Growing up in the American diaspora, there were countless “baby boomer” Armenians who longed for an independent Armenia. They grew up when the Armenian flag was not listed at the United Nations, and there were blank faces among their American friends when asked if they knew of Armenians. It was a dream from our grandparents, survivors of the genocide, that was passed to their children, the first generation born outside the Armenian historical homeland. It didn’t matter whether we were born in the United States or had immigrated from the Middle East or Europe. This dream connected our young minds as a rightful closure to the injustices of the horrific crime of genocide. Logically, most of our attention was directed toward the lost Western Armenian highlands occupied by the successor state to the Ottoman Empire — the “modern” Republic of Turkey.
To Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks, it wasn’t very modern, given its continued denial of the atrocities, dispossession of victims and territorial theft of a historical homeland. It was also where our grandparents came from and remained the primary cultural connection to our heritage.
There was, of course, the Soviet Armenian Republic, but it was essentially a closed society to the diaspora. We were grateful for the existence of land where Armenians resided, but the connection was weak. The idea of liberating the eastern portion of Armenia, which was within the borders of the 1918 republic, seemed remote, and our passion was focused on the consequences of the genocide. It was a dream that fueled identity in the diaspora.
I often refer to 1965 as the “great reawakening.” We were kids, but there was no denying the renewed energy of our parents’ generation, driven by a word called “recognition.” We learned from our parents that, as a result of the genocide, more than three-fourths of the population of the western highlands were murdered, and the survivors scattered to the eastern areas of the homeland and all corners of the earth. The humiliation was aggravated by our discovery that the crime had gone unrecognized. Not only had the Turks designed an elaborate denial system within their legal and educational system, but global nations had remained silent.
In 1965, the road to redemption began, with Uruguay becoming the first nation to formally recognize the Armenian Genocide. It became the mantra for “Hai Tahd,” the identity for a new generation born in the diaspora, and launched a remarkable journey of scholastic brilliance. More than 50 years later, the Armenian Genocide is essentially recognized globally. The deniers are known and discredited. The academic community, through research and scholarship, has overwhelmed those who advance pseudo-academic denial. Through its work on Armenian Genocide recognition and Armenian rights, the diaspora has become a respected force advocating globally.
We were constantly reminded that the first step of justice would be recognition, followed by reparations through a legal process. This became the political identity of the diaspora as its advocacy infrastructure matured from the 1960s to the 1990s. It has not always been a smooth process, interrupted by a propensity for division, but it has clearly been transformative progress.
The absence of an independent Armenian state, recognized by the United Nations, left advocacy work on genocide recognition and scholarship to the diaspora. It became an integral aspect of the diaspora’s fabric, shaping its political culture. April 24 was not simply a remembrance but a call for justice. While the diaspora was solidifying this identity, the unthinkable occurred when Armenia became an independent state as a direct result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. In a completely unexpected manner, the dream of the diaspora had been realized. It mattered little that post-Soviet Armenia instantly became a nation in economic crisis, under blockade and controlled by an oligarchic monopoly.
Armenia was free for the first time since 1920. The diaspora enthusiastically joined the nation-building process. For many Armenians in the diaspora, the vision for a sovereign Armenia included a nation that would be the center of Armenian life and serve as the long-awaited bridge between the diaspora and the homeland.
One of the consequences of the genocide was the loss of a nation-state, the geographic dispersion of the people and the lack of a global connection. The vision included a nation where all Armenians, regardless of where they resided, could immerse themselves in their identity. The gap between the diaspora and the homeland would not necessarily be eliminated but bridged with the discovery that “there is more that unites us than divides us” (a quote from Dr. Vartan Gregorian). We could become whole again.
Unfortunately, we have not yet reached the desired future state in the relationship between Armenia and the diaspora. With the recent conflict between the government of the republic and the Holy See of Etchmiadzin, there have been predictions that the relationship will diminish to a point not seen even during the Turkish oppression and Soviet times. I do not subscribe to these dire forecasts despite the tragic nature of our divisions.
The work in Armenia and the diaspora has always operated on two levels. The “above-the-radar” work is highly visible, run by large organizations or individuals, and tends to be more politicized. The majority contribute “below-the-radar,” where publicity is limited; thousands work in creative ways and expect nothing in terms of influence.
Clearly, strained relations will impact the former model but will have little impact on quiet contributors in education, domestic violence prevention, economic development projects and countless other programs improving lives in Armenia. Their work will continue as long as it is driven by love and humility. This is not to say that the “above-the-radar” work is not driven by love, but it is more susceptible to the political climate.
When you work on the ground and establish relationships with citizens of Armenia, your work becomes resistant to political distractions.
The latest area of public stress between the diaspora and the homeland relates to issues of “historical justices,” “genocide rhetoric” that invites reciprocation, a “victim” mentality in seeking justice and how it may contribute to an “anti-Armenian policy.” In attempting to find common ground, it is essential to understand each other’s perspectives rather than rely on perception. We rarely take this approach and are quick to attack views that differ from our own.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has articulated a controversial policy seeking to move Armenia beyond justice-seeking campaigns that have dominated our post-genocide practices. Traditionally, these efforts have been directed at the Republic of Turkey and, more recently, the Republic of Azerbaijan.
The prime minister appears convinced that, for Armenia to prosper and remain viable, it must shed the “victim” mentality driven by demands for recognition and reparations. He argues that pursuing this path will lead only to reciprocal demands and further conflict.
This approach has also been applied to the Artsakh issue, which the government considers closed, asserting that Armenians from Artsakh should be integrated into Armenia proper. His government is moving Armenia closer to the West and opening relations with border adversaries Turkey and Azerbaijan in order to advance a new era of peace and prosperity.
This approach is not popular in the diaspora because, as mentioned earlier, a large segment of diaspora identity has been advocacy for Armenian rights, including historical injustices, recent losses in Artsakh and support for the homeland from Western democracies. The message from Armenia suggests that Hai Tahd either is no longer necessary or must undergo significant redefinition. The “anti-Armenian” reference reflects the belief that continued demands and activism do not work Armenia’s interests. Pashinyan does not appear to suggest forgetting the genocide but rather limiting it to remembrance and history.
Whenever the diaspora and Armenia are not aligned, it should be a cause for concern. The conflict with the church and the “historical justice” issue reflect a common theme. The government’s position on both issues deeply affects the diaspora yet generally excludes it from consideration. The ramifications of church-state conflict extend far beyond Armenia’s sovereign borders.
The majority of the faithful reside in the diaspora. Likewise, issues of recognition and reparations require serious, direct dialogue between the diaspora and Armenia to optimize the interests of all Armenians. Many in the diaspora desire an Armenia that welcomes them into the nation-building process as a supporting arm. For that to happen, Armenia must adopt a more global mentality and the diaspora must respect the sovereignty of the homeland.
Understanding each other’s perspectives should be a two-way street. Those in the diaspora want Armenia to acknowledge their needs in a global context, while Armenia does not want diaspora investment to translate into political influence. This is a difficult issue for a diaspora that has been self-governing since its inception. The fact that this has not been seriously addressed since 1991 reflects a lack of strategic thinking.
The perception in the diaspora that Pashinyan articulates these views as concessions to Turkey must be discussed openly if there is any hope of closing the widening gap. Most Armenians do not live in Armenia. While justice for the genocide may seem globally important, those in Armenia may be fatigued by security concerns and simply seek a better quality of life. At minimum, there should be openness to differing perspectives on Hai Tahd.
At the same time, the government of Armenia should work to build trust with the diaspora on these policies to strengthen the pan-Armenian framework. In the diaspora, April 24 remains a reminder of injustice and renews a call for activism. What is the value of pursuing advocacy programs if they are not considered a priority by Armenia?
Reconciling these differences must be a priority if we hope to strengthen collective capabilities. The irony is that both the diaspora and the homeland need each other. Harmony and mutual support should be the natural state. Instead of criticizing or ignoring one another, there should be a commitment to direct dialogue. Isolation will only lead to regret.
An excellent piece, Mr. Piligian, that deserves to be read widely. The historical background was accurate and insightful, the approach toward both the nation-state and the diaspora was fair, and the conclusion you reached would create the best circumstances for all Armenians today.
Yes, April 24 takes a new meaning. The PM Nikol Pashinyan’s this April 24 statement makes it evident. There is no newness in substance. The newness is the formalizing at the highest state level, what has been the case since May 28, 1918; Armenia has not had, and does not have, and the unavoidable conclusion for me is that, Armenia will not have territorial, and Armenian Genocide recognition demands from Turkey.
The loss of Artsakh will compound and test Armenia and Diaspora relations, two camps with different perspectives, to the hilt.