did conduct such a comparative study. It would have been useful to share the findings with the conference invitees so they would have come prepared with their suggestions. That was not done. I'm now hoping that the participants will receive such a report at the conference. The diaspora-homeland relationship is not static. It is constantly evolving even in those countries where there is a long-established mechanism. Interestingly, the Israeli government recently appointed for the first time, a Minister for Social and World Jewish Affairs. According to an article written by J.J. Goldberg in the August 27 issue of the Jewish Week, "social" implies healing divisions within Israel while "World Jewish Affairs" is about "closing the gap between Israelis and diaspora - particularly American Jews. No small task." The new minister's duties will cover "every aspect of Israel's complex relationship with world Jewry: Jewish education, pro-Israel activism, the 'Who is a Jew?' flap, Holocaust restitution, plus the increasingly urgent re-examination of what Israelis and diaspora Jews actually mean to each other these days." At a time when we are trying to decide which ministry or agency of the Armenian government should be the special link with the diaspora, it is noteworthy that Israel has established four official channels: the Foreign Ministry's World Jewish Affairs Department which recently doubled its staff; the Prime Minister's Adviser on Diaspora Affairs; the quasi-governmental Jewish Agency for Israel; and the Minister for World Jewish Affairs. In order to strengthen its ties with the diaspora, the government of Israel allocated for the first time $100 million for an educational program for Jewish youth in the diaspora called, "Birthright Israel." Goldberg reports that "five years ago, diaspora Jewry barely merited a yawn among Israel's movers and shakers, except at times of disaster. Now, diaspora concerns may finally get the hearing they deserve in Jerusalem. Eventually, it could translate into more resources for Jewish educators, more accountability for Jewish philanthropists, more recognition for diaspora forms of Judaism." Armenians need not copy the Jewish model. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note the similarities and the differences and learn useful lessons. I believe that this hastily organized Armenian conference should be encouraged as the first step of an important endeavor. The sheer fact that such a meeting is taking place will have two important repercussions: 1) Armenians both in Armenia and the diaspora will feel psychologically strengthened from this show of unity; 2) Armenia's friends and foes alike will be impressed with its international connections and resources worldwide. This latter objective can only be accomplished if the organizers invite the foreign media to disseminate the news about this conference to the outside world. The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, September 18, 1999Groong 18/9/99
By Harut Sassounian From: Edward Balassanian
edbal@acc.am
Note 1. Legally matriculated, full-time
students and home-makers, if they do not produce income, should be
exempt from income-tax precondition. Azg/Mirror Online
99-08-18 From: Dikran Dalian
dikdal@worldnet.att.net Asbed / Groong Admin. Azg/Mirror On-Line
05-06-99 California Courier
On-Line, January 21, 1999 Commentary Diaspora-Armenia
Conference: September 16, 1999 We are only a week away from the much-anticipated Diaspora-Armenia Conference which will bring together for the first time 600 representatives of all Armenian organizations worldwide, a few experts, several prominent individuals, as well as government leaders from Armenia and Karabagh. It is not an easy task
to organize such a massive conference. Most of the burden has fallen
on the shoulders of Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian who is the co-chairman
of the organizing committee along with Prime Minister Vazgen The biggest nightmare was the choosing of Diaspora representatives. The Armenian government was forced to involve itself in the messy business of deciding who should represent the Diaspora in the absence of any mechanism in making these selections in such a short time. I'm sure there have been plenty of aggravations and frustrations for the organizers as well as the invitees, not to mention those who were terribly offended for not being invited. For those of us who were invited, we have yet to receive the agenda of the conference even though it was promised by the end of August. It is quite difficult to prepare for a productive meeting without the benefit of an agenda. The organizers must have received a lot of advice, some useful and some useless, from a lot of people over the past 9 months. In fact, Mr. Oskanian held a series of preliminary meetings in several countries soliciting advice and opinion. I attended two of them - one in Washington, D.C., and the other in Los Angeles. I don't know if Mr. Oskanian heard anything useful in these meetings. I certainly did not, even though I listened intently without uttering a single word. Not to be left out from the business of giving advice, I wrote a column last January suggesting that the Foreign Minister appoint a researcher to find out how other countries with large diasporas have organized their relationships with their kin abroad, in order not to reinvent the wheel! I assume the Foreign Minister did conduct such a comparative study. It would have been useful to share the findings with the conference invitees so they would have come prepared with their suggestions. That was not done. I'm now hoping that the participants will receive such a report at the conference. The Diaspora-Homeland
relationship is not static. It is constantly evolving even in those
countries where there is a long-established mechanism. Interestingly, the Israeli government recently appointed for the first time, a Minister for Social and World Jewish Affairs. According to an article written by J.J. Goldberg in the Aug. 27 issue of the Jewish Week, "social" implies healing divisions within Israel while "World Jewish Affairs" is about "closing the gap between Israelis and diaspora - particularly American Jews. No small task." The new Minister's duties will cover "every aspect of Israel's complex relationship with world Jewry: Jewish education, pro-Israel activism, the 'Who is a Jew?' flap, Holocaust restitution, plus the increasingly urgent re-examination of what Israelis and diaspora Jews actually mean to each other these days." At a time when we are trying to decide which Ministry or Agency of the Armenian government should be the special link with the Diaspora, it is noteworthy that Israel has established four official channels: The Foreign Ministry's World Jewish Affairs Department which recently doubled its staff; the Prime Minister's Adviser on Diaspora Affairs; the quasi-governmental Jewish Agency for Israel; and the Minister for World Jewish Affairs. In order to strengthen its ties with the diaspora, the government of Israel allocated for the first time $100 million for an educational program for Jewish youth in the Diaspora called, "Birthright Israel." Goldberg reports that "five years ago, diaspora Jewry barely merited a yawn among Israel's movers and shakers, except at times of disaster. Now, diaspora concerns may finally get the hearing they deserve in Jerusalem. Eventually, it could translate into more resources for Jewish educators, more accountability for Jewish philanthropists, more recognition for diaspora forms of Judaism." Armenians need not copy the Jewish model. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note the similarities and the differences and learn useful lessons. I believe that this
hastily organized Armenian conference should be encouraged as the
first step of an important endeavor. The sheer fact that such a meeting
is taking place ill have two important repercussions: 1) Armenians
both in Armenia and the Diaspora will feel psychologically strengthened
from this show of unity; 2) Armenia's friends and foes alike will
be impressed with its international connections and resources worldwide.
This latter objective an only be accomplished if the organizers invite
the foreign media to disseminate the news about this conference to
the outside
world. Armen Baghdoyan,
Ph. D., August 24, 1999 Belmont, MA 02478 The upcoming two-day Armenia-Diaspora Conference in the Armenian capital of Yerevan on September 22-23 is a first in its kind and carries enormous significance for the future of the Diaspora as well as Armenia. The Armenian government has declared its policy of developing Armenia-Diaspora relations to its fullest potential. Highest officials of the Armenian government, from President Kocharian to Prime Minister Vazgen Sargsian and Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian, have extolled the virtues of the unity of the Armenian nation on numerous occasions. Various press releases regarding the September Conference and interviews with the Foreign Minister of Armenia suggest that the main objective of the September Conference will be the launching of an overall effort to set the foundations for an umbrella organization with "all-Armenian structures." The purpose of this essay is to argue the merits and the necessity of a particular proposal for all-Armenia structures. The arguments will be based on an analysis of the more salient features of the evolution of the Diaspora and Armenia-Diaspora relations. The Armenian Diaspora The Diaspora is the totality of pockets of organized or individual Armenians living outside of Armenia. It is not an entity with definite territorial boundaries. There are no objective factors that bind the various aggregates or individuals of the Diaspora to the homeland. The Diaspora Armenians live in their respective countries and conduct their political and economic activities within the boundaries or the legal structures of their country of citizenship. The Diaspora elements are not bound together with economic relationships neither do they present a politically cohesive entity. There are some conglomerations in the Diaspora in the form of various organizations and institutions, but the determining characteristic of the Diaspora is its aggregate nature. What brings the Diaspora Armenians together, thus testifying to the very existence of the Diaspora, is a subjective dimension in the form of common ancestry, history, culture, language, and so on, that manifests itself in different nuances from one pocket to another. The government of Armenia has no authority over the Diaspora Armenians and the Diaspora Armenians have no legal obligation toward the state of Armenia. In other words, the Diaspora Armenians (note that we are referring here only to Armenians who consider themselves to possess the subjective ties) differ from homeland Armenians in one defining respect: citizenship. The structural pillars of the Diaspora have been its organizations and institutions. The political structure of the Diaspora has been effectively defined by three traditional Armenian political parties: the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF, Dashnaktsutyun) , the Armenian Democratic Liberal Party (ADL, Ramgavars), and the Hunchak (Hunchakian) Party. The Armenian church is the major institution with its three highest seats: the Catholicossate of Cilicia in Antelias, Lebanon; the Patriarchate of Jerusalem; and the Patriarchate of Istanbul. Catholic and Evangelical Armenians have their own church institutions which may not be orthodox Armenian, nonetheless they form an integral part of the institutional fabric of the Armenian Diaspora. The Diaspora has two well-known charitable organizations: the Armenian General Benevolent Union (AGBU) and the Armenian Relief Society (ARS). In addition, Armenian Catholics and Evangelists have many charitable institutions to their credit. Other structured pockets of the Diaspora include all types of ancillary organizations affiliated with the parties and the churches, such as schools, youth organizations, cultural associations, sport organizations, and so on. Here in the United States, the Armenian Assembly has emerged as a viable organization. It conducts lobbying activities in this country, along with the Armenian National Committee, the political arm of the ARF. I have highlighted the main features of the Diaspora as I see it. The details are not important. The central idea I want to convey is that the Diaspora consists of an aggregate of conglomerations. There is not a unifying umbrella to bring all these organizations together, chart their activities, and streamline their operations. Cost effectiveness and other matters that should really preoccupy the management of the Diaspora have never come to the table of Diaspora discussions. All previous efforts at creating an umbrella organization have hit snags and have fallen victim to the steadfast determination of the parties to maintain the status quo. I have written somewhere that the most distinctive characteristic of the Diaspora has been its dual-polity superstructure. Most if not all of active Armenians have functioned within one of two polities dominated by the traditional Armenian political parties. The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), the leading political party in the first Republic of Armenia-the country that emerged as a nation-state toward the end of WWI (May 28, 1918)-headed one polity monolithically. The second polity did not come under a monolithic leadership. It was rather a coalition frequently dominated by the Armenian Democratic Liberal Party (ADL). Participants to this coalition included the Huntchakian Party and, to a lesser degree, the Armenian Communist Party. The entrenched duality of the Armenian Diaspora was the direct consequence of the loss of power in Armenia by the Dashnak party. Although controversies existed within Diasporan structures prior to the assumption of power by the Armenian Communist Party in Armenia, the irreparable cleavage occurred in the Diaspora from the 1920s. The internal Armenian dual was later anchored into the global East-West contests. The Dashnak party pursued an anticommunist and anti-Soviet line, remaining vehemently opposed to any accommodation with the Soviet regime in Armenia. The Dashnak party exploited the Western orientation of most of the Middle Eastern countries-where the more active pockets of Diaspora Armenians lived-to consolidate its domination in the Armenian communities with its anticommunist posture. The role of the other camp was cut out for the organizations that composed it. The alienation from the motherland had left the patriotic field wide open, which the other camp was able to exploit-with the benevolence of Soviet Armenian authorities-to gain legitimacy and respectability within Armenian communities. It proclaimed friendship with (Soviet) Armenia and pursued a policy of bitter anti-Dashnakism. The irreconcilable polarization of the Armenian communities throughout the Diaspora was perhaps the major reason why the Diaspora was unable to develop a modern strategy of survival. Improvisations and makeshift tactical moves dominated the modus operandi of its organizations. With the possible exception of some members of the Armenian Communist Party, both camps were driven by opportunism rather than by ideology. Besides, the virtual politics they engaged in within the confines of Armenian communities throughout the Diaspora made ideology irrelevant. With mutually hostile attitudes cast in cement, the political parties were trapped in unyielding animosities and confrontations. They remained immune from the immediate consequences of their policies and dominated the Armenian horizon with absolute unaccountability. The vitriolic conflict over invalid issues has alienated many people from community life (especially in countries where the community has been forced into wide dispersal). While giving their adherents some kind of organized mode of existence, the traditional parties in the Diaspora have exhibited extreme rigidity and prejudice in handling community-wide issues. They have privatized the various dimensions of the Diasporan space and have forced the same tribal mindset on many communities. Unable to develop new perspectives, they have often deprived the Diasporan field of more imaginative and flexible approaches required by changing circumstances. To do justice to the political parties, it should be stated, however, that despite their shortcomings, they have a lot to their credit. They have served as the power centers of the disperse communities. They have held disparate communities together through nationalistic ideals and guarded the structural pillars of the Armenian Diaspora. The consequence of the political picture depicted above has been a constantly diminishing minority of Diaspora Armenians gravitating around the organizations in various degrees of centralization. More centralization in the Dashnak camp, less in the other camp. The vast majority of Diaspora Armenians have been estranged from the two camps and have remained noncommittal. The Diaspora has been deteriorating rapidly in the last couple of decades. The main fortresses in the Middle East have been weakened (The US Diaspora has been expanded at the expense of more vibrant but economically distressed communities in other regions). Ten years after the independence of Armenia, we are at a crossroads. Armenia needs the Diaspora for the foreseeable future and the Diaspora needs Armenia as long as it can survive. Since the traditional political parties have constituted the defining structures of the Diaspora, it is time to take a look at their present condition, after eight decades of service to the Armenian communities. The ARF, notwithstanding its opposition to the Soviet system in Armenia-a position not easily sustainable, one must admit, considering the powerful emotional attachment of the Diaspora Armenian to the homeland-was able to survive as the most robust organization of the Diaspora, albeit much weakened. With a tradition of national commitment, the ARF was able to motivate and mobilize its ranks throughout its Diasporan network more successfully than any other party. The dedication and discipline of its ranks carried this organization through many political mistakes. In the last parliamentary elections in Armenia, the Armenian wing of the ARF was the only traditional Armenian party to win seats in the Armenian Parliament. The coalition of anti-ARF parties seems to have dissolved because of recent developments in the Middle East and the dismemberment of the USSR. The ADL lost its political niche after the independence of Armenia and, as a consequence, its influence diminished considerably. At the present time, the party suffers from lack of a viable ideology and organizational discipline. Recent incidents of internal bickering and splits within the ranks of the leadership threaten the very survivability of the party in the Diaspora. The Hunckakian Party, which always lacked the critical mass to carve out a political space on its own, has been reduced to insignificance for all practical purposes. The Armenian Communist Party, ideologically the most focused political organization, suffered from the anticommunist orientation of its fields of operation. It was repressed, even persecuted, in many Western-oriented countries and its members had to go underground frequently. The collapse of the USSR dealt a terrible blow to this party. Armenian Communists and their sympathizers still survive in some pockets of the Diaspora, but they are few and isolated. At present, for many reasons, their voice, if any, is not loud enough to be heard in mainstream Armenian communities, even though the Communist Party of Armenia is the largest opposition group in the Armenian Parliament. The Armenian Diaspora is at a critical juncture. Since the independence of Armenia in 1989, the Diaspora has failed to live up to its potential. Its response to the needs of the Armenian people, both in the Diaspora and the homeland, has been disorganized and poor. The central reason for this failure is indisputably the inadequacy of its current structures, which have remained essentially unchanged in the last eight decades. The moment of truth has arrived though. The Diaspora must either restructure itself to meet the challenges facing the nation today, or fade away. There is no other alternative. The September Conference may well be our last chance. Armenia-Diaspora Relations For many decades during the Soviet period, relations between Soviet Armenia and the Diaspora were hindered by the East-West conflict. The policy of containment of the USSR pursued by successive American administrations and Western allies of the US succeeded in keeping the Diaspora Armenians separated from their homeland and their communities divided along pseudo-ideological lines. In the later decades of the Soviet period, the Soviet government of Armenia succeeded in cracking the geographic blockade to establish contacts with the Diaspora through friendly parties and organizations. The ARF and all organizations affiliated with it, however, were essentially excluded from these relations. Although attitudes softened in the decade before the collapse of the USSR, and ARF-affiliated organizations were welcome by the Soviet Armenian government, the fact remains that with few exceptions the Soviet era Armenia-Diaspora relations remained partisan and almost monopolized by the anti-ARF polity of the Diaspora. The independence of Armenia radically altered the political landscape of the Armenian nation. Suddenly the field of political activity was reopened for the traditional Armenian political parties as well as for new ones in the homeland itself. A novel dynamics for Armenia-Diaspora relations took over, the full grasp of which still escapes many Diasporan Armenians and organizations, including the traditional Armenian parties. We are all living a period of adjustment to new realities, and the sooner we accomplish the adaptation, the more rewarding it could be for the Diaspora as well as for Armenia. After all, we have been striving to achieve an integral Armenian nationhood for decades without any success. Now, for the first time in the life of the Armenian Diaspora, the Armenian nation is given the practical opportunity to establish new foundations for its survival and for its future prosperity. So far the relationship between Armenia and the Diaspora has been conducted in two dimensions: On an individual and institutional or organizational basis. In the last ten years, the Diaspora Armenians and organizations have achieved many useful tasks in Armenia, particularly in the field of charitable assistance. The fact remains, however, that the relations have been haphazard, random, uncoordinated, unfocused, inefficient, and, overall, far below the potential benefits for both sides. Two major reasons for this state of affairs are the lack of organization in the Diaspora and the absence of political and economic stability in Armenia. There is no Armenian who would disagree with the idea that the rules of the game need to be changed drastically if we are to break the present inertia and place the Armenian engine on high gear. This is exactly what the government of Armenia has in mind when it proposes the September Conference between representatives of the Armenian Diaspora and the government of Armenia (and Artsakh). In his encounters with various communities of the Diaspora, the Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian has had the opportunity to exchange ideas about the upcoming September Conference. In an August 12 interview on the Armenian TV as reported by Noyan Tapan news agency, the FM has emphasized that the Armenia-Diaspora Conference will mark the beginning of the process of consolidation of the Armenian nation under the motto of "One Nation-One State." According to the report from Noyan Tapan, Oskanian has gone on to outline the conference agenda drawn up jointly with Diasporan communities. The agenda includes items such as the following: ·
As far as representation at the Conference, the government of Armenia has adopted guidelines in the allocation of seats to the Diasporan organizations and institutions. The August 13 release from Noyan Tapan gives further details about the composition of the delegates to the conference: "Armenia and Artsakh will be represented as separate state structures. Diasporan parties and organizations that have their structures almost in all communities will dispatch seven-member delegations. These are the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, the Ramkavar-Azatakan Party, the Social Democratic Hunchak Party, the Armenian General Benevolent Union, the Union of Armenian Relief, the All-Armenian Fund "Hayastan.". The Armenian Church will be represented by delegates from the Mother See of St. Echmiadzin, the Holy See of Cilicia, the Catholic and Protestant Churches. Delegations will represent all countries where there are Armenian communities, which is about 45-50 countries. Organizations operating in these communities will send to Yerevan one delegate each, as well as individuals enjoying high prestige." It is obvious to any observer of the Diaspora scene that, in its current state, it is impossible for the Diaspora to elect a truly representative delegation. Therefore, the guidelines followed by the Armenian government in the selection of delegates to the conference should be eminently acceptable to every Diasporan Armenian. So far the Armenian government seems to be handling this matter with extreme sensitivity to the sensibilities of the Diaspora Armenians. Our hope is that the conference will be as representative of the wishes and interests of the Armenian nation as possible. As the Armenian saying goes, "Our goal is to eat grapes, not to beat the vine grower." By initiating this conference, the Armenian government has embarked on a most ambitious and daunting project. The proposal to create a new framework for Armenia-Diaspora relations with the ultimate purpose of consolidating the Armenian nation around the "One Nation-One State" ideology may confront the Armenian people with possibly the most intractable internal question of its modern history. Armenian National Union The "One Nation-One State" motto embodies the cohesion and coherence through shared values of a people living in three identifiable geographic areas: Armenia, Artsakh, and Diaspora. The issue would be non-existent if this people lived in a geographic area within clearly defined boundaries in the form of a nation-state. Nationhood is what brings these three entities together. What separates them or qualifies their respective identities does not concern us. As far as the Diaspora, we are only counting on people who profess no reservation in adhering to the "One Nation-One State" motto. The Armenian nation so conceived needs new structures because the current structures are unable to meet the challenges Armenia, Artzakh, and the Diaspora will be confronting in the next few decades. This conviction is the basic rationale behind the necessity for the establishment of all-Armenian structures. We shall proceed from the premise that all Armenians are aware of the necessity for new national structures. The open question concerns the fundamental nature of these structures. With all modesty, it is our opinion that the success or the failure of the undertaking will depend on how the September Conference handles this central issue. Since homeland Armenians and Artsakhis are located in properly defined boundaries, our discussion will focus mainly on the Diaspora Armenians, with the understanding that the structures would eventually extend over all the Armenian landscape. For the sake of argument, we shall distinguish between two types of solutions for all-Armenian structures: an umbrella organization as opposed to an all-Armenian organization. The umbrella organization leaves the current structures of the Diaspora intact while generating some type of an umbrella organization from existing organizations and institutions. The aggregate nature of the Diaspora and the rigidity of its current structures renders this approach enormously complex. The reader will recall that the central point of the previous discussions was to argue the non-feasibility of this idea. Forming an umbrella organization will place under one roof all the emotionally-charged contradictions of the Diaspora. It has not worked in the past and it will not work in the future. To design a working umbrella organization out of the numerous elements in the Diaspora while maintaining current structures and contradictions unaffected is a futile endeavor. It would drain a lot of precious energy and, in all probability, end with an impasse. We need a cohesive and functional Diaspora now. Cohesiveness is obtained by creating a new organization with the help of the Armenian government. If I am reading the FM correctly, an umbrella organization in the form of a conglomerate based on the existing structures is not what the Armenian government has in mind. More and more I detect a movement away from the concept of an umbrella organization as discussed above to the concept of new all-Armenian structures. Over the past eight decades, the Armenian Diaspora has proved incapable of reorganizing itself along new structural lines. Major problems confronting the Diaspora have remained unresolved. If left to its own resources, the Armenian Diaspora will not be able to rein in the tendency of its constituent communities for further dissipation and erosion, let alone build strong bridges with Armenia and Artsakh. Without doing away with any element of the existing structures in the Diaspora, we need to create a new organization encompassing the whole of the Armenian nation, even if the focus for the moment will be on the Diaspora and Armenia-Diaspora relations. Therefore, the major proposal of this essay is: The September Conference should mark the beginning of the creation of a new all-Armenian organization, which, for easy reference, we shall call Armenian National Union (Hayots Azgayin Miyutyun). ANU will be a new organization. It will not be derived from existing structures of the Diaspora and it will not supplant any other organization. Its sovereignty will be based on its worldwide membership. It will have a permanent, full-time administrative staff. One cannot overestimate the dangers of carrying the burdens of the past disunity and the benefits of freedom from the past. ANU will be a seamless organization, fresh and unfettered with arcane contradictions and controversies. It will disconnect the Armenians completely and irrevocably from past experiences which have hampered the resolution of their most critical issues and problems. Consolidating national resources, centralizing the power of the nation, enlisting the enormous talents of Armenians around the world, focusing the commitment and dedication of every Armenian, are all objectives more easily achieved with ANU than an umbrella organization concocted from the present constituent elements of the Armenian Diaspora. ANU will embody the aspirations of the Armenian people and bring together into nationhood the disparate parts of the Armenian people. Armenia and the Diaspora will be fused in its structures. ANU will be an independent, self-sufficient and all-inclusive organization. Its mission will be to serve Armenia and the Armenian nation. It will be separate from the state structures of Armenia but, possibly, closely associated with them. It will be apolitical and its dedication to the interests of the state of Armenia shall not be negotiable. It will stand by the state of Armenia regardless of its political system or economic orientation, with no right to interfere in the affairs of the state. In other words, it will be the supreme organization of the nation dedicated to the welfare of the state of Armenia and the Armenian nation around the world independent of all circumstances. The implementation of ANU could proceed in stages, which we shall leave to the experts to design. For the moment, the focus will be on the organization of the Diaspora. For practical reasons and as a start, ANU will be implemented mainly in the Diaspora. It will have an organizational structure with chapters in all Armenian communities. ANU will be a democratic organization where commitment and competence will be requisites at all levels of its leadership. ANU will have its administrative headquarters in Armenia, with a staff large enough to maintain communications with every site in the Diaspora. Membership dues and donations will finance the administrative and operational expenses. Throughout the Diaspora, local chapters will serve as magnets that will attract Armenians to orient them toward community as well as global Armenian problems. At this point we can only speculate about the tasks of the ANU. However, without waiting for its birth, we can state with great assurance that, if it emerges as the cardinal commitment of the conference, the ANU can, among others in a list of grand objectives: ·
Eventually ANU could expand into Armenia, thus including within the organization citizens and non-citizens of Armenia alike. This will remove one of the most salient differences between the homeland Armenians and Diaspora Armenians. All Armenians will be equal under ANU's wings. Expectations from the Conference Only the Armenian government could have initiated the task of bringing representatives of Diaspora Armenians together. Therefore, the Armenian government holds the key to the success of the September Conference. While Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian has outlined some of the major items making the agenda of the September Conference, there are two reasons why the conference should avoid being trapped in discussions of specific issues. First, a conference of 400-500 people does not seem to us a suitable venue for deliberations on specific issues. It is more appropriate for adopting previously debated resolutions or general principles and guidelines. Since the Armenian government has decided-wisely-to pass all resolutions by consensus, controversial issues should be excluded from the conference floor ipso facto. Furthermore, such issues as the Armenian orthography or dual citizenship, which many Diaspora Armenians are fond of raising at every occasion, should be left to the discretion of appropriate legal and expert bodies. Second, the conference is NOT a genuinely representative body that can debate and rule on controversial issues. Its legitimacy is based on three factors: 1) It is being convened at the initiative of the government of Armenia; 2) The Diaspora is incapable of undertaking such a gathering; 3) Its consensus resolutions will be endorsed without reservation throughout Armenian communities in the Diaspora. We cannot overemphasize the question of legitimacy if we want to lay solid foundations for the future. This is why the creation of an organization such as the one proposed in these articles-the Armenian National Union-should be the paramount concern of the September Conference. Only a pan-Diasporan-and, ultimately, pan-Armenian-organization can unite the Diaspora Armenians and provide an acceptable forum for the kind of Armenia-Diaspora relations we have in mind. To further focus our discussion, it is reasonable to expect that the September Conference resolve at least three aspects of the ANU: ·
These, and possibly other requirements for the creation of ANU, need to be studied expertly and exhaustively. We know that the Diaspora is incapable of taking up these tasks. Committees formed of experts and stationed in Armenia will have to work on these issues, in collaboration with the government and various institutions of Armenia and the Diaspora. The conference must create these committees and entrust them with tasks such as the following: ·
If the conference did nothing else but to lay foundations for the solution of these and similar tasks, it would crown its mission with success. Since Armenia has immediate needs, we expect the forthcoming conference to find ways of consolidating and streamlining Diasporan efforts to respond to those needs in an effective and efficient manner concurrently with the work of the committees. In other words, life must go on as work is being done to redefine the Diaspora within the context of the ANU. Evidently, the creation of the ANU, the consolidation of the Diaspora, and firm grounding of the "One Nation-One State" ideal are not a one-conference job. Building new structures while responding to emergencies and carrying out emerging tasks is a continuous process. The Foreign Minister's assessment of 5-10 years for the process of consolidation of the new structures seems quite realistic. As the project develops, the Armenian nation, both in Armenia and the Diaspora, will reap the benefits of unity of purpose and centralization of power. Every Armenian could be positively affected by this endeavor. Provided the nation is ready to pay the price. And as anybody can tell from the enormity of the tasks ahead, the price is high. So are the stakes. If we are willing to talk the talk, then we must be willing to walk the walk. The time for self-promotion is gone and the field for work and sweat is awaiting every person willing to take up the challenge. What are the main impediments in the way of furthering this mammoth enterprise? In Armenia, chaotic conditions in the wake of the collapse of the USSR led to corruption at state as well as popular levels. This has caused frustration and disillusionment in some Diaspora circles. Unless Armenia puts its house in order, the Diaspora cannot even begin to move in the plan's direction. The current government of Armenia is fully aware of this problem and seems resolved to root out corruption in order to create favorable conditions not only for Armenia-Diaspora relations, but foreign investments in general. In his first ever television appearance on July 28 as Prime Minister, Vazgen Sargsian admitted that the situation in the country was extremely hard but he did not find it hopeless.. "We are stealing from ourselves," the Prime Minister said, and he vowed to create an atmosphere of confidence in the country to battle its problems. He mentioned some immediate steps that he was taking to correct the situation. Starting from August, reported Noyan Tapan, "ministers and governors will report to the public. The mass media will regularly publish the names of the best and worst community leaders and taxpayers. One of the ways to overcome the current economic situation is to exclude "the privileged," monopolists, "roofs.". From now on the government and the Prime Minister will become the defenders and patrons of all business initiatives. However, the measures being taken by the government will end in nothing if there is no mutual assistance and confidence between the government and the people, Sargsian warned." As far as the Diaspora, we need to overcome two types of problems: Psychological and political. The psychological problems stem from the profound disappointment and disillusionment experienced by many Diasporan Armenians in dealing with Armenian authorities and individual Armenians in the past decade when Armenia-Diaspora relations took off on a massive but chaotic scale. While core Armenians remain unaffected by what certainly is a temporary phenomenon, many peripheral Armenians have found in the current state of affairs an excuse to relax their commitments to Armenia. This trend can certainly be stopped and reversed as Armenia regains stability. As a start, we could stop blaming homeland Armenians for the various shortcomings they have shown since independence. No country could have gone through such a traumatic experience and not suffer incalculable damage to its very national fabric. Armenia transitioned from a viable, albeit stagnant, economy to political chaos, economic ruin, and social catastrophe. With hopelessness rampant and no redress in sight, lawlessness and the rule of the jungle have taken their toll. The political problem is rather thorny as it goes to the heart of the existing Diasporan structures. This is a problem that involves vested interests and should be approached with the utmost tact and understanding. The power of the Diaspora has always resided in the power of its organizations. But time has taken a toll on the organizations of the Diaspora. Their ranks have depleted in quantity and quality. Their influence and prestige within the Armenian communities has eroded, yet nothing has emerged to replace them, neither have they discovered a remedy for their continued decline. . Adjustment to a new environment and new structures requires new thinking. We must remember, however, that eight decades of habits are hard to cast away. The political parties have a vested interest in sustaining their status and the status of their affiliates. They will need to modify their roles to adapt their missions to the mission of the ANU. This adaptation may pose formidable problems especially in communities with well-entrenched traditions. However, the task before us is to endow the Diaspora with powerful, disciplined, well-focused structures capable of weathering the storms of the times and leading the communities in their efforts for survival and prosperity. Painful as it may be, change we must, if we are at all serious about our supreme national interests. When the ball starts rolling at the September Conference, it is our hope that the Armenian nation may witness a truly representative assembly of Diaspora Armenians convening within a couple of years to consecrate the formation of the Armenian National Union and new structures for the Armenian Diaspora. A new era could be ushered in for the Armenian nation. A dream? Perhaps. But it's better to dream of life than to contemplate a slow death. Only those who have vision and are willing to take up the challenge need join the march. Others can take the sidelines. August 24, 1999 Belmont, MA 02478 |
ENGLISH: Meguerditch Bouldoukian Armen Baghdoyan |
