In the works of modern specialists of Diaspora studies an idea is often expressed that diaspora is not only a part of the people living in foreign countries that preserves to a certain extent the spiritual, cultural identity and strives to maintain ties with historical homeland, but first of all it also constitutes a supranational network that has a huge socio-cultural, socio-political, economic and intellectual potential. With this in mind, many countries have had a vast experience of benefiting from the knowledge of their diaspora’s intellectual communities and activities of individuals that are highly regarded in government structures. It is important to study the experience of these countries, in order to find solutions and ways for developing mechanisms for unification of Armenian diaspora’s scientific and analytical community, establishment of links and collaboration with Armenia’s intellectual circles in various formats, and putting the pan-Armenian resources to service of Armenia’s and Armeniancy’s interests.

 

It is well known that the growth trend of “think-tanks” (hereinafter referred to as TT) in the West has contributed to development of scientific thought in humanities outside the academic frameworks and has brought a new quality to the political and strategic research and development. In order to add higher professionalism to such R&D, many countries that have diasporas started using their expert resources available in the USA and EU.

 

Benefiting from expert resources in humanities has been somewhat distinctive and not so difficult process, unlike that from academic resources (especially in natural sciences), which was significantly harder due to a number of circumstances. It has to be noted that for several countries expert resources of diaspora have been a lot more limited than those available domestically. Many newly established Israeli, Indian, Chinese, Japanese and Greek TTs faced an important problem of securing enough intellectual resources. This made them seek help of the diaspora scientific and expert resources, which also facilitated establishment of international ties with similar entities abroad.

 

On the other hand, some countries achieved progress by bringing these ties to an institutional level, engaging the intellectual resources in network activities and focusing on development of high priority national strategic programs. In parallel to networking activities, owing to consistent work and enduring collaboration, some countries have also been able to reach a new level and establish analytical institutions abroad.

 

The Chinese experience of work with scientific communities of diaspora is quite interesting. The scientific and analytic capabilities of the Chinese diaspora have first of all been used to achieve a breakthrough in China’s economy, after which the Chinese employees of political and strategic research institutions abroad became intermediaries in the US-China somewhat sour relations and became a supportive force for China’s foreign policies. In 1998 the Chinese government made attempts to involve some highly qualified Chinese scientists and experts from abroad in both distant and in-situ implemented programs, by offering quite high compensations1. Thus, there have been some economic and political reasons for the use of diaspora’s potential. This whole chain-like continuous process took place with direct participation of the government. It made possible to rally the intellectual/business elite around challenging tasks in various areas, which later on led to some important achievements. The intellectuals of diaspora were engaged not just for getting feedbacks and holding discussions, but they were trusted with practical tasks to perform, one of which was the initiative to implement economic reforms. The Chinese experience showed that diaspora may play an instrumental role in development of any sector.

 

The Israeli policies are remarkable, too. As in the case with China, Israel was trying to use the scientific potential of the diaspora for development of the newly established state’s economy. As researcher H. Marutyan notes: “With its small territory and limited natural and financial resources and constant military conflict with some of its neighbors, the State of Israel had to continuously look for non-standard, creative solutions to make progress”2. Owing to the American-Israeli scientific collaboration, the U.S. – Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF) was established in 1972. It was followed by establishment of the United States-Israel Binational Agricultural Research and Development Fund (BARD) in 1978, the mission of which was to support research and innovation crucially important for agricultures of both countries3.

 

As far as analytical centers are concerned, it has to be noted that Israel made the first attempts to benefit from this potential back in 1950s. Among the analytical centers, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a highly regarded “think-tank.” The Committee was founded in 1954 by Jews residing in the USA. It pursued an objective of securing economic, political and military support provided by the US government to the fledgling Jewish state. At AIPAC’s direct initiative in 1994 the USA provided about $3 billion to Israel for economic and military development, of which $80 million was for Jewish repatriation4. Every year AIPAC organizes high-level meetings and political conferences with participation of renowned political scientists, experts and scholars from both countries. Interestingly enough, it was after these very conferences that Israel started to cooperate with American Jewish analysts working in TTs. Many of them currently collaborate with reputable Israeli strategic research centers as associates5.

 

In the recent years some of the CIS countries, including Russia6, Moldova, Belarus, have begun to pay attention to the scientific potential of their diasporas, though they are still at the stage of developing mechanisms for possible cooperation in such formats. It has to be mentioned that in implementation of such large-scale projects special importance is attached to conferences specifically aimed at this topic. In particular, in 2010 a scientific and practical conference on Scientific Diaspora and the Future of the Russian Science took place in St. Petersburg with participation of invited ethnic Russian scientists and analysts from institutes involved in strategic research in various countries7.

 

It appears this type of conferences are worth organizing in Armenia, since as much as we would like to involve the diaspora in scientific and strategic research, it is necessary to first hear the opinions and viewpoints of this community in that regard. Moldova, Russia, Belarus and a few other countries follow this logic.

 

Study of the international experience would not be complete without considering Turkey, as its activities, especially those with “think-tanks”, directly affect the triple union of the Republic of Armenia, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh and Armenian Diaspora.

 

In the recent decades, Turkey has been very active in communicating the high priority national problems to its expert resources in foreign countries and mobilizing them around common goals. There are many structures that mobilize foreign Turkish intellectuals around various institutions, political platforms and currently they are on the path of establishing a “national league of analysts”.

 

It is characteristic that the current Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmet Davutoğlu, who hails from the Turkish analytical circles, has a high regard for the role of these structures in the country’s internal and external political developments and uses them as an alternative “diplomatic corps”, including for promotion of his own positions in Turkish-Armenian relations.

 

Under such conditions the scientific and especially expert community of Armenia will always encounter the viewpoints and different political formulas put forward by the Turkish government through these structures. This situation prompts to unify the available scientific/expert intellectual resources of Armenia and diaspora, which would enable to form a common approach through exchange of opinions and perspectives on any strategic issue the Armeniancy faces, so as to counter the moves made by the Turkish “fifth power.”

 

To summarize the international experience, it can be stated that a number of factors have influenced the decisions of different countries to establish ties with their diaspora scientific and analytical community, including:

 

Creation of a new format of ties and cooperation with diaspora.

The need to carry out reforms in various sectors.

Implementing changes in internal and external policies.

Bringing a new quality to strategic R&D.

Introduction of new research areas (political forecast, etc.).

Manpower training, experience exchange.

Propagandistic and lobbying activities, etc.

The experience of countries that cooperate with analytic communities of their diasporas once again proves that the success comes with lasting, systematic and flexible policies anchored on two main players: government system and business world. These players view their compatriots working in foreign TTs as a resource that enriches their own country’s discourse around economic, scientific, educational, political and other topics.

 

 

  -   Articles and Analyses