Tweet
WHAT CAN DIASPORA DO UNDER NEW CONDITIONS?
Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments - Wednesday, 04 June 2014, 18:30
The political parties and groups of the Armenian Diaspora returned
to their historical land under different conditions with the Soviet
government, which has certainly left its trace on their further
activities. Their commitments could have been easily discarded but
the political parties did not want to do it for whatever reason.
Future developments were also strange, and the available assumptions do
not provide the understanding of these circumstances. It is possible,
however, that this mysterious story has a banal explanation, such as
the inability of these parties to solve political problems.
There was a search for foreign patrons, and patronage was ensured,
which is related not to political issues but problems of group survival
at any price, in other words, there is an "order to survive", and they
survived, denying actual political problems. As a result, the Diaspora
was divided politically but not according to party affiliation.
In the meantime, Russia did intensive work to make the Diaspora
controllable, having its people penetrate not only into political
groups but also entrepreneurial circles. In addition, leaders of the
Diaspora in Russia participated actively in this work.
Inside the "zone" different more or less popular people - writers,
journalists and newspaper people - participated in this work before
1988. Special attention was paid to the children and grandchildren of
former party and soviet officials who were easily recruited. One has
to acknowledge separate politicians, newspaper people and other active
people who were wily and skilful enough to thwart many initiatives of
the Russians and, as a result, prevent creation of a unified public
structure headed and controlled by the Russians.
Some Diaspora activists in Russia would be surprised had they known
the role they would have to play in thwarting Russia's plans. Aside
from specific results, this work is evidence that a small nation may
successfully fight against the influence of special services of major
states when national interests are concerned.
However, the problem is not only the Diaspora and influence on it. The
key problem is in the very "zone". In the "zone" the Russians did not
have to make significant efforts, the "zone" voluntarily lay under
the Russian boot, and this certainly inspires the Russians in terms
of the Diaspora.
The Diaspora is in a deep and comprehensive crisis caused by the
destruction of the traditional community in the Near East and other
regions in the result of global processes and information science. The
organizations are not operating, more or less big charities and other
financial sources are under the control of specific groups depending
on several states, periodic and traditional political-ideological
literature have basically disappeared.
In the Diaspora new people with a humanitarian education and preferring
to link their views to some pseudo-modernism who are sure that
modernism is a panacea from all mistakes when modernism is replaced
by post-modernism. Nationalism has been replaced by palliative moods
which have nothing to do with the interests of the Diaspora and the
historical homeland.
The new generation of the Diaspora has nominated brilliant specialists
and professionals of different areas but has not been able to
understand what it could have done in real politics. In fact, the
diversity and petty bourgeois nature of the Diaspora has led to the
collapse of the huge potential accumulated over several decades.
Several hundreds of patriotic intellectuals are ready to offer their
services to public organizations but there was no demand because
there is a monstrous discrepancy between the general public and these
people. As a result the Diaspora was unable to influence the political
processes in the historical homeland which has lost its independence
and become a vassal of Russia.
At the beginning of the process the United States tried to use the
services of some Diaspora functionaries to draft objectives relating
to the "zone", then turned to functionaries in the "zone" and now
they need nobody's services. With a strong U.S. lobby, the Diaspora
was unable to be a partner to the American state, and Russia is not
to blame for this but was able to benefit from it.
The public organizations were facing two tasks: the "genocide" and
defense of the Karabakh province, and the Diaspora did everything
it could. However, in the context of these objectives the sovereign
homeland was lost which was given away to Russia by the population
of the zone. Of course, what could the Diaspora do if the "zone" has
surrendered and made a laughingstock of the homeland? But especially
regarding this objective the Diaspora was silent and followed the
political crime from aside. It is possible that if the "zone" had
felt the participation of the Diaspora in its political future,
there would have been no catastrophe.
New political groups have occurred in the Diaspora because people
understand that the meaningless, non-public discussion imposed on
them, including by the leadership of the "zone", has led the Diaspora
and the historical homeland to collapse and loss of prospects. A new
organization is necessary, and many people are ready for this.
The new political groups that are emerging in the United States and
other countries do not have the necessary potential for a long-term
constructive activity. However, these groups could have successfully
carried out destructive work aimed at thwarting Russia's positions,
its policy on the "zone". If the Diaspora, first of all in the United
States, does not make such efforts, it will not be able to be a
partner of the powerful of this world and will abandon the homeland.
These groups have been called to change the atmosphere in the Diaspora
and eventually do politics, not lobbyism, which are not always adequate
to each other.
- See more at:
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/32541#sthash.5RUrTLzA.dpuf
From: Baghdasarian
Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments - Wednesday, 04 June 2014, 18:30
The political parties and groups of the Armenian Diaspora returned
to their historical land under different conditions with the Soviet
government, which has certainly left its trace on their further
activities. Their commitments could have been easily discarded but
the political parties did not want to do it for whatever reason.
Future developments were also strange, and the available assumptions do
not provide the understanding of these circumstances. It is possible,
however, that this mysterious story has a banal explanation, such as
the inability of these parties to solve political problems.
There was a search for foreign patrons, and patronage was ensured,
which is related not to political issues but problems of group survival
at any price, in other words, there is an "order to survive", and they
survived, denying actual political problems. As a result, the Diaspora
was divided politically but not according to party affiliation.
In the meantime, Russia did intensive work to make the Diaspora
controllable, having its people penetrate not only into political
groups but also entrepreneurial circles. In addition, leaders of the
Diaspora in Russia participated actively in this work.
Inside the "zone" different more or less popular people - writers,
journalists and newspaper people - participated in this work before
1988. Special attention was paid to the children and grandchildren of
former party and soviet officials who were easily recruited. One has
to acknowledge separate politicians, newspaper people and other active
people who were wily and skilful enough to thwart many initiatives of
the Russians and, as a result, prevent creation of a unified public
structure headed and controlled by the Russians.
Some Diaspora activists in Russia would be surprised had they known
the role they would have to play in thwarting Russia's plans. Aside
from specific results, this work is evidence that a small nation may
successfully fight against the influence of special services of major
states when national interests are concerned.
However, the problem is not only the Diaspora and influence on it. The
key problem is in the very "zone". In the "zone" the Russians did not
have to make significant efforts, the "zone" voluntarily lay under
the Russian boot, and this certainly inspires the Russians in terms
of the Diaspora.
The Diaspora is in a deep and comprehensive crisis caused by the
destruction of the traditional community in the Near East and other
regions in the result of global processes and information science. The
organizations are not operating, more or less big charities and other
financial sources are under the control of specific groups depending
on several states, periodic and traditional political-ideological
literature have basically disappeared.
In the Diaspora new people with a humanitarian education and preferring
to link their views to some pseudo-modernism who are sure that
modernism is a panacea from all mistakes when modernism is replaced
by post-modernism. Nationalism has been replaced by palliative moods
which have nothing to do with the interests of the Diaspora and the
historical homeland.
The new generation of the Diaspora has nominated brilliant specialists
and professionals of different areas but has not been able to
understand what it could have done in real politics. In fact, the
diversity and petty bourgeois nature of the Diaspora has led to the
collapse of the huge potential accumulated over several decades.
Several hundreds of patriotic intellectuals are ready to offer their
services to public organizations but there was no demand because
there is a monstrous discrepancy between the general public and these
people. As a result the Diaspora was unable to influence the political
processes in the historical homeland which has lost its independence
and become a vassal of Russia.
At the beginning of the process the United States tried to use the
services of some Diaspora functionaries to draft objectives relating
to the "zone", then turned to functionaries in the "zone" and now
they need nobody's services. With a strong U.S. lobby, the Diaspora
was unable to be a partner to the American state, and Russia is not
to blame for this but was able to benefit from it.
The public organizations were facing two tasks: the "genocide" and
defense of the Karabakh province, and the Diaspora did everything
it could. However, in the context of these objectives the sovereign
homeland was lost which was given away to Russia by the population
of the zone. Of course, what could the Diaspora do if the "zone" has
surrendered and made a laughingstock of the homeland? But especially
regarding this objective the Diaspora was silent and followed the
political crime from aside. It is possible that if the "zone" had
felt the participation of the Diaspora in its political future,
there would have been no catastrophe.
New political groups have occurred in the Diaspora because people
understand that the meaningless, non-public discussion imposed on
them, including by the leadership of the "zone", has led the Diaspora
and the historical homeland to collapse and loss of prospects. A new
organization is necessary, and many people are ready for this.
The new political groups that are emerging in the United States and
other countries do not have the necessary potential for a long-term
constructive activity. However, these groups could have successfully
carried out destructive work aimed at thwarting Russia's positions,
its policy on the "zone". If the Diaspora, first of all in the United
States, does not make such efforts, it will not be able to be a
partner of the powerful of this world and will abandon the homeland.
These groups have been called to change the atmosphere in the Diaspora
and eventually do politics, not lobbyism, which are not always adequate
to each other.
- See more at:
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/32541#sthash.5RUrTLzA.dpuf
From: Baghdasarian