August 1, 1918: The inaugural session of Armenian National Assembly.

Today, Tatul Hakopyan wrote that August 1, can be celebrated in Armenia as Parliamentarianism Day, because the first session of the first ever  Armenian National Council/Parliament took place on that day in 1918. Vaհe H Apelian

Courtesy Tatul Hakobyan

I quote Tatul Hakobyan: “The first legislative body in the history of Armenia, the parliament, was formed in the summer of 1918, two months after the proclamation of the First Republic. It was also the first legislative body in the history of Armenia that was formed not by elections, but as a result of political agreement.

The first parliament, which bore the name of Council, was formed by tripling the members of the Armenian National Council, as well as by involving 6 Turks (in today's terminology, Azerbaijanis) and one Russian and one Yezidi, for a total of 46 deputies, of which 38 were Armenians.

The following political forces were represented in the Council: The Armenian Revolutionary Federation, the Armenian People's Party (Ramkavars), the Social Democrats, and the Socialist Revolutionaries.

On August 1, 1918, the first session of the Council of Armenia opened in the hall of the Yerevan City Club, which was attended by the entire government, headed by Prime Minister Hovhannes Kajaznuni. (See note 10). Also present at the session were representatives of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Turkey, the consul of Persia, and representatives of the Russian and Muslim national councils. Among the high-ranking Armenian military officers present were Tovmas Nazarbekyan and Movses Silikyan.

The honor of opening the first session of the first legislative body of Armenia was given to Dashnaktsutyun Avetik Sahakyan. Amidst profound silence, Sahakyan took the stage and delivered the opening speech, which was translated into Russian and Turkish on the spot”

Avedik Sahakyan’s speech at the inaugural session:

“Citizens, Deputies of the Council of Armenia.

On behalf of the Supreme Armenian National Council, I have the honor today to open the inaugural session of the Council of Armenia and to declare that from now on this is the only authorized body encompassing the state power of the Republic of Armenia.

This day will become historic for us and will open a new bright era in the life of our young state.

This day will always be memorable and for the reason that for the first time we see realized within our narrow horizons the beautiful dream and cherished desire for self-determination, albeit in impossibly difficult conditions.

Assuming that many of you are not well informed about the issue of our country's independence, I find it extremely important to present to this high assembly the stages through which the idea of ​​independent states in Transcaucasia has passed from its inception to its final formulation.

Our republic, like the others, emerged as independent state from the day the Transcaucasian Sejm declared itself dissolved on May 26 [1918]. On the initiative and proposal of the Georgian Social Democratic faction, Georgia declared itself independent on the same day.

After the collapse of the Transcaucasus, our country was left to its own devices, so the Armenian National Council hastened to take over all the functions of the government.

It was then that the well-known ultimatum of the Ottoman government about new land acquisitions was received and a response was required within 48 hours. The Supreme Council immediately sent a separate delegation to Batumi in the person of Hovhannes Kajaznuni, Mikael Papajanyan and Alexander Khatisyan, giving them extraordinary powers to negotiate with the Turkish delegation. (Note 1)

Our delegation managed to make some corrections to the borders, but was still forced to accept the ultimatum and conclude a peace alliance with Vehib Pasha and Khalil Bey. Here, for the first time, the deputies of the Armenian National Council were officially recognized as representatives of independent Armenia and signed the June 4 alliance [Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the Republic of Armenia and the Ottoman Imperial Government, 1918].

The independence of our state is also known to the allied states of Dajkastan(Turkey): Germany, Austria, Bulgaria. Our second delegation is in Constantinople, which includes Avetis Aharonyan, Alexander Khatisyan and Mikael Papajanyan, who traveled there at the invitation of the Ottoman government to conduct negotiations with Tajikistan and its allied states.

Thus, having comprehensively examined the country's forces and the circumstances in which the Armenian people find themselves, on the one hand, and the political and economic situation created, on the other, the Armenian National Council squeezed its heart and with a merciless conscience decided to finally accept the ultimatum and recognize the independence of Armenia, surrendering itself to the impartial judgment of history.

Yes, our republic is small and with narrow borders, it has been deprived of its most valuable territories and cannot accommodate the entire population within it and, it seems, does not have the conditions for an independent existence. But I believe that the borders of the country cannot remain frozen forever. I believe that the borders of the country will expand with the iron force of life, with the protection of our just and indisputable rights in relation to the occupied territories and with a new friendly alliance with Dajkatan (Turkey) and its allied states, whose representatives are present here. We have chosen the path of agreement and peace, and I want to hope that we are not mistaken.

Until then, we will fulfill our duties arising from the peace alliance with holiness and steadfastness. Let us leave aside future prospects, at least today here, without hesitation and with full determination, we cast anchor on our stateship and lay the foundation of the state building, striving to always improve it for the benefit of all nationalities of the Republic of Armenia, as children of one dear motherland.

I declare the session of the Council of Armenia open.”

Avetik Sahakyan was born in 1864 in Jalaloghli (now Stepanavan). In 1920, when Armenia was Sovietized, Sahakyan moved to Tabriz. He died in 1933 in Lebanon.

***

Note 1: On the 13th of June [1918], An Armenian delegation, representing  the Republic of Armenia, consisting of Avedis Aharonian, Alexander Khatisian and Mikayel Papajanian, left Tiflis and on the 19th of the same month arrived in Constantinople, where it remained until November 1, that is, approximately for 4 and a half months.

Impact: A sister reflcts ` Անդրադարձ

I have often wondered if those who place pictures of the persons who gave the last full measure of their devotion, their lives; reflect on the impact their martyrdom had on their family members. In a rare reflection, Sonig Daghlian, the sister of Varche Daghlian, one of the Lisbon 5, reflects. She wrote. I attached my translation of her refelction on her Facebook page. The original is posted below. Vahe H Apelian

 

A life versus a moment of "love".

Sharing the pictures of our martyrs on social networks, putting a "heart" or "like" on them has become a superficial, ordinary doing. We scroll through the pages, post their pictures, press the button, read the same repeated slogans... and continue on with our lives, as if we had fulfilled our national duty.

But the boys who gave their lives for the homeland are not "page pictures" or the subject of an algorithm. Their names and faces cannot be turned into mere digital data or personal wall (profile) pictures.

A moment of "love" cannot be measured against their irrevocable sacrifice. When our response becomes spontaneous and superficial, it ceases to be respectful—it serves only to soothe our conscience and escape responsibility.

If we do not reflect on their portraits, if we do not reflect on the lives they lived, the dreams they lost, and the message they left, then those “appreciations” mean nothing.

We shouted “to homeland” but we moved thousands of miles away from “the homeland.”

 

Անդրադարձ

Կեանք մը՝ ընդդէմ մէկ վայրկեաննոց «սէր»ի մը։

Ընկերային ցանցերու վրայ մեր նահատակներուն նկարները տարածելը, «սէր» (heart) կամ «հաւանում» (like) դնելը դարձած է մակերեսային, սովորական քայլ մը։ Կը սահինք ( scroll through )էջերուն վրայ, կը տեղադրենք անոնց նկարները, կը սեղմենք կոճակը, կը կարդանք նոյն կրկնուող կարգախօսները… եւ կը շարունակենք մեր կեանքը, կարծես թէ մեր ազգային պարտքը կատարած ըլլայինք։

Բայց հայրենիքի համար իրենց կեանքը տուած տղաքը «էջի նկար» կամ ալկորիթմի նիւթ չեն։ Անոնց անուններն ու դէմքերը չեն կրնար վերածուիլ պարզապէս թուային տուեալներու ( digital data) կամ անձնական պատի ( profile) նկարներու։

Մէկ վայրկեաննոց «սէր» մը չի կրնար չափուիլ անոնց անդառնալի զոհողութեան հետ։ Երբ մեր արձագանգը կը դառնայ ինքնաբերական ու մակերեսային, անիկա յարգանք ըլլալէ կը դադրի—անիկա միայն մեր խիղճը հանգստացնելու եւ պատասխանատւութենէ փախչելու կը ծառայէ։

Եթէ կանգ չենք առներ անոնց դէմքերուն առջեւ, եթէ չենք խորհիր անոնց ապրած կեանքին, կորսուած երազներուն եւ անոնց ձգած պատգամին մասին, ապա այդ «հաւանումները» ոչինչ կը նշանակեն:

«Դէպի երկիր» բացագանչեցինք, սակայն հազարաւոր մղոններով հեռացանք "Երկրէն": 

Պատահական Խոհեր բարեկամէս՝ Երկու առասպելներու բարեկամութիւնը

 Այս պատահական խոհերը ստացած եմ բարեկամէս։ կը վերարտադրեմ այստեղ։  Վահէ Յ Աբէլեան

Առասպելական Գործարարը

Քըրք Քըրքորեանը (1917–2015) ամերիկեան գործարարական պատմութեան ամենահետաքրքիր և միևնույն ժամանակ ամենաքիչ հանրայնացուած մեծ գործարարներէն մէկն էր։  Ան յաճախ ճանչուած էր որպէս «մեկա-ռիզորթներու հայր», քանի որ ան գրեթէ միայնակ վերափոխեց Լաս Վեկասի և Հոլիուտի տեսքը՝ ստեղծելով բազմամիլիարանոց կայսրութիւն՝ միաժամանակ ամբողջովին խուսափելով հանրային ուշադրութենէն։

Ան լի էր հակասութիւններով. բարձր խաղադրույքներով խաղացող էր, բայց չէր սիրէր ուշադրութեան կեդրոնը ըլլալ, իսկ ութերորդ դասարանէն յետոյ դպրոցը թողած մարդ ըլլալով՝ կարողացած էր գերազանցել Ուոլ Սթրիթի ամենախելացի ղեկավարներուն։

1. Դժուար սկիզբ եւ դժուար մանկութիւն

Քըրքորեան ծնած է Գալիֆորնիայի Ֆրեզնո քաղաքը՝ Հայոց ցեղասպանութենէն փրկուած հայ ներգաղթեալներու ընտանիքի մէջ։ Ան հասակ առած է ծայրահեղ աղքատութեան մէջ։ Հայերենը իր առաջին լեզուն էր, իսկ անգլերէնը սորված է Լոս Անջելեսի փողոցները՝ թերթ վաճառելով, որպեսզի օգնէ ընտանիքին, որը յաճախ ստիպուած էր տուն փոխել վտարման պատճառով։

Ութերորդ դասարանէն յետոյ ան թողեց դպրոցը և սկսաւ զբաղիլ սիրողական բռնցքամարտով՝ հանդես գալով «Rifle Right Kerkorian» մականունով։ Աւելի ուշ ան նուաճեց Խաղաղովկիանոսեան տարածաշրջանի սիրողական կիսամիջին ծանրութեան (Welter weight) ախոյեանի տիտղոսը:

 

2. Երկրորդ համաշխարհային պատերազմը և օդանաւագնացութեան վերելքը

1930-ականներու վերջերուն, Քըրքորյան սիրահարուեցաւ օդանաւագնացութեան։ Թռիչքի դասերու համար վճարելու նպատակով ան պատրաստ էր մաքրել ախոռները և կթել կովերը առասպելական օդաչու Ֆլօրընս «Բանչօ» Բարնզի ագարակին մէջ։

Երկրորդ համաշխարհային պատերազմի ընթացքին ան միացաւ Մեծ Բրիտանիայի Թագաւորական ռազմաօդային ուժերու Ferry Command-ին։ Ան՝ գործարանէն նոր դուրս ելած ռմբակոծիչներ կը տեղափոխէր Ատլանտեան ովկիանոսի վրայով:

Այդ թռիչքները կը համարուէին չափազանց վտանգաւոր՝ խիստ եղանակային պայմաններու և սահմանափակ կողնորոշող ( navigation) հնարավորութիւններու պատճառավ։ Իւրաքանչիւր թռիչքի համար ան կը ստանար շուրջ 1,000 տոլար և այդ գումարը խնայելով՝ հիմք դրաւ իր ապագայ գործին։

Պատերազմի աւարտէն ետք ան գնեց աւելցուկային ռազմական ինքնաթիռներ, վերանորոգեց և վաճառեց զանոնք զգալի շահույթ ապահովելով։ Այնուհետև հիմնեց փոքր չարդրային օդանաւային ընկերութիւն՝ Trans International Airlines (TIA)-ը, որը Լոս Անջըլըսէն Լաս Վեկաս կը տեղափոխէր բարձրակարգ խաղացողներ։ Հետագային ան վաճառեց ընկերությունը 104 միլիոն տոլարով։

3. Լաս Վեկասի և Հոլիուտի վերափոխողը

Օդանաւագնացութենէն ստացած միլիոնները Քըրքորեան ներդրաւ անշարժ գույքի և զուարճանքի ոլորտին մէջ՝ հետևելով «աժան գնել, թանկ վաճառել» ռազմավարութեանը։

Լաս Վեգասի մեկա-հանգստավայրերը`

Քըրքորեան երեք տարբեր ժամանակահատածներուն միջոցին կառուցեց աշխարհի ամենամեծ հիւրանոցներէն և խաղատուներէն երեքը.

International Hotel (1969) – Յայտնի որպես այն վայրը, ուր Էլվիս Փրեսլի սկսաւ իր համերգային կեանքը։

Առաջին MGM Grand Hotel and Casino (1973)։

Ժամանակակից MGM Grand (1993)։

MGM ֆիլմի նկարահանման վայրը:

1969 թվականին ան գնեց պատմական Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) ֆիլմի նկարահանման ընկերութիւնը։ Ֆինանսական բացառիկ հմտութիւն ցուցաբերելով՝ ան երեք տարբեր ժամանակահատվածներու ընթացքին գնեց և վաճառեց MGM-ը՝ ամեն անգամ ստանալով զգալի շահույթ և օգտագործելով MGM անուանումը՝ իր հիւրանոցային ցանցը զարգացնելու համար։

Օդանաւաշինութեան փոփոխություններու նախաձեռնողը:

Կեանքի աւելի ուշ շրջանին ան դարձավ Տիթրոյթի օդանաւաշինութեան մեծ ներդրողներէն մեկը՝ ձեռք բերելով Chrysler, General Motors և Ford ընկերություններու զգալի բաժնեմասեր և նպաստելով լայնածաւալ բաժնետիրական փոփոխություններու։

4. Լուռ միլիարդատերը

Չնայած Քըրք Քըրքորեանի կարողութիւնը ժամանակ մը կը գնահատուէր մօտաւորապէս 20 միլիար տոլար, ան լիովին կը մերժէր միլիարատէրերու բնորոշ ճոխ ապրելակերպը։

- Կը հրաժարէր իր անունը տալ որևէ շենքի:

-  Անձամբ կը վարէր իր սովորական Ford Taurus-ը կամ Jeep Cherokee-ն, կը կրէր հասարակ Timex ժամացույց և կը շրջագայէր առանց թիկնապահներու կամ մեծ ուղեկցող խումբի։

Ան սեփական միջոցներով կը վճարէր նույնիսկ իրեն պատկանող հիւրանոցները մնալու և սնուելու համար՝ հետևողականօրեն հրաժարելով ընկերութեան կողմէ տրամադրուող անվճար արտօնութիւններէն։

Ան երբեք հրապարակային ելույթներ չէր ունենար, չափազանց հազուադէպ հարցազրոյցներ կու տար և կը նախընտրէր, որ մարդիկ նույնիսկ չճանչնային զինք, որպեսզի կարողանար աննկատ շրջգայիլ իր սեփական խաղատներուն մէջ։

5. Գաղտնի բարեգործութիւն և Հայաստան

Քըրք Քըրքորեան Ամերիկայի պատմութեան ամենաառատաձեռն բարեգործներէն մէկն էր։ Իր Lincy Foundation-ի (անուանած իր դուստրերու՝ Լինտայի և Թրեյսիի պատուին) միջոցաւ ան նուիրեց աւելի քան 1 միլիար ԱՄՆ տոլար։ Սակայն ան ուներ խիստ կանոն․ բոլոր նուիրատուութիւնները պետք է ըլլային լիովին անանուն։ Եթէ որևէ բարեգործական կազմակերպութիւն հրապարակեր իր անունը, ան կը սպառնար դադարեցնել ֆինանսաւորումը։

Ան ողջ կեանքի ընթացքին խոր և անխզելի կապ կը զգար իր հայկական արմատներուն հետ։ 1988 թուականի աւերիչ Սպիտակի երկրաշարժէն յետոյ, ինչպես նաև Հայաստանի հետխորհրդային դժուարին անցման տարիներուն, Քըրքորյան լուռ կերպով ֆինանսաւորեց ենթակառուցուածքներու, դպրոցներու, հիվանդանոցներու և մայրուղիներու վերակառուցումը երկրի տարբեր շրջաններուն։ 2004 թվականին իրեն շնորհուեցաւ Հայաստանի Ազգային հերոսի կոչումը՝ երկրի բարձրագոյն պետական պարգևը։

Քըրք Քըրքորեանը մահացաւ 2015 թվականին՝ 98 տարեկան հասակին թողնելով  բացառիկ օրինակ մը, թէ ինչպէ՞ս կարելի է ստեղծել հսկայական  առեւտրական կայսրութիւն՝ միաժամանակ պահպանելով անձնական կեանքի լիակատար գաղտնիութիւնը։

Կ՛արժէ աւելցնել, թէ Հայաստանի համար նուիրաբերած հսկայական գումարներու մեծ մասը իւրացուած են Հայաստանի երկրորդ նախագահ ռոպեր քոչարեանին կողմէ:

*

 

Առասպելական  մարզիկը

Առասպելական բռնցքամարտիկ Մայք Թայսըն յայտնի  ամերիկահայ սպորտային լրագրող, խմբագիր և մարտարվեստներու մեկնաբան Մանուկ Հակոբեանո հետ հարցազրույցին նեկայացուցեր է Հայաստան կատարած այցի իր ջերմ տպավորությունները։, ինչպես նաև յիշել ամերիկահայ մեծ բարերար Քըրք Քըրքորեանը։

Թայսընի խօսքով՝  ինքը ցանկացած պահուն պատրաստ է կրկին այցելել Հայաստան։

«Ես ցանկացած ժամանակ կրնամ մեկնիլ Հայաստան։ Այնտեղ կ՚ապրին մարդիկ, որոնք իսկապես հիանալի հոգի ունին։ Ինծի պետք չէ վճարել, որպեսզի այնտեղ երթամ. այն  շատ գեղեցիկ երկիր է»,– ըսած է ան։

Խօսելով Քըրք Քըրքորեանին մասին՝ Թայսըն կը պատմէ դեպք մը.

Օրին մէկը, երբ Թայսըն յարձակած  էր տղամարդու մը վրայ, որ տեսախցիկով մտած էր զուգարան իր ետեւէն։ Իր խօսքով՝  այդ միջադէպէն ետք, Քըրքորյան սեփական ինքնաթիռի կ՚ուղարկէ, որպեսզի Թայսընը խուսափի ձերբակալութենէ։

«Ան իմ և իմ ընտանիքին համար ուղարկեց իր հսկայական ինքնաթիռը։ Քըրքորյան օգնած է բազմաթիւ հայերու Հայաստանի մէջ։ Ան, ինչպես ես, այն մարդոցմէ էր, որոնք թույլ չեն տար, որ իրենց հետ կատակեն»,– յիշած  է Թայսըն։

 

 

One Nation, but one structure too? – 2/2 -

The attached is the translation of the second and last part of Vera Yacoubian’s article posted in Aztag Daily on July 24, 2026. The link to the original article is posted below. Vaհe H Apelian

Do all Armenians want the same thing?

There is another deeply rooted conviction in Armenian national thinking that is rarely examined. That conviction is that all Armenians have the same national interests and the same vision of the future. On the surface, this idea seems very natural. After all, Armenians belong to the same history, the same culture, and the same national memory.

But a nation is not just a memory. A nation is also a political and social reality. And political realities always create different interests.

The Republic of Armenia is a state. It is responsible for the security of its citizens, its economy, its borders, and its international relations. The state has often to make a choice not between ideal, but between possible solutions. Sometimes compromise in foreign policy may be necessary for the survival of a state. Sometimes economic interests may take precedence over emotional demands.

The Diaspora, on the other hand, is not a state. It has no obligation to protect its borders. It has no state funds, army, or diplomatic responsibility. The primary mission of Diaspora organizations is the survival of their communities, the preservation of national identity, and support for Armenia. For this reason, they can often adopt more principled, and sometimes more radical, positions because they do not bear the direct consequences of state decisions.

This difference is natural, but too often forgotten.

The result is that whenever Armenia’s state interests and the expectations of certain segments of the Diaspora do not coincide, mutual accusations immediately begin. One side accuses Armenia of sacrificing “national principles,” while the other side accuses the Diaspora of speaking from afar and not bearing state responsibility.

This debate has been repeated for years because both sides start from the wrong assumption that they must have the same priorities.

But why?

Is the American-Armenian businessman, the Lebanese-Armenian school principal, the French-Armenian lawyer, the Syunik border guard soldier, and the young entrepreneur in Yerevan obligated to think the same way about all the world’s issues simply because they are Armenian?

 

This expectation is not only unrealistic, but also anti-democratic. National unity does not mean political uniformity. On the contrary, mature nations learn to manage their differences, not to eliminate them.

These differences, however, do not create different nations. They are different social and political expressions of the same nation. National maturity begins when a people ceases to view difference as division and begins to transform it into a source of cooperation. In the Armenian case, the real challenge is not to impose a unified mindset, but to unite diversity around a single national vision.

Armenian political discourse has for many years tried to present consensus as a prerequisite for unity. Meanwhile, in reality, the exact opposite is true. First, there must be a culture of cooperation, after which a system of joint decisions can be built.

Perhaps it is time to abandon the illusion that all Armenians will often think the same way. That day will not come. But it is also not necessary.

The real challenge is not to have everyone have the same opinion. The real challenge is whether Armenians with different opinions can build a common national strategy together.

Answering this question is much more important than endlessly repeating, “We are one nation.”

The greatest absence is the absence of national institutions.

If we are honest, the greatest obstacle facing the idea of ​​“Armenia and the Diaspora as one national system” is not geographical distance, political differences, or even assimilation. The greatest absence is the absence of institutions.

History shows that no nation has ever achieved its long-term goals solely through national sentiment or moral appeals. Successful nations have created institutions that have ensured continuity, regardless of political changes. They have built structures that have not only worked in times of crisis, but also on a daily, consistent, and long-term basis.

In the Armenian case, the picture is completely different.

Every time Armenia finds itself in difficulty, the entire Diaspora comes together. Fundraisers, humanitarian initiatives, political campaigns, and volunteer work are organized. All of these are phenomena worthy of pride and have repeatedly proven that the Armenian people have an exceptional ability to unite in difficult times.

However, the same question must be asked again: is crisis unity sufficient to create a national system?

The answer, however difficult it may be to accept, is negative.

A crisis cannot become an example of national governance. A nation that unites only in times of danger, but does not have a joint strategy in peacetime, in fact continues to act by reacting to events, and not by anticipating them.

In this regard, Armenians still act more with the logic of a nation that reacts than with the thinking of a nation that develops a strategy.

There is another more worrying question. We talk a lot about pan-Armenian cooperation, but in reality, who is responsible for organizing that cooperation?

Is there a body where the Republic of Armenia, the main organizations of the Diaspora, the scientific world, the economic sphere, and the younger generation together discuss the strategy of Armenians for the next 20-30 years?

Is there a national council that regularly assesses demographic changes, educational status, language preservation, economic potential, or geopolitical developments?

Is there a structure that not only responds to events, but also develops future plans and national policies?

The reality is sad: such a system almost does not exist.

There are numerous organizations, charitable foundations, political parties, church institutions, educational and cultural structures. Many of them do a tremendous amount of work. But this diversity does not automatically create a system. Very often these structures operate independently of each other, sometimes even in competition with each other. They have different priorities, different agendas and different ideas about the future of the Armenian people.

The result is that we have a rich organizational life, but we do not have a unified national governance architecture.

At this point, we must dare to raise another sensitive issue.

For decades, Armenians have confused charity with strategy.

Charity is necessary. It has saved in many cases: Armenian schools, churches, cultural centers and even entire communities. However, charity cannot replace national politics.

Fundraising is not a national strategy.

Building a school is not educational policy in itself.

One businessman’s investment does not create an economic system.

The existence of successful individuals does not mean scientific politics.

These are all important moments, but they do not make up the whole picture.

National strategy begins when all these initiatives cease to be separate islands and begin to serve common, previously agreed-upon goals.

Can Armenia lead all Armenians?

This question has long been an almost taboo subject. Many automatically assume that since Armenia is a national statehood, then naturally it must also be the leader of all Armenians.

But the political reality is much more complicated.

The state has legal authority only over its citizens. The Republic of Armenia is responsible to the citizens of Armenia, not to Armenians all over the world. Its governments come and go through elections, and the majority of the Diaspora does not participate in that process.

This raises a difficult question: to what extent can any government in Armenia represent the will of the entire Armenian people?

On the other hand, does the Diaspora have the democratic legitimacy to speak on behalf of Armenia?

The answer is again negative.

That is why the question “Who represents all Armenians?” remains unanswered.

Perhaps the problem is not that we do not have an answer. Perhaps the problem is that we have never seriously tried to find that answer.

We have preferred to maintain creative ambiguity. Each side has presented itself to some extent in the name of the whole, but in reality, no one has that authority.

This ambiguity may work for a while, but in the long term it will become an obstacle to national development.

Is a real global Armenian system possible?

After all this criticism, one can come to the wrong conclusion that the idea of ​​“Armenia and the Diaspora as one national system” is unworkable.

Such a conclusion, however, would be as superficial as uncritical optimism.

The problem is not the idea.

The problem is the way in which we have imagined that idea for years.

If by “one national system” we mean that Armenians all over the world should have one political opinion, one leadership, and the same priorities, then that project is not only unrealistic, but also contradicts the real diversity of Armenians.

But if by “one national system” we mean a multi-centered, but coordinated global network, where Armenia remains the axis of national statehood, and the Diaspora becomes an organized force of scientific, economic, cultural, and international capabilities, then that goal is not only possible, but perhaps the only realistic path for the survival of the Armenian people.

However, that path should not begin with new slogans.

It should not begin with another conference.

It should not begin with another declaration that “Armenia and the Diaspora are one.”

It will begin the day when Armenians dare to admit that national feelings are not enough to create a national system.

It will begin the day when priority is given to building institutions, developing a long-term strategy, coordinating knowledge, and a clear division of responsibilities.

And perhaps the most important step will be to accept that national unity is not measured by how many times we repeat “we are one nation.” It is measured by how much we have the ability to think together, to disagree, to make decisions, and to implement long-term goals.

Finally, perhaps the most troubling question is this: do Armenians really want to become one organized national system, or are we more satisfied talking about that idea than taking on all its political, organizational, and moral consequences?

Because having a unified national system is not just a right. It is also an obligation. It requires shared responsibility, shared priorities, mutual trust, compromises, and sometimes even subordinating one’s own organizational or political interests to larger national goals.

This is where the beautiful slogan ceases to be a simple phrase and turns into a real political choice.

And perhaps the future of the Armenian people will be determined not by the answer to the question, “Are Armenia and the Diaspora one?”, because in a historical and cultural sense, the answer to that question has been given many times. The Armenian people are one nation not because they have common state borders, but because they bear a common historical memory, civilizational heritage, and national self-awareness. Our historical and geographical diversity should not be viewed as a national division, but as different expressions of the global Armenian presence.

The main challenge of the Armenian people of the twenty-first century is to transform that diversity into a single strategic whole.

(end)

Link: One Nation, but one structure too? – 1/2 - https://vhapelian.blogspot.com/2026/07/one-nation-but-one-structure-too.html

ԲՆԱԳԻՐԸ՜Link: Մէկ Ազգ, Բայց Մէ՞կ Համակարգ` https://www.aztagdaily.com/archives/696621

 

One Nation, but one structure too? – 2/2 -

The attached is the translation of the second and last part of Vera Yacoubian’s article posted in Aztag Daily on July 24, 2026. The link to the original article is posted below. Vaհe H Apelian

Do all Armenians want the same thing?

There is another deeply rooted conviction in Armenian national thinking that is rarely examined. That conviction is that all Armenians have the same national interests and the same vision of the future. On the surface, this idea seems very natural. After all, Armenians belong to the same history, the same culture, and the same national memory.

But a nation is not just a memory. A nation is also a political and social reality. And political realities always create different interests.

The Republic of Armenia is a state. It is responsible for the security of its citizens, its economy, its borders, and its international relations. The state has often to make a choice not between ideal, but between possible solutions. Sometimes compromise in foreign policy may be necessary for the survival of a state. Sometimes economic interests may take precedence over emotional demands.

The Diaspora, on the other hand, is not a state. It has no obligation to protect its borders. It has no state funds, army, or diplomatic responsibility. The primary mission of Diaspora organizations is the survival of their communities, the preservation of national identity, and support for Armenia. For this reason, they can often adopt more principled, and sometimes more radical, positions because they do not bear the direct consequences of state decisions.

This difference is natural, but too often forgotten.

The result is that whenever Armenia’s state interests and the expectations of certain segments of the Diaspora do not coincide, mutual accusations immediately begin. One side accuses Armenia of sacrificing “national principles,” while the other side accuses the Diaspora of speaking from afar and not bearing state responsibility.

This debate has been repeated for years because both sides start from the wrong assumption that they must have the same priorities.

But why?

Is the American-Armenian businessman, the Lebanese-Armenian school principal, the French-Armenian lawyer, the Syunik border guard soldier, and the young entrepreneur in Yerevan obligated to think the same way about all the world’s issues simply because they are Armenian?

 

This expectation is not only unrealistic, but also anti-democratic. National unity does not mean political uniformity. On the contrary, mature nations learn to manage their differences, not to eliminate them.

These differences, however, do not create different nations. They are different social and political expressions of the same nation. National maturity begins when a people ceases to view difference as division and begins to transform it into a source of cooperation. In the Armenian case, the real challenge is not to impose a unified mindset, but to unite diversity around a single national vision.

Armenian political discourse has for many years tried to present consensus as a prerequisite for unity. Meanwhile, in reality, the exact opposite is true. First, there must be a culture of cooperation, after which a system of joint decisions can be built.

Perhaps it is time to abandon the illusion that all Armenians will often think the same way. That day will not come. But it is also not necessary.

The real challenge is not to have everyone have the same opinion. The real challenge is whether Armenians with different opinions can build a common national strategy together.

Answering this question is much more important than endlessly repeating, “We are one nation.”

The greatest absence is the absence of national institutions.

If we are honest, the greatest obstacle facing the idea of ​​“Armenia and the Diaspora as one national system” is not geographical distance, political differences, or even assimilation. The greatest absence is the absence of institutions.

History shows that no nation has ever achieved its long-term goals solely through national sentiment or moral appeals. Successful nations have created institutions that have ensured continuity, regardless of political changes. They have built structures that have not only worked in times of crisis, but also on a daily, consistent, and long-term basis.

In the Armenian case, the picture is completely different.

Every time Armenia finds itself in difficulty, the entire Diaspora comes together. Fundraisers, humanitarian initiatives, political campaigns, and volunteer work are organized. All of these are phenomena worthy of pride and have repeatedly proven that the Armenian people have an exceptional ability to unite in difficult times.

However, the same question must be asked again: is crisis unity sufficient to create a national system?

The answer, however difficult it may be to accept, is negative.

A crisis cannot become an example of national governance. A nation that unites only in times of danger, but does not have a joint strategy in peacetime, in fact continues to act by reacting to events, and not by anticipating them.

In this regard, Armenians still act more with the logic of a nation that reacts than with the thinking of a nation that develops a strategy.

There is another more worrying question. We talk a lot about pan-Armenian cooperation, but in reality, who is responsible for organizing that cooperation?

Is there a body where the Republic of Armenia, the main organizations of the Diaspora, the scientific world, the economic sphere, and the younger generation together discuss the strategy of Armenians for the next 20-30 years?

Is there a national council that regularly assesses demographic changes, educational status, language preservation, economic potential, or geopolitical developments?

Is there a structure that not only responds to events, but also develops future plans and national policies?

The reality is sad: such a system almost does not exist.

There are numerous organizations, charitable foundations, political parties, church institutions, educational and cultural structures. Many of them do a tremendous amount of work. But this diversity does not automatically create a system. Very often these structures operate independently of each other, sometimes even in competition with each other. They have different priorities, different agendas and different ideas about the future of the Armenian people.

The result is that we have a rich organizational life, but we do not have a unified national governance architecture.

At this point, we must dare to raise another sensitive issue.

For decades, Armenians have confused charity with strategy.

Charity is necessary. It has saved in many cases: Armenian schools, churches, cultural centers and even entire communities. However, charity cannot replace national politics.

Fundraising is not a national strategy.

Building a school is not educational policy in itself.

One businessman’s investment does not create an economic system.

The existence of successful individuals does not mean scientific politics.

These are all important moments, but they do not make up the whole picture.

National strategy begins when all these initiatives cease to be separate islands and begin to serve common, previously agreed-upon goals.

Can Armenia lead all Armenians?

This question has long been an almost taboo subject. Many automatically assume that since Armenia is a national statehood, then naturally it must also be the leader of all Armenians.

But the political reality is much more complicated.

The state has legal authority only over its citizens. The Republic of Armenia is responsible to the citizens of Armenia, not to Armenians all over the world. Its governments come and go through elections, and the majority of the Diaspora does not participate in that process.

This raises a difficult question: to what extent can any government in Armenia represent the will of the entire Armenian people?

On the other hand, does the Diaspora have the democratic legitimacy to speak on behalf of Armenia?

The answer is again negative.

That is why the question “Who represents all Armenians?” remains unanswered.

Perhaps the problem is not that we do not have an answer. Perhaps the problem is that we have never seriously tried to find that answer.

We have preferred to maintain creative ambiguity. Each side has presented itself to some extent in the name of the whole, but in reality, no one has that authority.

This ambiguity may work for a while, but in the long term it will become an obstacle to national development.

Is a real global Armenian system possible?

After all this criticism, one can come to the wrong conclusion that the idea of ​​“Armenia and the Diaspora as one national system” is unworkable.

Such a conclusion, however, would be as superficial as uncritical optimism.

The problem is not the idea.

The problem is the way in which we have imagined that idea for years.

If by “one national system” we mean that Armenians all over the world should have one political opinion, one leadership, and the same priorities, then that project is not only unrealistic, but also contradicts the real diversity of Armenians.

But if by “one national system” we mean a multi-centered, but coordinated global network, where Armenia remains the axis of national statehood, and the Diaspora becomes an organized force of scientific, economic, cultural, and international capabilities, then that goal is not only possible, but perhaps the only realistic path for the survival of the Armenian people.

However, that path should not begin with new slogans.

It should not begin with another conference.

It should not begin with another declaration that “Armenia and the Diaspora are one.”

It will begin the day when Armenians dare to admit that national feelings are not enough to create a national system.

It will begin the day when priority is given to building institutions, developing a long-term strategy, coordinating knowledge, and a clear division of responsibilities.

And perhaps the most important step will be to accept that national unity is not measured by how many times we repeat “we are one nation.” It is measured by how much we have the ability to think together, to disagree, to make decisions, and to implement long-term goals.

Finally, perhaps the most troubling question is this: do Armenians really want to become one organized national system, or are we more satisfied talking about that idea than taking on all its political, organizational, and moral consequences?

Because having a unified national system is not just a right. It is also an obligation. It requires shared responsibility, shared priorities, mutual trust, compromises, and sometimes even subordinating one’s own organizational or political interests to larger national goals.

This is where the beautiful slogan ceases to be a simple phrase and turns into a real political choice.

And perhaps the future of the Armenian people will be determined not by the answer to the question, “Are Armenia and the Diaspora one?”, because in a historical and cultural sense, the answer to that question has been given many times. The Armenian people are one nation not because they have common state borders, but because they bear a common historical memory, civilizational heritage, and national self-awareness. Our historical and geographical diversity should not be viewed as a national division, but as different expressions of the global Armenian presence.

The main challenge of the Armenian people of the twenty-first century is to transform that diversity into a single strategic whole.

(end)

Link: One Nation, but one structure too? – 1/2 - https://vhapelian.blogspot.com/2026/07/one-nation-but-one-structure-too.html

Link: Մէկ Ազգ, Բայց Մէ՞կ Համակարգ` https://www.aztagdaily.com/archives/696621