Armenia Fails to Unite

The Armenian Diaspora has been in a state of disunity for the most part of the last 100 years. Disunity or the lack of unity does not exist on its own, nor for its own sake- it is almost always as a result of outside interferences. In other words enemies do their deed, and succeed.

The Diaspora has been, and still is, divided- The reason is Armenia.

The First Republic (1918-1921) was the beginning of a long, arduous, and tedious division, which led immediately after its collapse to the Second Republic (Soviet Armenia, 1921-1991) and a long period of disarray in communities everywhere from Worcester, Massachusetts to Fresno, California. A life of detest and hate for entire generations over accusations of “bloody Bolshevik”, “traitor”, “brown-shirt fascist”, and other unpleasant name-callings. In Lebanon, Armenians gunned each other down in disputes over the definition of love for Armenia; a high-ranking clergyman was assassinated at the altar in America; and worst of all, a segment of Armenians wished, in 1942 during WWII, for the Nazis to defeat the Soviets in Stalingrad, to then proceed southward to “liberate Armenia”(yeah right!). Mind you, Soviet Armenia lasted until 1991, irrespective of the silly and futile commotions of Armenians from outside.

The collapse of the Soviet Union ushered the Third Republic (1991-present), and an independent Armenia that continues to be the source of disputes and divisions amongst Armenians everywhere to this day. A hundred years later, after wars and Genocide, calamities and hardships… Armenia continues to engage, as well as divide us with equal ferocity.

In their days, the leadership of Soviet Armenia sat back, watched and at times took advantage of the duality, often playing one camp against the other. The leaders of modern-day Armenia have been doing the same since 1991. They waste no time to accuse us of being chronically divided and incapable of growing up and maturing politically, or lacking the “nationhood mindset” (whatever that means), while they themselves fail to suggest solutions to the very problems that they identify. Men in leadership positions have failed miserably- to guide us, to inspire us, and help us solidify our identity and unravel the meaning of our existence.

Armenia has abandoned its own Diaspora to the point that during the lead-up to the Protocols President Sargsyan first implied, and then implemented a path for the Republic of Armenian that did not feature the Diaspora in it. A flagrant act of polarization. Imagine appeasing to the Turks, at the expense of alienating your own- If that’s sophisticated politicking (as the government of Armenia probably thinks), then I’d like to redefine naiveté.

The Genocide, the very defining element of the Diaspora’s identity was agreed to become a point of discussion with Turkish (turk oghlu turk) historians, the very same people who fabricated Turkey’s denial package against the Genocide for 95 years. Imagine that!

Armenia and Turkey make strange bedfellows, as the turn of events after the signing of the 10/10 Protocols proved: Armenia bargained away the proofs of the Genocide, which then Turkey pocketed, and proceeded to demand more- They now want Karabagh. It would have helped if Yerevan listened to the wisdom of historians, lawmakers and academicians of genocide studies: Not to negotiate with the perpetrator of genocide, in the absence of willingness to admit. While Turkey proceeded by the adage “What’s ours is ours, what’s yours is negotiable”, Armenia showed readiness to sit at a negotiating table without the facts of the Genocide by its side, or Armenian claims of land and calls for human rights. That’s what happens when you give up your moral high ground.

Some pundits have applauded President Sargsyan’s speech at the “renowned” Chatham House in London two weeks ago. I was not impressed. Political bold-face is not well received historically in the long run. I doubt that Sargsyan was under the impression that his speech would actually tilt British and European opinion about Turkey’s bloated ambitions for regional supremacy; the legitimacy of the Karabagh movement, or even the benefits of Turkey’s recognition of the Genocide to Europe. He should know better that these are issues imbedded in various foreign national interests, way beyond the capacity of Armenia to influence. But what I noticed instead, was a hint of withdrawal from the insult he leveled against the Diaspora when, in the thick of his self-inflicted enthusiasm to sign the Protocols, he blatantly brushed off his critics as cretins without his understanding of globalization (he then proceeded to lecture us for hours on end). If wise diplomacy expects of leaders to posses the skill to keep friends (the Diaspora) close, and enemies (Turkey) closer, then the Sargsyan administration failed miserably. They neither made friends, nor influenced people. As a result of the Protocols, Turkey has already shifted the discussion to the Genocide as an Armenian exaggeration, and Karabagh as a case of foreign aggression. There’s no more talk of Armenia’s right to survive and prosper. What happened to the benefits of open borders, free commerce and cheap food-stuff? Does Yerevan know what to do?

I’m often caught in arguments these days, sometimes with good friends that I do not want to offend. The topic of disputes is always Armenia (as it has been for generations), and I’m sick of it. Many others have already quit the topic; thousands are quitting their adherence to Armenian community affairs and Armenia itself. We are magnificently divided, and the loss is Armenia’s! Does Yerevan care?

Today in the Diaspora, desperate columnists are penning articles suggesting plans to organize it around an elected representative body, and Yerevan is absent from the discussion. A month ago, the Diaspora fell into a dispute over the selection of a representative group of delegates that were to meet with the U.S. State Department, while Yerevan sat back and let the arguments pan out for all to see. Yerevan is in the process, much like its communist predecessors, of compiling “a list” of Diaspora Armenians who are “pro-protocol”, thus intentionally separating the people of the Diaspora as Hyrenasers (those who love Armenia, i.e. pro-Sargsyan), or Entimateers (those who oppose). Some who once stood by Armenia are quickly labeled as undesirables, if they voice anger towards the many losses against the few gains that Armenia has made over the last few years. Reaching out, solving (internal) problems, and expanding grand projects make great leaders. That, Mr. Sargsyan, is the purpose of the presidency!

If we can’t get our act together, then next time the Karabagh issue comes up again (and it will), an ill-governed, weakened Armenian nation, isolated from its own people (inside and outside its borders), will have no choice but to give in… without a fight. Perhaps, the only advantage to having a karabaghtzi running Armenia at that time is to let him deal with the mess himself. Until then, I’d like to remind them all that they are just another group gathered around Mother Armenia, much like any other Diaspora group from anywhere outside of the borders of Armenia… some thousands, others few hundred miles away.

No one owns the moral authority to pass judgment on other groups. But unfortunately Armenia will, and the division will continue… for another 100 years!