By Appo Jabarian Executive Publisher and Senior Editor of USA Armenian Life Magazine Is the Armenian Diaspora a temporary situation or a permanent reality? Contrary to the wishful thinking of some, the Armenian Diaspora is not temporary — at least not for the foreseeable future. The current Armenian situation is the direct result of the loss of Western (Wilsonian) Armenia (nearly 160,000 sq. km.); of Armenian Cilicia (nearly 40,000 sq. km.) — both under Turkish occupation; and of Nakhitchevan, currently under Azeri occupation. It is also the result of Sovietization of the 1918-1920 Democratic Republic of Armenia. The area of today’s Armenia (29,000 sq. km.) constitutes less than half of the nearly 60,000 sq. km. area of the 1918 Armenian republic which was founded on territories of Eastern Armenia. As long as the current Armenian republics lack the political will to reform from within, and lift the artificial internal blockade by the oligarchic monopolists hampering down the natural growth; and so long as Turkey continues to occupy Western (Wilsonian) Armenia and Armenian Cilicia, denying today’s landlocked Armenia and Artsakh their rightful access to the sea, no substantial repatriation may be materialized. The possibility of renewed war with Azerbaijan can not deter Armenians from repatriation. However the lack of transformation of the former Soviet corruption- and nepotism-ridden Armenian society can obstruct the full integration of the Armenian people. Twenty years have passed since Armenia became independent in 1991. The contemporary Diaspora is now 95 years old. After outliving the Soviet rule, Armenians of former Soviet Armenia and former Soviet Azerbaijan-occupied Artsakh (Karabagh) beat all odds and re-established Armenian sovereignty through the founding of two separately organized entities – The Republic of Armenia and The Republic of Artsakh on historic Armenian lands. As for the Diaspora, Armenians living in dispersion, have created their own sub-structures, maintained their own existence, and even helped out their kinsmen both during the Soviet era and during the Artsakh Liberation War (1989-1994). However, to its own and Armenia’s detriment, the Diaspora failed to create a democratically elected supra structure – The Structure of Structures — facilitating active and massive pan-Diaspora participation and co-operation. This crucial issue came to the forefront of a worldwide debate as a result of the November 2010 international symposium on “The Armenian Diaspora: Elective Leadership and Worldwide Structure,” organized by the University of Southern California (USC) Institute of Armenian Studies. Several political parties both within Armenia and its Diaspora joined the debate. Even the President of Armenia, Mr. Serzh Sargsyan came up with a proposal which is identical to the one previously presented by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. The recent official announcement by the Republic of Armenia of plans to amend its constitution in order to create a new legislative upper house — a Senate that would include representatives from the Diaspora, has ignited mixed reaction throughout the Armenian world. Pro-government circles gave a standing ovation to the proposal, while opposition leaders and factions strongly criticized it. “Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan lost the confidence of a greater part of the Armenian Diaspora due to failure of Armenia-Turkey rapprochement. He is making an attempt to make good terms with representatives of the Armenian Diaspora by adopting a bicameral parliamentary system. He is even ready to allow Diaspora representatives to participate in the state governance of Armenia, … This is in fact a populist step. I strongly oppose this populism, if domestic issues are on the agenda,” Chairman of New Times Party Aram Karapetyan lamented to reporters on Friday February 11. The proposal raised more questions than provided answers, wrote Harut Sassounian, the Publisher of The California Courier emphasizing: “In order to maintain Diaspora’s independence and Armenia’s sovereignty, would it not be better to create a separate Diaspora structure in line with the process I proposed during last November’s USC conference? Armenian communities worldwide would elect representatives to a transnational assembly which would then select delegates from its ranks to serve in Armenia’s legislature. … The good news is that at long last the Armenian government has recognized the need to involve Diaspora Armenians in pan-Armenian decision-making processes and structures. However, before rushing to judgment, it would be wise to wait and see what exactly Armenia’s leaders have in mind in proposing Diasporan representation in a new Senate. The final decision should be solely based on whether this or any other arrangement is in the best interest of Armenians, both in Armenia and Diaspora.” The overriding fact is that almost all groups and key individuals both in Armenia and Diaspora are talking about and discussing the idea and effectiveness of forming a democratically elected Diaspora representative body. The debate is moving forward unabated. Thanks to President Sargsyan’s “pre-occupation to win over” the Diaspora, he has created a watershed in Armenia-Diaspora relations. Armenia’s political leadership’s sensitivity toward the Diaspora has transformed Armenia’s attitude from a total belittlement of the Diaspora (in 1990’s by Armenia’s First President Levon Ter-Petrossyan), to proper recognition of the immense value brought to the table by the Diaspora. Regardless of the speed and outcome of the ongoing debate, the following and several other questions deserve answers. How much does the organizing of the Armenian Diaspora strengthen Armenia, Artsakh and the Armenian nation? Do Diaspora’s weakening and ultimate assimilation present a national threat to the twin Armenian republics, and trigger the extinction of the Armenians as distinct people? Are Armenians ready – at last, to co-ordinate their collective global resources for optimization of results in the political, economic and social arenas? Are there major issues that one entity is more capable of pursuing than the other(s)? Can the current Armenian republic push forward the land demands issue via-a-vis Turkey, or it should let its Diaspora pursue it? As a community, can Armenia reform from within, on its own, or it needs massive participation by the Diaspora to create enough new positive economic and social conditions for its citizenry so that the social and economic value system is enhanced; the emigration decreases and the immigration increases; the new births outpace the deaths by double-digits, boosting the size of the population and the quality of life? What form of co-operative structure is necessary for satisfactory remedies to the above and many other crucial issues affecting the present and the future of the Armenian people? Finally, should Armenia, Artsakh, and Diaspora create a genuine partnership through a worldwide federation which can help foster more productivity both in the homeland and its Diaspora? At long last, the high ideal of Armenian federalism has now moved to the forefront of Armenian political thinking. There is no question that the solution to Armenia’s and Armenians’ major issues lies in the propagation and implementation of Armenian federalism. The major issues that require our people’s collective resources range from eradicating the problem of corruption and nepotism in the Armenian world; to ensuring Armenia’s and Armenians’ political and economic security; to consolidating the independence of the Republic of Artsakh (Karabagh); to forestalling the devastating effects of assimilation in Armenia and especially the Diaspora. How could Armenian federalism be put to practical use? For a starter, an Armenian who is well-qualified for a certain task or a position must be empowered to be swiftly transferred both geographically and departmentally and take over the responsibility of a certain position for maximum effectiveness in management. Presently, mostly nepotism is the driving engine for the distribution of employment opportunities in Armenia and elsewhere. This practice must be discontinued. There is hardly any Armenian who can be opposed to the high ideal of harnessing the collective resources for the ultimate benefit of the nation as a whole. United, not only we survive but grow stronger.

---