Why the Credibility of Armenian Diaspora Organizations Has Been Mise en Cause
Protestors in Los Angeles hold up a photo of Sargsyan as Hitler on Oct. 4, 2009/by Liana Aghajanian
Regardless of the whirlwind of nationalism and discontent displayed by the Armenian Diaspora – the Turkey-Armenia Protocols opened a new chapter of bilateral relations for both the Republic of Turkey and Armenia, with their respective signing of the treaty in Zurich this October.
The Azeri Trend News Agency was quick to headline (in incorrect English) with “Turkey-Armenia protocol was signed not by Turkish people, but Turkish government” – and much like their Turkic counterparts, Armenian Diaspora Organizations are quick to the claim the same about their respective national government. This divergence as such, between governmental policy and popular will – has come into a larger geopolitical arena of what are the first steps of a broader separation of the interests of the Armenian Diaspora and that of the Armenian Republic.
Regardless of the opposition within or outside Armenia, a strong blow has been struck to the traditional diaspora organizations that vehemently fought against this rapprochement. The highly contested February elections, which brought the Sargsyan government into power in the first place – underline a greater purpose that diaspora organizations in both Europe and the Americas have failed to exercise in their relationship with the Republic: democratic accountability.
When Washington cut $67 million of Armenia’s Millennium Challenge Fund, citing “displeasure over the slow pace of democratization in Yerevan” – the diaspora failed to actively address Armenia’s sliding democracy or human rights record – placing culpability, instead, on U.S. geopolitical interests. Some may call it “introspection” or “contemplation” – but serious scrutiny and reflection nonetheless needs to be exercised by the diaspora and its organizations as it seeks to find a viable voice in the rapprochement of Turkey and Armenia.
In an unfortunate turn for the worst, the mere century of demanding and lobbying for genocide recognition is now becoming overshadowed by a greater problem of the Armenian Government’s liability to its citizens, or lack thereof. Undoubtedly, the diaspora needs to certify that the convictions of the citizens of the Republic of Armenia are mirrored in their government. Will it now answer this call?
Oct 16th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
I find this article very poorly written and plodding. First off, I don’t even know what the author means by the French phrase in the title, and have come no closer to understanding the author’s intent with the title after having searched for a definition of the phrase online.
Secondly, I am having difficulty finding the author’s argument here. Is he saying that Diaspora organizations should be held accountable for a failure to ensure that Armenia’s government meets democratic and human rights benchmarks? How exactly are Diaspora organizations supposed to check the Armenian government in Yerevan? Or is the author saying that Diaspora organizations must now engage citizens in Armenia and ensure that their will is reflected in the government that is elected? And again, how?
A mere five paragraphs to address this issue seems extremely concise to me (and not in a good way), and even then, it is quite difficult to define the author’s argument despite my multiple readings.
Please articulate your views more clearly, because I think that I disagree, but I cannot be sure.
Oct 16th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Most mainstream Diasporan organizations were in favor of the protocols: AGBU, AAA, Diocese, etc. The only major organization vehemently fighting against them were and are the ARF and its local affiliate the ANC.
Oct 16th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
I think Shant meant ‘mise en cause’ (or ‘mise en question’) as in the Diasporan organizations credibility is put into question, rather than ‘mise en place’.
Oct 17th, 2009 at 1:51 am
Update: Title changed. Thank you Richard.
Oct 17th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Richard, I think you are way off base in saying that most Diasporan organizations were in favor. The three you name are in fact the ONLY ones that are in favor, and it’s no secret that the Diocese’s hierarchical structure may have had something to do with its stance and that the AAA has traditionally sided with American interests over Armenian interests. Further, I’ve personally heard that many people identify themselves with AGBU leanings that they are also dissapointed and opposed to the protocols.
Yes, ARF and ANC have come out vehemently against the protocols, but so have the other two old Diasporan parties, Huncahkian and Ramkavar parties, the Prelacy, and most (if not all) compatriotic organizations. The United Young Armenians (a mostly “Hyastantsi” organization) has also come out vehemently against the protocols, and has been an organizer and participant in the recent demonstrations in Los Angeles.
I don’t know what your definition of “mainstream Diasporan organizations” might be, but in my opinion, AAA certainly does not fit that bill. I’m interested to find out what other organizations you can site that have expressed a favorable stance toward the protocols.
Oct 18th, 2009 at 6:25 am
The AAA is certainly a major Diasporan organization. I could have mentioned the Knights of Vartan and the Congress of Canadian Armenians.
By the same token when I say the ARF/ANC it is assumed that the Prelacy falls into line.
Oct 24th, 2009 at 12:24 am
[...] much like their Turkic counterparts, Armenian Diaspora Organizations … View original here: Why the Credibility of Armenian Diaspora Organizations Has Been … Share and [...]