Tweet
DIASPORA-ARMENIA RELATIONS: 20 YEARS OF FAILURE?
Sona Avagyan
hetq
July 27, 2011
Policy Forum Armenia (PFA) co-founder David Grigorian stated that the
current format of diaspora-Armenia relations would be better described
as relations between the elite of the traditional diaspora political
parties and the Armenian government.
In a word, there is no contact between grassroots organizations on
both sides of the divide.
Grigorian, who left Armenia in 1994 and now works as a senior economist
at the IMF, argued for the creation of mechanisms and structures
facilitating more meaningful contact amongst average Armenians at a
public discussion organized by the Sardarapat Movement in Yerevan.
"Relations must be lowered down to the micro-level," he said, adding
that only then would the diaspora be able to conduct a series of
practical actions to utilize the human and technical resources
it possesses to make real changes in the lives of ordinary people
in Armenia.
Grigoryan noted that for a long time it was deemed heresy to raise
such issues as corruption and poor governance in Armenia and said that
many diaspora Armenians just remained silent rather than attracting
the enmity of others.
He criticized the traditional structures in the diaspora for the
intolerance they show to new voices and groups wishing to set up shop
and introduce new modalities and ways of thinking.
"There is an absence of real democracy in the traditional diaspora
structures and this is reflected in relations between the diaspora
and Armenia. The field is dominated by these very organizations,"
argued Grigoryan.
The analyst stated that in terms of resolving tactical and strategic
issues, traditional organizations in the diaspora have hit a brick
wall and are in crisis mode.
"The diaspora wasn't able to formulate a joint vision of developing
relations with Armenia. Directly or indirectly, it was the negative
in Armenia that was spurred on," Grigoryan said and cited the flawed
2008 presidential election and the March 1st repression that followed.
He argued that the diaspora has done nothing to see that such events
are not repeated in the future. In addition, the diaspora completely
overlooked and didn't grasp the importance of creating a civil society
in Armenia.
In its State of the Nation Report on "Armenia-Diaspora Relations:
20 Years since Independence" , published last year, Policy Forum
Armenia takes the diaspora to task for not preventing the exodus from
Armenia and for not assuming a serious role in poverty reduction even
though there were certain successful projects that could have served
as future models.
The PFA also criticized the diaspora for not creating investment funds
and scientific centers that could have assisted in developing Armenia.
Mr. Grigoryan said that the All Armenia Fund not only failed to
live up to expectations on a qualitative level, but that it wasn't
able to incorporate the sufficient amount of funds that Armenia's
economy needs.
He said that the time has come to professionally analyze the resources
and potential of the diaspora and to draft an appropriate plan of
action regarding the utilization of these assets in order to lift
Armenia out of the morass it is now in.
"In the 21st century, the diaspora's global network is just as
important as it financial resources and inherent potential. It is a
network of tremendous importance," Grigoryan said.
He said that there are now positive signs coming out of the diaspora,
especially after 2008 and the Armenia-Turkey Protocols. The diaspora
is more informed as to developments in Armenia and new groups are
getting involved in Armenia relations.
Garegin Choukaszyan, an IT specialist and Sardarapat member, described
diaspora-Armenia relations during the past 20 years as a complete
failure and said that one just has to look at Armenia's population
numbers for proof.
"We should at least have a population of 4-5 million today. But, in
many ways due to the diaspora network, supposedly a positive global
factor, the exodus of people from Armenia has been facilitated,"
said Choukaszyan.
He argued that Armenia conducts the same policy regarding the diaspora
as during the Soviet era; only the center has been changed from Moscow
to Yerevan.
As to the role of the Ministry of the Diaspora, David Grigoryan noted
that it was a welcome addition at the beginning but that tragically
it now wants to cover over many of the deep-seated problems facing
Armenia and put a positive spin on things.
During the question and answer segment that followed, someone from
the audience raised a matter of semantics; i.e., would it be correct
to label the return of elements of the traditional diaspora as
"repatriation" (Õ°Õ¡ÕµO~@Õ¥Õ¶Õ¡Õ¤Õ¡O~@Õ±Õ¸O~BÕ©Õ"O~BÕ¶), since their
origins are in western Armenia and not the territory of the current
Republic of Armenia.
Choukaszyan said that such a discrepancy exists since the Republic of
Armenia was based on eastern Armenian territory; an area that makes
up a tiny fraction of the historic Armenian homeland.
"However, I am convinced that this is one homeland and one center in
the sense that if the Republic of Armenia was truly independent it
would have to be concerned, at a priority level, with the survival
of western Armenian. There would be schools teaching the language in
the RA."
Sona Avagyan
hetq
July 27, 2011
Policy Forum Armenia (PFA) co-founder David Grigorian stated that the
current format of diaspora-Armenia relations would be better described
as relations between the elite of the traditional diaspora political
parties and the Armenian government.
In a word, there is no contact between grassroots organizations on
both sides of the divide.
Grigorian, who left Armenia in 1994 and now works as a senior economist
at the IMF, argued for the creation of mechanisms and structures
facilitating more meaningful contact amongst average Armenians at a
public discussion organized by the Sardarapat Movement in Yerevan.
"Relations must be lowered down to the micro-level," he said, adding
that only then would the diaspora be able to conduct a series of
practical actions to utilize the human and technical resources
it possesses to make real changes in the lives of ordinary people
in Armenia.
Grigoryan noted that for a long time it was deemed heresy to raise
such issues as corruption and poor governance in Armenia and said that
many diaspora Armenians just remained silent rather than attracting
the enmity of others.
He criticized the traditional structures in the diaspora for the
intolerance they show to new voices and groups wishing to set up shop
and introduce new modalities and ways of thinking.
"There is an absence of real democracy in the traditional diaspora
structures and this is reflected in relations between the diaspora
and Armenia. The field is dominated by these very organizations,"
argued Grigoryan.
The analyst stated that in terms of resolving tactical and strategic
issues, traditional organizations in the diaspora have hit a brick
wall and are in crisis mode.
"The diaspora wasn't able to formulate a joint vision of developing
relations with Armenia. Directly or indirectly, it was the negative
in Armenia that was spurred on," Grigoryan said and cited the flawed
2008 presidential election and the March 1st repression that followed.
He argued that the diaspora has done nothing to see that such events
are not repeated in the future. In addition, the diaspora completely
overlooked and didn't grasp the importance of creating a civil society
in Armenia.
In its State of the Nation Report on "Armenia-Diaspora Relations:
20 Years since Independence" , published last year, Policy Forum
Armenia takes the diaspora to task for not preventing the exodus from
Armenia and for not assuming a serious role in poverty reduction even
though there were certain successful projects that could have served
as future models.
The PFA also criticized the diaspora for not creating investment funds
and scientific centers that could have assisted in developing Armenia.
Mr. Grigoryan said that the All Armenia Fund not only failed to
live up to expectations on a qualitative level, but that it wasn't
able to incorporate the sufficient amount of funds that Armenia's
economy needs.
He said that the time has come to professionally analyze the resources
and potential of the diaspora and to draft an appropriate plan of
action regarding the utilization of these assets in order to lift
Armenia out of the morass it is now in.
"In the 21st century, the diaspora's global network is just as
important as it financial resources and inherent potential. It is a
network of tremendous importance," Grigoryan said.
He said that there are now positive signs coming out of the diaspora,
especially after 2008 and the Armenia-Turkey Protocols. The diaspora
is more informed as to developments in Armenia and new groups are
getting involved in Armenia relations.
Garegin Choukaszyan, an IT specialist and Sardarapat member, described
diaspora-Armenia relations during the past 20 years as a complete
failure and said that one just has to look at Armenia's population
numbers for proof.
"We should at least have a population of 4-5 million today. But, in
many ways due to the diaspora network, supposedly a positive global
factor, the exodus of people from Armenia has been facilitated,"
said Choukaszyan.
He argued that Armenia conducts the same policy regarding the diaspora
as during the Soviet era; only the center has been changed from Moscow
to Yerevan.
As to the role of the Ministry of the Diaspora, David Grigoryan noted
that it was a welcome addition at the beginning but that tragically
it now wants to cover over many of the deep-seated problems facing
Armenia and put a positive spin on things.
During the question and answer segment that followed, someone from
the audience raised a matter of semantics; i.e., would it be correct
to label the return of elements of the traditional diaspora as
"repatriation" (Õ°Õ¡ÕµO~@Õ¥Õ¶Õ¡Õ¤Õ¡O~@Õ±Õ¸O~BÕ©Õ"O~BÕ¶), since their
origins are in western Armenia and not the territory of the current
Republic of Armenia.
Choukaszyan said that such a discrepancy exists since the Republic of
Armenia was based on eastern Armenian territory; an area that makes
up a tiny fraction of the historic Armenian homeland.
"However, I am convinced that this is one homeland and one center in
the sense that if the Republic of Armenia was truly independent it
would have to be concerned, at a priority level, with the survival
of western Armenian. There would be schools teaching the language in
the RA."