Tweet
'HAI TAHD': NEW PRIORITIES FOR A NEW AGENDA (PART II)
By: Michael Mensoian
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2011/06/08/new-priorities-for-a-new-agenda-part-ii/
Wed, Jun 8 2011
Part I discussed the seven injustices that are represented by Hai
Tahd. Part II will suggest new priorities for a new agenda for the
ARF and the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) in the
United States.
The bedrock of Hai Tahd is the genocide. No one can dispute that
statement. However, the level of priority and resources that are
dedicated to it can and should be disputed. The latest disappointment
in failing to obtain Congressional approval of a genocide recognition
resolution, as well as President Obama's obstinate refusal to use the
word genocide in his April 24th message, would suggest that something
is amiss.
The something amiss is having elevated genocide recognition as
the sine qua non of Hai Tahd. No one questions that passage of a
favorable resolution by the United States Congress or any national
legislature is an important moral victory. However, there is a
significant distinction between legislatures simply recognizing
the Ottoman-Turkish government's systematic murder of the Armenian
people as genocide, and recognizing the Ottoman-Turkish government's
systematic murder of the Armenian people as genocide and Turkey's
legal and moral obligation for reparation and restitution.
More immediate and pressing issues exist that must be confronted. This
does not refer to increasing economic, military, or humanitarian aid to
Armenia or to Karabagh by a few million dollars annually. This amount,
given the billions of dollars in foreign aid routinely budgeted by
Congress, is the result of intense lobbying by the ANCA supported by
the Congressional Armenian Caucus duly reported in press releases each
year. Are we being overly critical if we question our effectiveness?
Mission one of a new agenda
The ARF in the United States and the ANCA occupy a unique position
within the organizational and geographic framework of Armenians
worldwide. The one million-plus Armenians in the United States
represent the second largest concentration of Armenians in the
diaspora after Russia. In terms of per capita income, education,
and professional achievement, they represent an important segment of
the Armenian demographic universe. Unfortunately a high percentage
of these Armenians are either ambivalent with respect to Armenian
issues or completely detached from the Armenian community.
An important mission that the ARF and the ANCA can undertake is to
develop programs that seek to energize targeted segments of this
population. This requires something more than press releases, emails,
mailings, and events that appeal primarily to the very small percentage
of the population continually relied upon for support. That there is
a need for intensive outreach programs is obvious.
Observation one: Our fund raising results are less than stellar. Is
it beyond belief that we should be able to raise at least $5 million
annually? People give when they accept the urgency of the cause. They
give when they can accept how the solicited funds will be used. And
they give based on the results achieved or effectiveness.
Observation two: We attract very few "new" Armenians from this one
million-plus universe to our various events whether at the local,
regional, or national levels. More telling has been our limited
success in connecting with that segment of the population from
their late 20â~@²s to mid-40â~@²s who identify themselves as "young
professionals." A recent panel discussion co-sponsored by the AGBU
Young Professionals and the ARF "Sardarabad" Gomideh in Watertown,
Mass., was an excellent beginning bringing these two groups together
for the first time. Few of these young adults knew what the ARF was
about. Do we consider it important to inform and educate our people
as to our philosophy, our purpose, and our methods in confronting
the issues facing the Armenian nation both internationally and
domestically? Is it remotely possible that most Armenian Americans
are not cognizant of these problems?
Observation three: Have we noted the lack of interest by our youth
in becoming involved? Or the number of AYF Juniors, AYF Seniors, and
Homenetmen members who opt at some later time in life to join the ARF
Gomidehs or the Armenian Relief Society (ARS) chapters? Is it possible
that we lack a compelling message? Or that we do not have a relevant
one? Today is a far different world for our young people than, say, 20
years ago. Have we as an organization accommodated these changes? The
strength of the ARF comes from the support derived from our people,
and that support is directly related to their understanding and
acceptance of the ARF.
A question of revolutionary fervor
Could it be that we have lost the revolutionary fervor that was the
hallmark of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation? Historically we
were a party of action and a party of ideas and ideals. It was never a
question of whether we could or could not. We believed that we could
right the wrongs that the nation had suffered. We believed that we
could protect the interests of the nation. We believed that we could
create a system of justice and equality for the Armenian worker and
his family. It was the faith we had in ourselves individually and
collectively that fueled the passion to serve and to protect the
interests of our people. The ARF had a vision to fulfill, a vision
that literally saved the survivors of the genocide from oblivion in
the diaspora. I do not believe that same vision or passion currently
exists.
Mission two of a new agenda
Our people must understand exactly what Hai Tahd represents and the
role the ARF has in protecting those interests The ARF in the United
States has an opportunity to influence the policies and objectives
ultimately adopted at the highest level of leadership. We must strive
to transform the ARF in the United States into a dynamic, cohesive
political organization capable of influencing the leadership because
of our successes in outreach programs, fundraising, and in expanding
our base of support. Continually having our admirable efforts at
genocide recognition rejected does not inspire confidence in our
operation. Not only are Artsakh and Javakhk of greater concern,
but their favorable resolution will have an immediate and positive
impact on the Armenian nation, Hai Tahd, and the ARF.
Mission three of a new agenda
To define the Karabagh issue. What is the geographic relationship of
Karabagh to Artsakh, or why are the Madrid Principles that are proposed
as the basis for a negotiated settlement biased against Karabagh's
interests? Have we done all we can to acquaint our population in the
United States with the history of this region and the inequities
our people suffered during the 70 years under the jurisdiction of
Azerbaijan?
We have allowed Turkey and Azerbaijan to frame the issue as
Armenian irredentism. Artsakh gaining de jure independence (at the
very least, not losing its present de facto independent status) is
one of several immediate issues facing the Armenian nation and the
ARF. Dashnaks were members of the Karabagh government that declared
independence and the ARF was an active participant in Karabagh's war
for independence. The reversion of Artsakh to Azeri control would be
a serious defeat for Armenia and the ARF. If Artsakh is beyond saving,
what of the remaining injustices represented by Hai Tahd? The various
interests that represent American society--business leaders, educators,
journalists, advocacy groups, and the Congressional Armenian Caucus,
to name but a few--must be made aware of all aspects of the Karabagh
issue if success is to be ours.
Mission four of a new agenda
To monitor and publicize the deplorable situation of the Javakhk
Armenians and to seek assistance not only to alleviate their
condition, but to support their legitimate demands as citizens of
Georgia. Again, the plight of the Javakhkahayer (Javakhk Armenians)
is not well known within the Armenian community. Conflicting reports
define the situation in terms that benefit Georgia. An International
Crisis Group briefing dated May 23, 2011 states: "Although Tbilisi
has significantly invested in infrastructure and acquiesced to the
use of the Armenian language in schools and public administration
Javakheti still faces serious problems."
A Yerkir Union of NGO's for Repatriation and Settlement press release
dated April 18, 2011 challenges the U.S. State Department's 2010 Human
Rights Report on Georgia, claiming that "...the facts of violation
of the rights of the Armenians of Javakheti have been presented in
an incomplete and distorted manner." The areas that the Yerkir Union
press release noted cover a range of economic, political, and cultural
violations that are more serious than those mentioned in the 2010
report on Georgia or in the International Crisis Group Briefing. If
this policy of forced acculturation, population resettlement, and
economic and political marginalization continues, historic Armenian
Javakhk will be irretrievably lost within several generations.
Genocide recognition within context of 'Hai Tahd'
The demand that Turkey should, as the successor state to the
Ottoman-Turkish Empire, recognize its responsibility for the Armenian
Genocide must continue. However this demand may be articulated in
the future, it should be presented within the framework of Hai Tahd,
not as an isolated injustice that can be resolved by passage of a
Congressional resolution recognizing the murder of 1.5 million Armenian
men, women, and children as genocide. The ARF and the ANCA should set
their agendas to undertake those missions that have greatest urgency
and significance to Hai Tahd and the nation.
The historic role of the ARF
The ARF is the principal counterweight to the government of the
Republic of Armenia. Whether in Armenia or in the diaspora, it fulfills
the role of the loyal opposition. During the century from its inception
in 1890 to the founding of the second independent Republic of Armenia
in 1991, the ARF ably and singularly represented the interests of
the Armenian people. Whatever shortcomings or failures it may have
experienced, the dedication, vision, and accomplishments of the ARF
during this period cannot be legitimately challenged. The ARF and
the ANCA has served its people with distinction, but both entities
should take the opportunity to set agendas that not only address
the immediate issues confronting our nation, but seek to expand its
influence well beyond its traditional base of support.
By: Michael Mensoian
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2011/06/08/new-priorities-for-a-new-agenda-part-ii/
Wed, Jun 8 2011
Part I discussed the seven injustices that are represented by Hai
Tahd. Part II will suggest new priorities for a new agenda for the
ARF and the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) in the
United States.
The bedrock of Hai Tahd is the genocide. No one can dispute that
statement. However, the level of priority and resources that are
dedicated to it can and should be disputed. The latest disappointment
in failing to obtain Congressional approval of a genocide recognition
resolution, as well as President Obama's obstinate refusal to use the
word genocide in his April 24th message, would suggest that something
is amiss.
The something amiss is having elevated genocide recognition as
the sine qua non of Hai Tahd. No one questions that passage of a
favorable resolution by the United States Congress or any national
legislature is an important moral victory. However, there is a
significant distinction between legislatures simply recognizing
the Ottoman-Turkish government's systematic murder of the Armenian
people as genocide, and recognizing the Ottoman-Turkish government's
systematic murder of the Armenian people as genocide and Turkey's
legal and moral obligation for reparation and restitution.
More immediate and pressing issues exist that must be confronted. This
does not refer to increasing economic, military, or humanitarian aid to
Armenia or to Karabagh by a few million dollars annually. This amount,
given the billions of dollars in foreign aid routinely budgeted by
Congress, is the result of intense lobbying by the ANCA supported by
the Congressional Armenian Caucus duly reported in press releases each
year. Are we being overly critical if we question our effectiveness?
Mission one of a new agenda
The ARF in the United States and the ANCA occupy a unique position
within the organizational and geographic framework of Armenians
worldwide. The one million-plus Armenians in the United States
represent the second largest concentration of Armenians in the
diaspora after Russia. In terms of per capita income, education,
and professional achievement, they represent an important segment of
the Armenian demographic universe. Unfortunately a high percentage
of these Armenians are either ambivalent with respect to Armenian
issues or completely detached from the Armenian community.
An important mission that the ARF and the ANCA can undertake is to
develop programs that seek to energize targeted segments of this
population. This requires something more than press releases, emails,
mailings, and events that appeal primarily to the very small percentage
of the population continually relied upon for support. That there is
a need for intensive outreach programs is obvious.
Observation one: Our fund raising results are less than stellar. Is
it beyond belief that we should be able to raise at least $5 million
annually? People give when they accept the urgency of the cause. They
give when they can accept how the solicited funds will be used. And
they give based on the results achieved or effectiveness.
Observation two: We attract very few "new" Armenians from this one
million-plus universe to our various events whether at the local,
regional, or national levels. More telling has been our limited
success in connecting with that segment of the population from
their late 20â~@²s to mid-40â~@²s who identify themselves as "young
professionals." A recent panel discussion co-sponsored by the AGBU
Young Professionals and the ARF "Sardarabad" Gomideh in Watertown,
Mass., was an excellent beginning bringing these two groups together
for the first time. Few of these young adults knew what the ARF was
about. Do we consider it important to inform and educate our people
as to our philosophy, our purpose, and our methods in confronting
the issues facing the Armenian nation both internationally and
domestically? Is it remotely possible that most Armenian Americans
are not cognizant of these problems?
Observation three: Have we noted the lack of interest by our youth
in becoming involved? Or the number of AYF Juniors, AYF Seniors, and
Homenetmen members who opt at some later time in life to join the ARF
Gomidehs or the Armenian Relief Society (ARS) chapters? Is it possible
that we lack a compelling message? Or that we do not have a relevant
one? Today is a far different world for our young people than, say, 20
years ago. Have we as an organization accommodated these changes? The
strength of the ARF comes from the support derived from our people,
and that support is directly related to their understanding and
acceptance of the ARF.
A question of revolutionary fervor
Could it be that we have lost the revolutionary fervor that was the
hallmark of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation? Historically we
were a party of action and a party of ideas and ideals. It was never a
question of whether we could or could not. We believed that we could
right the wrongs that the nation had suffered. We believed that we
could protect the interests of the nation. We believed that we could
create a system of justice and equality for the Armenian worker and
his family. It was the faith we had in ourselves individually and
collectively that fueled the passion to serve and to protect the
interests of our people. The ARF had a vision to fulfill, a vision
that literally saved the survivors of the genocide from oblivion in
the diaspora. I do not believe that same vision or passion currently
exists.
Mission two of a new agenda
Our people must understand exactly what Hai Tahd represents and the
role the ARF has in protecting those interests The ARF in the United
States has an opportunity to influence the policies and objectives
ultimately adopted at the highest level of leadership. We must strive
to transform the ARF in the United States into a dynamic, cohesive
political organization capable of influencing the leadership because
of our successes in outreach programs, fundraising, and in expanding
our base of support. Continually having our admirable efforts at
genocide recognition rejected does not inspire confidence in our
operation. Not only are Artsakh and Javakhk of greater concern,
but their favorable resolution will have an immediate and positive
impact on the Armenian nation, Hai Tahd, and the ARF.
Mission three of a new agenda
To define the Karabagh issue. What is the geographic relationship of
Karabagh to Artsakh, or why are the Madrid Principles that are proposed
as the basis for a negotiated settlement biased against Karabagh's
interests? Have we done all we can to acquaint our population in the
United States with the history of this region and the inequities
our people suffered during the 70 years under the jurisdiction of
Azerbaijan?
We have allowed Turkey and Azerbaijan to frame the issue as
Armenian irredentism. Artsakh gaining de jure independence (at the
very least, not losing its present de facto independent status) is
one of several immediate issues facing the Armenian nation and the
ARF. Dashnaks were members of the Karabagh government that declared
independence and the ARF was an active participant in Karabagh's war
for independence. The reversion of Artsakh to Azeri control would be
a serious defeat for Armenia and the ARF. If Artsakh is beyond saving,
what of the remaining injustices represented by Hai Tahd? The various
interests that represent American society--business leaders, educators,
journalists, advocacy groups, and the Congressional Armenian Caucus,
to name but a few--must be made aware of all aspects of the Karabagh
issue if success is to be ours.
Mission four of a new agenda
To monitor and publicize the deplorable situation of the Javakhk
Armenians and to seek assistance not only to alleviate their
condition, but to support their legitimate demands as citizens of
Georgia. Again, the plight of the Javakhkahayer (Javakhk Armenians)
is not well known within the Armenian community. Conflicting reports
define the situation in terms that benefit Georgia. An International
Crisis Group briefing dated May 23, 2011 states: "Although Tbilisi
has significantly invested in infrastructure and acquiesced to the
use of the Armenian language in schools and public administration
Javakheti still faces serious problems."
A Yerkir Union of NGO's for Repatriation and Settlement press release
dated April 18, 2011 challenges the U.S. State Department's 2010 Human
Rights Report on Georgia, claiming that "...the facts of violation
of the rights of the Armenians of Javakheti have been presented in
an incomplete and distorted manner." The areas that the Yerkir Union
press release noted cover a range of economic, political, and cultural
violations that are more serious than those mentioned in the 2010
report on Georgia or in the International Crisis Group Briefing. If
this policy of forced acculturation, population resettlement, and
economic and political marginalization continues, historic Armenian
Javakhk will be irretrievably lost within several generations.
Genocide recognition within context of 'Hai Tahd'
The demand that Turkey should, as the successor state to the
Ottoman-Turkish Empire, recognize its responsibility for the Armenian
Genocide must continue. However this demand may be articulated in
the future, it should be presented within the framework of Hai Tahd,
not as an isolated injustice that can be resolved by passage of a
Congressional resolution recognizing the murder of 1.5 million Armenian
men, women, and children as genocide. The ARF and the ANCA should set
their agendas to undertake those missions that have greatest urgency
and significance to Hai Tahd and the nation.
The historic role of the ARF
The ARF is the principal counterweight to the government of the
Republic of Armenia. Whether in Armenia or in the diaspora, it fulfills
the role of the loyal opposition. During the century from its inception
in 1890 to the founding of the second independent Republic of Armenia
in 1991, the ARF ably and singularly represented the interests of
the Armenian people. Whatever shortcomings or failures it may have
experienced, the dedication, vision, and accomplishments of the ARF
during this period cannot be legitimately challenged. The ARF and
the ANCA has served its people with distinction, but both entities
should take the opportunity to set agendas that not only address
the immediate issues confronting our nation, but seek to expand its
influence well beyond its traditional base of support.