Comments on: Why the Credibility of Armenian Diaspora Organizations Has Been Mise en Cause

By: Why the Credibility of Armenian Diaspora Organizations Has Been … | armeniatoday

Sat, 24 Oct 2009 07:24:17 +0000

[…] much like their Turkic counterparts, Armenian Diaspora Organizations … View original here: Why the Credibility of Armenian Diaspora Organizations Has Been … Share and […]

By: Richard

Richard — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:25:02 +0000

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.

By: Aris Hovasapian

Aris Hovasapian — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:11:05 +0000

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.

By: Liana Aghajanian

Liana Aghajanian — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 08:51:10 +0000

Update: Title changed. Thank you Richard.

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:13:32 +0000

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’.

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:08:51 +0000

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.

By: Aris Hovasapian

Aris Hovasapian — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:52:21 +0000

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.