ARMENIA-DIASPORA UNITY MUST BE PRESERVED AT ALL COST
By Harut Sassounian

Noyan Tapan
Feb 3, 2010

In recent months, as heated debates raged on the Armenia-Turkey
Protocols, Diaspora Armenians reacted with frustration and anger at
the damage these agreements would have caused to Armenian national
interests.

While Armenia’s leaders have the right to take decisions on behalf of
the country’s 3 million inhabitants, they also have an obligation to
take into account the interests of all 10 million Armenians worldwide
on pan-Armenian issues, such as the Genocide, the Artsakh (Karabagh)
conflict, demands from Turkey.

In negotiating the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, Armenian officials
should have shown more sensitivity to critical national issues. By
signing the contested agreements with Turkey, they alarmed and deeply
hurt Armenians worldwide. Thousands of angry demonstrators reacted
by hurling vitriolic epithets at Pres. Sargsyan, during his October
tour of the Diaspora to promote the Protocols. Such confrontations,
unprecedented during earlier presidential visits, reflected negatively
on the authorities as well as the protesting public.

A small land-locked state faced with blockade, war, economic hardships
and enemies on both sides, can ill afford internal divisions and
conflicts with its Diaspora. Such discord can only please Turkish
leaders who have made no secret of their scheme to split Armenia
from "the radical Diaspora," thus making it easier for them to
extract concessions on Artsakh, Genocide recognition, and demands
for restitution.

What lessons Armenians must now draw from the disheartening experience
of infighting over the Protocols?

1) Armenia’s leaders should exercise greater caution and sensitivity
by engaging in private consultations with Diasporan leaders prior to
conducting negotiations and signing agreements on issues that impact
the entire Armenian nation.

2) A Diaspora-wide leadership must be elected to reflect properly
the views of the majority of Armenians on crucial issues. Such a
mechanism would facilitate the transmission of credible feedback from
the Diaspora to Armenia’s leaders and to governments and international
organizations. Further details will be presented on this important
topic in a future column.

3) Diaspora Armenians should not let disagreements with Armenia’s
leadership discourage them from extending aid to the needy, making
investments in the country’s economy, and visiting the homeland.

4) In addition to avoiding a split between the Diaspora and Armenia,
it is equally important to prevent serious divisions among Diaspora
organizations, without stifling the healthy exchange of views and
disagreements.

5) The Armenian President needs to receive expert advice on critical
economic and political issues which necessitates the creation of a
Council of Economic Advisors and a Council on Foreign Relations,
consisting of internationally recognized experts. Furthermore,
a team of international lawyers should be assembled to advise the
President prior to signing international agreements in order to avoid
fundamental mistakes which subsequently may have to be corrected by
the Constitutional Court.

6) The Armenian government should have assigned the Diaspora Ministry
to serve as an unfettered channel of communication between Armenia and
the Diaspora during the debates on the Protocols. The Ministry could
have been the mechanism through which the concerns and complaints of
Armenians worldwide would have been relayed to the Foreign Ministry
and the President’s office. After all, the Diaspora Ministry is
supposed to be a bridge between the two segments of the Armenian
nation. While it is true that the Diaspora Minister accompanied the
President during his tour of several countries last October, the
Ministry would have gained far more credibility had it been allowed
to play a more independent role.

7) Armenian officials must realize that Turkey, given its size and
strategic location, has a greater opportunity to get its views
publicized through the international media than it is possible
for Armenia. Therefore, any issue on which Armenians and Turks have
conflicting interpretations, the Turkish version will prevail by being
more widely disseminated than the Armenian point of view. That is one
of the reasons why agreeing to establish a "historical commission"
was not a good idea. According to Turkish officials, the commission
was to review the facts of the Armenian Genocide, while the Armenian
leaders stated that its objective was to assess the consequences of
the Genocide. Had the Protocols been ratified, the Turks would have
proceeded to deny the facts of the Genocide and would have succeeded
in blaming Armenians for undermining "the good work" of the commission.

8) The Protocols, rather than helping to normalize relations between
Armenia and Turkey, have in fact greatly damaged the prospects of such
reconciliation. Future attempts must begin with the preliminary steps
of opening the border and establishing diplomatic relations rather
than cramming dozens of unrelated issues and preconditions into a
single agreement. True reconciliation has to be based on truth and
justice, not lies and cover ups!