THE ARMENIAN DIASPORA

os15532.html
11:01:53 – 14/10/2009

French-Armenian writer, Denis Donikian, artist, and critical-thinker
published an amazing piece providing a defining analysis of the
current situation of the Diaspora, in light of the Protocols to be
signed (then) between Armenia and Turkey.

The Diaspora is awakening. The imminent signature of the agreement
protocols between the Turkish and Armenian States on the opening
of the border, which they could freeze as inviolable, seems to have
touched the Diaspora in the raw, in its pride and has reached into
the depths of its struggle. The Diaspora that has seen itself as part
of a single people, today finds itself as the forgotten part of its
history and its destiny. And now, it has reached the rock bottom of
its own schizophrenia.

In fact, the differences between the Armenian Diaspora and the
government of Armenia are as great as the reality that the former
feels the border problem as a symbolic matter, whereas the latter
lives it as a deep issue of actual survival. The Diaspora can hold on
to the issue for as long a time, as time it would be given; whereas
the other has no more time. The main concern of Armenia is to find
exits to offer an economic breathing room to a people that have been
geographically exposed to a stranglehold. Knowing, that of the four
windows that were granted to us by history, the window on Azerbaijan
will stay closed for a long while, and that the Iranian and Georgian
windows can arbitrarily close from one day to the next; the first,
not only because Iran is rapidly becoming a nuclear power, but because
of the suspicion that it is attributed by Western powers and certain
Middle Eastern countries; the second, because it is subject to the
Russian Damoclian sword. Is then President Sarkissian wrong to seek
a large overture towards Armenia’s West at all costs.

But every time the Turkish counterpart signs anything, everything
justly becomes suspect. The Armenians know, out of experience, that
the Turkish state works on all fronts and pulls on every string to
achieve its goals. The Diaspora experiences this anxiety on its own
flesh. On their part, the Armenians of Armenia proper are not foreign
to this either. They know too well the level of concealment achieved
by Turkish diplomatic cynicism. It suffices to see the way Erdogan
"parades" one after the other, Americans, Armenians and even Azeris,
exuding warmth and coldness, truth and falsehood, with the sole aim
to jumble their thoughts and to advance his own pawns. As it was
confirmed in earlier times by Fr. Charmetant (1844-1921) when he
wrote: "… The Turk, in fact, never cedes except to force. He fears
no one on the diplomatic front; he possesses the highest degree of
the art of evasive answers and delaying formulae; during discussions,
he is the master of the art of pretending and no one knows better to
sterilize the negotiations and to gain the time needed to postpone
the solution, and to eventually cause the failure of any combination
that might annoy him".

One can " knock " Serge Sarkissian to one’s heart’s content, but I
fear that we would be ill-advised to attribute to him any political
angelic naïvete as do the numerous protesters and petitioners of
all kinds. We should remember that Sarkissian fought at the highest
levels for the defense of Artsakh, to a point of being decorated
for his merit by none other than his enemy of today, Levon Ter
Petrossian. Moreover, I doubt that that smallest protester of the
Diaspora who shudders at the thought of any sell-out of the Genocide
or of Karabagh, is more conscious than him that nothing can be given
away on these fronts. Finally, to continue along the same line,
it would be appropriate to recognize that the Turks are facing
a counter-negotiator who knows how to skillfully play the rules
of international law. Here is a man, who had shamelessly "seen"
himself as president, several months before the actual elections;
and who became one, even at the cost that he had to pay, meaning,
by disregarding any transparency whatsoever; a man who practices
democracy by lying, by low blows and by an iron fist. A man, who
without second thought, leaves the opposition drooling over him in
public. This man is surely tough, cunning, a warrior, a Machiavellian,
but no one should tell me that he is soft or naïve.

In this game with the Turkish State, he knows that he has to take
risks. But he also knows that the biggest risk for Armenia, which the
Diaspora is not even able to measure, is the risk of isolation. We
have said it: the countries that surround Armenia are unstable. They
are not immune to conflicts that could explode overnight, resulting in
the closing of their doors at the slightest heating up of issues. If
Serge Sarkissian would not look today to push open the Turkish door,
tomorrow, in the case of problems on its Northern or Southern borders,
we would reproach him of not foreseeing what happened. Because,
as the adage goes, to govern is to foresee.

In this case, does the Diaspora have its say? But also, should it
determine how it projects itself as a national consciousness?

For the moment, I shall focus on two of its principle aspects. The
first, of its being a force for mobilization, the other as a power
for economic solidarity. The mobilization for the recognition of
the genocide has been taken on mainly by the troops of a party,
that was traditionally, albeit blindly, active in the defense of
national interests. Those who are raising the red flag today and throw
suspicion on Serge Sarkissian by accusing him of a total sell-out of
even that which he has defended with arms, are close to a caricature
that is playing on fears and frustrations, reviving old myths and
utopias. For that, the more moderates who rub shoulders with the
extremists, become extremists themselves, and the more naives fall
into the trap of overbidding on emotions. They tell me that, on this
issue, it is better to preach the worst possible outcome to avoid
any potential future inconveniences, even when they are hoping that
those would never come to be. But the Diaspora is also a force of
economic solidarity, without who Armenia would have been in a much
worse state. The Diaspora is not only the outcome of the Genocide but
also a political construct willed by the Armenian state since its
independence. By effectively forcing men to work in foreign lands,
the State relieves itself from its own responsibilities and receives
support from this source of wealth which is more or less a co-opted
for the patriotic cause. The financial aid that every exiled person
brings to their parents and children is like a manna that directly or
indirectly contributes to the functioning of the country. As for the
Diaspora resulting from the Genocide, it also contributes to fill in
the gaps left by the Armenian state by its targeted aid (telethons,
twinning of cities etc.) or distributed assistance through various
associations. Not counting all those cousins in foreign lands helping
their families or even those generous donors who profit from their
trips to Armenia to save strangers by issuing them micro credits. We
must also m!

ention al Diaspora who bring assistance to Armenia on a purely
cultural front in its broadest sense (courses, training, events
etc.). Resulting, and I do not hesitate to say this, as I have always
claimed, that those members of the Diaspora who feel that sense
of responsibility towards Armenia can be considered as cultural or
economic citizens of the country. Even when they do not have the full
status of the de facto citizen. It is also true that the Diaspora
does not receive in return the political consideration that its
contribution to the country can make it hope for. More precisely,
today, in this affair of the Protocols that touches the essence of
its battle against the Turkish State, the Diaspora would have counted
for nothing. And for a reason.

Today, this Diaspora has just received a cold shower. That is, since
independence, this power for solidarity that it has represented
seems to have turned to be a lost cause. By not asking for any
political counterweight in exchange, the financial contributors of
the Diaspora have become the cuckolds of Armenia. Not only is their
assistance partially or even completely diverted (like in the case
of the rescue aid provided during the earthquake), but it is always
unilateral (allowing thus the oligarchs and politicians of "business"
to enrich themselves and to shamelessly build sumptuous homes). Since
independence, and in spite of the efforts of the Diaspora, which
concentrated mostly on Karabagh, the Armenian countryside has
languished in a destitute poverty. One is forced to admit that the
Armenian Diaspora, not having a voice on the internal political
stage of the country, could not monetize its financial assistance
into forcing the Armenian State to develop a real social policy. This
demonstrates the level of political contempt assigned to the Diaspora
Armenians which is profoundly humiliating in view of the financial
interest it represents. The creation of a ministry of the Diaspora is
simply designed to channel the external wealth towards the country
(for example by the multitude of village sponsorships by wealthy
Armenians or aid to individuals via micro credits).

It is therefore not surprising that today the Diaspora feels
cheated. In fact, from the point of view of Armenia, it never amounted
to much. (TheAghperoutyoun is just an illusion: between the "brother"
of Armenia and his "brother" of the Diaspora, the relationship is one
of a con-artist thief and his naive victim). Today, the Diaspora pays
the price of having managed the suspect liabilities of the Armenian
State too complacently. When Serge Sarkissian instituted himself at the
head of the country under fraudulent conditions which we knew about,
when he threw his opponents in jail, when he continues to incarcerate
Diasporans who have fought for Karabagh, and even denies them Armenian
citizenship, the representatives of this same Diaspora were never so
furious and menacing as they are today, when it is "their" Genocide
that is at stake. As if the dead were more alive for them than the
actual living. By not supporting the democratic opposition which has
been screaming all year-long against the absurdities and deafness of
the Sarkissian regime, by leaving to their fate a countryside that has
been willingly abandoned, by not denouncing firmly the white genocide
of economic emigration, the Diaspora should have expected to one day
receive back the "fair" change for its coin. What government-opposing
citizen of Armenia, by now a veteran of protest meetings, would not
smile bitterly after reading or hearing the media reports about the
incidents related to the visit of his president in Paris; what he
has been screaming for months: "Sarkissian, resign!".

In fact, the unacceptable and the dangerous in this story of the
Protocols is that at the moment when Sarkissian faces the Turks, his
regime still has not settled the internal and dark accounts plaguing
the country. Democracy is not appeased; the murders of March 1st
remain unsolved; justice is under the boot of power; the economy
is in total disequilibrium at the expense of the rural countryside;
Mafioso oligarchs are thriving and the Karabagh issue is still without
a solution. For a country so young, so fragile and so small as Armenia,
these negative and uncertain components constitute a weakness, if
not a major fault line for our national destiny. There is no doubt
that these unresolved problems constitute as many time bombs. If the
Diaspora was a real political force, it would have not missed the
chance to warn this government, one that plays with the truth and
governs with cynicism. Furthermore, it would have been necessary for
this Diaspora to be sensitive to the warning signs that were apparent
here and there by giving voice to those who have never been afraid to
tear up the flags beneath which lurks a culture of self-hatred. Where
we see today that everything is connected. A complicit silence and
blind sanctification of the nation have produced these censures in the
Diaspora, with the effect of encouraging the abuses that have been the
endemic rot on the socio-political fabric of the country. By diverting
attention to the intense struggle against denial, the Diaspora has
nourished complacencies towards the Sarkissian regime that have come
back today to haunt away what is most dear to it. Not only do they
undermine the goal of Genocide recognition and reparations by the
Turkish State, but they also endanger a country which probably is not
in a position to confront the opening of borders with any confidence.

It would however be wrong to reproach the Diaspora for being a force
prey to distraction. What force is it with respect to the Armenian
State? Its representatives have absolutely no legitimacy, and at a
minimum, whoever they may be, they never even asked me for permission
to speak on my behalf. As such, the Armenian State, which we would
have the right to condemn on many fronts, is facing a nebulous
entity led by militant forces that monopolize the Diasporan voice
in tune with an ideology which they want to believe as expressing
the ideals of all. We also could not blame this Diaspora for being
too late in organizing itself into an external political force,
capable of influencing the destiny of the country and leading a
unified battle for the recognition of the Genocide. The hazards of
contemporary history did not allow it to happen. But it seems that
today, because of the signing of the Protocols, this serious crisis
wedging itself between Armenia and the global Armenian Diaspora, has
to accelerate the process of creating a structure capable of playing
in the political decisional arenas of the country. Also, the recent
closing of the daily Haratch has violently shaken the spirits of many,
who today see very clearly the dangers threatening the existence of
the Diaspora itself. They hasten to establish an inventory list for
our destiny, hoping that they will be persuasive enough to reorient
the elements of our survival in a more pragmatic direction. It remains
to be seen whether the key persons who have contributed unconsciously
to the fossilization of our culture will follow these "lesson givers".

What remains is that Turkey will have succeeded in neutralizing the
Diaspora, as it would be in such a case, by establishing State-to-State
relations with Armenia. However, in this context, the Diaspora does
not constitute a State. Not even a State in Exile.

Some believe that the recognition of the Genocide is a moral
matter. One should admit that principles of morality are more and more
present in the political consciousness of our times, even when it
is due, on the one hand, to the European principles of pacification
of peoples, and on the other, to the new American deal. But, if a
criminal does not recognize his crime except when constrained and
forced, there is no reason to think that the Turkish State would cede
anything due to moral pressure at the price of its own interests. In
fact, it is difficult to see any country cede away even an ounce if
it has nothing to gain. However, it is inside Turkish civil society
itself that this consciousness of the perpetrated evil could result
in action and eventually push for a change in mentality. It is also
true that those who advocate a confrontation with the Turkish state
have neither the time nor the means to wait. This faith will only
bear fruit if it was supported by a new structuring of the worldwide
Diaspora in order to effectively and relentlessly denounce a denial
that has lasted too long, where those who are ignorant thereof can
easily become accomplices to it.

Ultimately, it seems that this identity crisis that our Diaspora
is going through, making itself immediately felt due to the loss of
the Haratch newspaper and the issue of the Protocols, has no other
cause but the hypertrophied excess of "Genocidal" thought, within a
persistent denialist context, which in turn has reduced to nothingness
the only thing which could have given breathing room to the spirit,
namely culture. Not a fossilized culture condemned to a cult of
language, of Church, and I do not know what other myth, but a culture
that is living, loving and humorous. Instead, we have managed to make
our artists run away, to contort our thought, to practice censorship
and ostracism, to transform the Genocide into a castrating ideology.

Der Voghormia ! Der Voghormia !

Denis Donikian