The attached is the translation of the first part of Vera Yacoubian’s article posted in Aztag Daily on July 22, 2026. It is subtitled Armenia-Diaspora Relations: From Slogan to Strategy. The link to the original article is posted below. Vaհe H Apelian
Almost every politician, intellectual, church or community leader who speaks about the Armenian people sooner or later comes to the same epilogue: “Armenia and the Diaspora are one,” “Armenians are one nation,” “A unified global Armenian system must be created.” For decades, these expressions have been repeated so often that they have almost turned into national conviction, the truth of which no one tries to verify. They are accepted as self-evident realities, not as ideas that need to be examined, disputed and tested.
History teaches us that the future of nations has never been built on beautiful slogans. Slogans can inspire, excite, and even temporarily unite, but they cannot replace strategy. National survival and development are based not on rhetoric, but on realistic assessments, long-term planning, and solid institutions. Therefore, if we are truly concerned about the future of the Armenian people, the first duty is not to create new slogans, but to critically review the slogans that have been repeated for years.
Perhaps one of the most important questions today is the following: the idea that “Armenia and the Diaspora as one national system” really is a feasible strategy; or is it a beautiful but vague notion that satisfies our national feelings more than it solves our national problems?
This question may be perceived by many as extremely suspicious or even dangerous. There is an atmosphere in Armenian public thinking in which the idea of national unity is almost sanctified. The impression is often created that raising questions about this idea itself means questioning national solidarity. However, the reality is the opposite. A nation that does not dare to reexamine its basic ideas is doomed to continue making the same mistakes, under new names.
The question, therefore, is not against unity. On the contrary, the question is, what kind of unity are we talking about? Because without answering that question, the word "unity" becomes everything and nothing at the same time.
Are we talking about cultural unity? From that point, it can be confirmed that such a unity exists to a greater extent. Regardless of geographical distances, Armenians, as one nation, continue to preserve common historical memory, national symbols, cultural heritage and, to varying degrees, linguistic and religious identity.
But if we talk about political unity, the picture is completely different. And if we mean institutional unity, then we are forced to accept that such a system does not exist today. If, in the end we are talking about a nationwide strategy, then we must honestly admit that we have not yet agreed even on the question of what are the common national priorities of the entire Armenian people.
These simple differences are often overlooked in Armenian political discussions. The word "unity" has become a magical expression, in which everyone puts their preferred meaning. For one, it means moving to Armenia, for another, organizing a fundraiser, for a third, a political campaign, for a fourth, singing patriotic songs or running an Armenian school. All of these undoubtedly have a national value, but together they would not constitute a national system
Herein lies the whole problem. We have been talking about unity for years without ever agreeing on what that unity means.
A slogan that everyone repeats, but no one defines
Perhaps one of the greatest weaknesses of Armenian national thinking is that we have loved to proclaim great ideas, but have paid much less attention to their content. The idea of “Armenia-Diaspora unity” is the most striking example of this.
For decades, this expression has been repeated in political speeches, party conventions, pan-Armenian meetings, and state declarations. But if we try to find a clear definition of this idea, we will notice that almost everyone understands something different.
For some, this unity is benevolence. In other words, the Diaspora should continue to provide economic support to Armenia, and Armenia should express gratitude.
For others, unity means that the Diaspora should unconditionally support the policies of the Armenian government, regardless of the change of government.
There are also those who envision a world Armenian parliament, a pan-national government, or a new type of pan-Armenian representative body.
Many even have never thought about the practical consequences of this expression.
This uncertainty is dangerous, because in political thinking, vague ideas usually turn into unworkable programs. There can be no strategy when the basic concepts of strategy have not yet been defined.
What is even more worrying is that in Armenian reality, four completely different concepts are often confused: national identity, national solidarity, national cooperation, and national governance.
National identity means that people feel themselves Armenian. National solidarity means that they stand by each other in difficult times. National cooperation means that different structures work together around certain goals. And the national system means an organized structure where there are responsibilities, decision-making processes, priorities, and a long-term strategy.
However, in Armenian discourse, all these levels are often presented as the same phenomenon. It seems as if the fact that Armenians from different parts of the world commemorate April 24 on the same day or rally during a national disaster automatically means that there is also a unified national system.
This is a dangerous confusion
Emotional solidarity has never replaced institutional organization. No people have built its future solely on a common memory or patriotic feelings. They have created institutions, rules, responsibilities, and decision-making procedures. Only then has national identity become a political and strategic force.
Therefore, when we repeat that “Armenia and the Diaspora are one,” the real question should not be “Do we belong to the same nation?”, because almost no one disputes that. The real question is this: do we have the structures, the trust, the political culture, and the shared responsibility that transform one nation into a functioning national system?
And if the answer to this question today is negative, then perhaps it is time to stop declaring that we already have what we have not yet created in reality.
Does the Diaspora exist as a single national entity?
One of the most used words in the context of “Armenia-Diaspora” relations is “Diaspora.” We are so used to this word that we almost never ask who we are talking about in reality. It seems that there is one unified Diaspora, which has one voice, one will, one political ideology, and one national program. But is that really the case?
In reality, the concept of “Diaspora” is more of a collective name than a unified political reality. It includes communities living in dozens of countries, which were formed in completely different historical, political, economic, and cultural conditions. American Armenians have different experiences than Lebanese Armenians. The national activities of French Armenians have developed on different foundations than that of Russian Armenians. Even the Armenian communities of Argentina, Canada, Australia, or Iran have developed different ways of preserving their national identity because the challenges they face are not the same.
This is not a simple geographical difference. It creates a different political mindset.
For a Lebanese Armenian, political participation is part of national survival. For a French Armenian, the political struggle for the recognition of the Genocide may be a priority. For American Armenian organizations, influential lobbying is a natural practice. The priorities of a Russian-Armenian businessman may be completely different, conditioned by the political and economic environment in Russia.
All of this is natural. What is unnatural is the expectation that all these different realities should automatically form a single political will.
Very often, when people from Armenia talk about the “opinion of the Diaspora,” the question is not asked as to which Diaspora is being talked about. Who has the authority to speak on behalf of the entire Diaspora? Is it the large organizations? The churches? Charitable institutions? Political parties? Businessmen? Intellectuals? Or the new generation, which often has a completely different idea of national identity?
There is no clear answer to these questions.
This means that Armenian political thinking has been based for years on a somewhat dangerous assumption: that there is a unified Diaspora with which Armenia can speak as a single political partner. In reality, Armenia is dealing not with one Diaspora, but with many Armenian worlds, between which there are sometimes as great differences as between Armenia and those communities.
Perhaps it is time to accept that the word “Diaspora” itself can be misleading. It creates the impression that all Armenian communities around the world form a single organized whole, while the reality is more like a network of interconnected but uncoordinated people. There is cooperation in that network, but there is no unified leadership. There is national sympathy, but no common strategy. There are many successful initiatives, but there is no national center to coordinate them.
Accepting this reality is not a defeat. On the contrary, it is the first step towards more realistic thinking, because until we accept that the Diaspora is a polycentric reality, we will continue to try to solve non-existent problems and ignore real ones.
Link: Մէկ Ազգ, Բայց Մէ՞կ Համակարգ` Հայաստան-Սփիւռք Յարաբերութիւններ` Կարգախօսէն Դէպի Ռազմավարութիւն https://www.aztagdaily.com/archives/696511
No comments:
Post a Comment