COMMENTARY: BRIDGING THE DIASPORA – ARMENIA GAP
Hrant Katarikyan
-diaspora-armenia-gap/
2010/03/01 | 16:20
It’s the people of the RoA who suffer from "strained relations"
There’s a conference taking place in Washington D.C. these days on
the state of Diaspora-Armenia relations during the past twenty years
since independence. Now that’s a pretty big bite to chew off and
digest in a few days, but I wish them success.
This meeting of the minds is being organized by the Policy Forum
Armenia (PFA), a think-tank, if you will, of the brightest young
Armenian minds in a variety of professions and academic fields.
A visit to the PFA website reads, as way of introduction that
"Armenia-Diaspora relations have never been so strained in the
20 years since independence." An obvious reference to Armenia’s
initiatives regarding the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations,
the Protocols and the sense of uncertainty among wide segments of the
Diaspora regarding Armenia’s "questionable" foreign relations strategy.
I imagine that the conference will attempt to describe just how
these strains manifest themselves since many would venture to say
the relations between the Diaspora and Armenia have been "low keyed"
and bordering on "nearly invisible" for many years now.
Sure there have been those self-serving Armenia-Diaspora conferences
every few years in Yerevan but let’s face it, they were basically
"gab sessions" and self-serving podiums to publicize one’s views on
this or that. They were never really effective forums for debate and
nothing tangible ever resulted, or precious little.
It wouldn’t be too off the mark to argue that for many years now,
relations between the Diaspora and Armenia, that’s to say successive
RoA regimes, has been on the level of "to each his or her own"; i.e.
don’t meddle in my affairs and I’ll return the favour.
This "see no evil, hear no evil" approach was manifestly apparent
surrounding the questionable February, 2008, presidential elections
and their aftermath – the civic unrest of March 1, ten dead Armenians
and the imposition of a "State of Emergency" in Armenia.
On the whole, aside from some tepid and mealy-mouthed whimpering from
the traditional organizations in the Diaspora and their leadership
regarding the violations taking place in Armenia little was done. The
hue and cry and intense outpouring of emotion and opposition in the
Diaspora that followed the signing of the Protocols was near absent
when the dust settled in Yerevan on March 2, 2008, and it became
apparent that ten Armenians had been murdered. And the fact that the
guilty still have to be identified and brought to justice, two years
after the fact, hasn’t to my knowledge at least, raised many eyebrows,
let alone demands for accountability, in the Diaspora.
Now, to be sure there are many in the Diaspora who are concerned with
these and other negative aspects of life in present-day Armenia. But
what about those in so-called leadership positions? Then too, there is
still a sizeable element in the Diaspora that believes Armenia’s "dirty
laundry" shouldn’t be washed in public. That there are overriding
issues like "national unity in the face of external pressures and
challenges" that take priority and must, out of necessity, relegate
such internal matters to the back-burner.
You would have thought, and it seems more than natural, for any
"strained relations" between the Diaspora and Armenia to be based on
disagreements and discord regarding Armenia itself, its progress,
or lack of, on the road towards socio-economic development and
democracy, the rule of law and attempts to bridge the gap between
the two overriding Armenian realities – the RoA and the Diaspora.
That it was relations with a third country, Turkey, that seems to
have awakened this rush towards a review and reanalysis of relations
amongst the various sectors and institutions of the Armenian nation,
speaks volumes about the task that lies ahead.
When was the last time you heard the Diaspora raise its collective
voice to protest the fact that there haven’t been free and fair
presidential elections in Armenia, other than the first, since
independence?
While many in the Diaspora have a general conception of the ills
plaguing Armenia – corruption, a monopolized economy, restrictions
on the freedom of expression and assembly – most haven’t a clue how
these impact citizens in Armenia on a daily basis, in the course of
trying to make ends meet.
How many in the Diaspora are aware of how the government, via eminent
domain, has evicted hundreds of average families from their homes in
Yerevan and paid them pennies in return. How many know that many of
these evicted families are even stripped of their right to vote because
once their homes were razed they lost their residency registration?
In this "strained" relationship between the Diaspora and the government
of Armenia, it is the people of Armenia who are suffering.
This is the inescapable fact of reality on the ground.
Let’s face it. The Armenian government is in no rush to improve
relations with the Diaspora to the point that it would actually permit
criticism of its actions from Beirut, Los Angeles or Paris regarding
internal government policy. The Protocols were another matter and
President Sargsyan’s whirlwind tour of the Diaspora was symbolic
acknowledgment that he at least had to feign listening to its concerns.
Has the Diaspora, through its silence and inaction, let successive
Armenian governments wriggle its way free of taking responsibility for
its actions on the ground? Actions that prompted hundreds of thousands
of average Armenians to take to the streets two years ago in protest?
In the end, what the Diaspora must ultimately decide is what its role
should be in terms of shaping and impacting state policy and civic
institutions in Armenia, and how it should best go about implementing
such a long-term strategy. The approach should be one based on what’s
in the best interest of the Armenian nation, not the current or future
possible government in power.
In the best of scenarios, the RoA government would also see fit to
collaborate in such an effort, to guarantee the future peace and
prosperity of the Armenian state and the people at its core.
The time is long overdue, for sincere and dedicated people on both
side of the divide to work jointly for the common good.
Is it too much to hope that the conference in Washington will make
a contribution, however small, in this effort and will prompt others
to follow?