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
