Recently, Minister of Diaspora Hranush Hakobian appealed to Armenian youth around the world to come and serve in Armenia’s army, as is done in Israel. In an interview with Capital Daily, Salpi Ghazarian, Director of the Civilitas Foundation, says that so long as there is no general vision for Armenia-Diaspora relations, and no ideological underpinning, no individual program can succeed.
Mrs. Ghazarian, what do you think? What kind of response will there be to this appeal?
The day that our country adopts the same general approach to its Diaspora that Israel has – the same care, the same tolerance, the same inclusivity so that our Diaspora, too, feels itself responsible for and a part of this country, with similar obligations and similar rights, when we adopt this kind of approach, then it would make sense to issue such appeals. But when Armenia’s attitude towards the Diaspora remains undeveloped, inconsistent, arbitrary, even a really bright idea isn’t going to work, taking into consideration all the misperceptions between Armenia and the Diaspora. And this is a two-way street: The Diaspora, too, has still not understood how to have thoughtful, contemporary, sustained relations with Armenia and for Armenia.
Certain analysts consider the Diaspora Ministry to be anachronistic, because today’s Diaspora is not a Diaspora that has lost its erstwhile homeland. Do you think such a ministry was necessary?
I don’t agree with the assumption that a Diaspora can only be defined by a people that has lost its homeland. It’s true that the definition of the Armenian Diaspora has changed, because there is an Armenian state now, and the Russian Diaspora has become a huge player. But I don’t believe that’s the reason that the Diaspora Ministry is perceived to be anachronistic. It seems to me that it’s difficult to understand the clear mission of the Diaspora Ministry and the best way to make that happen, since there is no clear ideology. We Armenians, in and out of Armenia, generally aren’t ideological. For example, what is it that we want from our education systems? We don’t know. We also don’t promote patriotism – love of the fatherland – as love for the Armenian state. We have not articulated an ideology that would guide Armenia-Diaspora relations. In the absence of such ideas and ideals, what kind of effectiveness do we expect of this ministry, and I would venture to say of all ministries, as they engage in relations with the Diaspora.
Are ideologies sufficient to make Armenia-Diaspora relations effective?
We aren’t very ideological. We have to figure out what it is we want. And we have to start by acknowledging that we don’t understand each other and we don’t trust each other. We each have individual relations with the Diaspora. For example, we have an aunt who sends us money, or we have a professional colleague with whom we do some projects, or we have had some past experiences and we come and we go. In other words, on a personal level, Armenia-Diaspora relations do exist. But collectively, as a society, as a state, in interacting with the Diaspora, we don’t have a sense of mutual understanding. In Armenia, the existence of the Diaspora is taken for granted – it’s there and will always be there. And for the Diaspora – Armenia remains an emotional dreamland, or, under the best of circumstances, for specific individuals, it’s become a place and a means to carry out some work or some programs. But all that remains at a personal, individual level. We aren’t aware and don’t acknowledge or declare that we do in fact need each other – Armenia and Diaspora. OK, perhaps we say we do, but we don’t believe it and we’re not prepared to take the necessary steps to be able to support each other, or to benefit from each other, in the best sense of the word. The recently adopted Law on Citizenship is a great example: Armenia passed the law and we didn’t any of us understand what to expect. On the one hand, we believed that we are giving the Diaspora a great opportunity; on the other hand, we thought that maybe they are robbing us of something. There’s still more confusion. Polling questions indicate that more than half of Armenia’s population wants to live outside Armenia. On the one hand, we resent the fact that people are leaving; on the other hand, we look wish suspicion upon those who have decided to come live in Armenia. In this kind ambivalent environment, Armenia-Diaspora relations won’t develop and move forward.
But there are institutions in the Diaspora which work for Armenia.
Yes, there are Diaspora institutions which work both for themselves and for Armenia, but not in a coordinated way. It’s not always that their work ‘for Armenia’ and Armenia’s needs match up. Plus, those institutions don’t represent the entire Diaspora. With independence, the paths to Armenia opened up for the individual Armenian. If in the past, that interaction was mediated by the Committee for Relations with Armenians Abroad, or the Church, or some other institution, today, the individual Armenian is able to come to Armenia and initiate any kind of activity. There are thousands of individuals like this who today are implementing projects in Armenia or the Diaspora. These are independent projects, uncoordinated, unsupported, indeed, often facing plenty of obstacles.
In that case, what do you think the Diaspora Ministry is doing?
I don’t know. Because, unfortunately, when ideas are thrown out there without thought and planning, and when their execution fails, everyone begins to think that the idea itself was bad, and in the future, it becomes much harder to attempt to execute a similar, albeit better-designed, idea. In any case, whatever they are doing, they cannot propose less-than-serious ideas about our most serious issues. It’s difficult in any case to achieve results in a murky environment such as this, where it is unclear what we expect of each other, and where relations remain conditional and unpredictable. Relations between family members cannot be conditional. We either are one family or we’re not. In the Diaspora, many assume that Armenia is there, and each Armenian can either desire to participate in the process of state-building or not. We’re still not at a point in the Diaspora, where it is deeply engrained in everyone’s head that the Diasporan, whether he or she likes it or not, is defined by Armenia. When someone looks at a Diasporan’s face, looks at their name, they are immediately defined by Armenia. So, the Diaspora too must understand that they are perceived to be a part of Armenia, and they are obliged to participate in state-building. Armenia, too, hasn’t understood that without that Diaspora, Armenia cannot turn into the country that we all want. Yet today, we not only do not cooperate, but we stress the differences. For example, instead of begrudging the fact that as a result of a changed orthography, the links between us have been broken, we exacerbate the differences. Another example – from education to energy, we have experts in the Diaspora in every field – we don’t know their names, we don’t call them, we don’t ask their counsel, we don’t encourage them to participate in building a country. But there’s the other side of the coin: Diasporans often don’t comprehend that in order to participate effectively, they must take time to observe, understand the situation on the ground, the mentality, the problems, the dreams and the expectations. Of course there are differences, of course there are different expectations, even different worldviews, but all that can be overcome if we acknowledge that one without the other will not advance.
There is already talk of creating an ‘Armenian World.’ Don’t you think that’s a good idea, an idea around which it’s possible to rally both Armenia’s and the Diaspora’s resources?
The irony is that we were a virtual Armenian World even before the technologies caught up with us. Now, when modern technologies make contact simpler than ever, we do use them – but individually and arbitrarily. I’m going to say it again: We need to understand what we want. The idea of an ‘Armenian World’ requires an appropriate environment, not just networks which many talk about. We’ve lived and survived through the centuries because we had and we used networks. We don’t need to create networks today. I think they already exist – from Silicon Valley to Moscow. But we can’t optimally utilize those networks if there isn’t a correspondingly conducive environment. We waste energy in comparing, categorizing and rating individuals based on their “Armenianness.” These are absurd distinctions which Israel doesn’t make, and which, by the way, the international community does not make, either. Diplomats or representatives of international organizations who visit the Caucasus have in all likelihood never met an Azerbaijani or a Georgian, but have most certainly somewhere, sometime met an Armenian. That’s the reach of the ‘Armenian World’ that they know, and which we dismiss.
The distinctions you mention don’t just refer to Armenia-Diaspora relations, but they exist also within the Diaspora. Don’t you think that’s part of the Armenian psyche, and the state can’t do much about it?
That exists within Armenia, too. And the state must take steps and demand that the Diaspora’s major institutions understand that their ultimate interest lies is Armenia. At the same time, the state must consciously work to circumvent those differences and pursue the common interest.
If one day Turkey recognizes the Genocide, what will happen in the Diaspora? Because at the end of the day, the Genocide issue, as tragic as it is, is one of the fundamental pillars of the Diaspora’s unity.
No, I don’t agree. Of course Genocide recognition remains crucial for all of us, but I don’t believe that it’s the single focal point for the entire Diaspora. I’m convinced that today the only basis for unity, the real link, is the Republic of Armenia, with which not only Genocide recognition but many other issues will be solved and more effectively.
What kind of Armenia does a Diasporan need in order to see Armenia as his or her homeland, in order to want to come and stay in Armenia?
The Diaspora needs the same Armenia that the people of Armenia want. The Armenian born abroad and the native-born Armenian both want a country of which they can be proud, a country that makes them feel good.
Does today’s Armenia correspond to a Diasporan’s desires?
Not yet, just as it doesn’t correspond to the desires of the majority of Armenia’s citizens.
Interviewed by Arpi Makhsudyan