First, in no way am I saying forget history, and just concentrate on reconciliation. In fact, reconciliation is not possible without a thorough understanding and acceptance of truthful history by both perpetrator and victim. However, history is more than oft-repeated claims of unity, and of assertions that do not withstand critical scrutiny. Take for example the reaction by several people about the Genocide being a “learnt” injustice in Armenia, while in the diaspora it is an experienced reality. This makes people uncomfortable. But we cannot simply ignore it by saying it is offensive, or it divides the nation. By showing different threads of thought, different approaches and historical experiences, my intention is not at all to divide Armenians into “good” and “bad” (and besides such thinking insinuates that suffering genocide implies being a “good” Armenian! — something I completely reject. In fact, my academic project in the past has been to rebuff the notion of good/bad Armenians, and any notion of “measuring” Armenianness). But I do want to show — and accept — the diversity within the Armenian nation. Rather than being upset or offended at such diversity and mention of divisions, we should analyse the reasons, and apply the analysis to current political realities, and the strategies we need to develop. For instance, I believe that most Armenians in Armenia put their socio-economic well being, and the country’s security, ahead of the Genocide recognition issue. This does not mean that they want to deny the Genocide, or they necessarily like Turkey. But between an abstract political demand (and yes, I did choose the word abstract carefully…) and tangible economic gain, they are going to choose the latter. They are not being bad Armenians or good Armenians. They are being Armenians in a specific time and place, just as diasporans are Armenians in a specific time and a very different place. Diaspora Armenians have no right whatsoever to pass judgement on this, and vice versa.

Second, whenever I speak of differences within the Armenian nation, particularly the East/West divide, or the Armenia/diaspora divide, I am confronted with the “myth of unity” — that we are one nation, one people, one culture, etc., etc. Yes, we are one nation, but that’s about it. We have different languages, different cultures, different outlooks, and different politics. Denying this, in my view, is sticking our heads in the sand. Rather, let’s acknowledge it and work with it. Let’s ask, what unites us, what divides us, and in light of these realities, what strategies can we pursue to advance the interests of the nation. Let’s not wait for some mythical moment that we are all united. That will never come, because it has never existed in Armenian history (we have a very long tradition of decentralised power, politics, culture, etc.). Even the zartonk, the national renaissance of the 19th century, had multiple centres: Bolis, Tiflis, Venice, Moscow/St-Petersburg.

Third, in some comments there is clearly the idea that Turkey is Armenians’ perpetual enemy, out to destroy us, and Russia is the saviour. This is rather simplistic. There is no such thing as perpetual enemy or friend. Instead of making such assertions let’s ask: when, where, why did Turkey commit genocide against the Armenians. Have the conditions changed? Under what circumstances the conditions would change, what can we do to mitigate/prevent genocide, etc., etc. The old adage, “keep your friends close, and keep your enemies even closer” speaks to this. What do we really know about Turkey, and what can we do to learn more? I am afraid the equation Turkey only/always equals genocide is good for nationalist sloganeering, but not good for strategic thinking or national interest. A propos, there has been an important thread in Armenian political thinking about the dangers of Russia. It is no accident that Roupen Tarpinian’s Rusagan Vdanke, first published in 1920 in Yerevan, was republished in 1991 in Yerevan. This line of thinking influenced the ANM and the Armenian independence movement in the late 1980s and early 90s.

Fourth, the example of Israel always comes up. After 2000 years, etc., etc…… I am afraid, the example of the Jews is the exception that proves the rule. A more appropriate example, in my view, is what happened to the indigenous peoples of North America after the European conquest. The lands of historical Armenia are empty of Armenians, but they are not empty of people. Indeed, how many Armenians from the diaspora have emigrated to independent Armenia, and how many toast every year “next year in Yerevan” or in Van, or in Bitlis, etc.? I don’t want to be flippant about it, by any stretch of the imagination. The more important point I want to make is that Israel was founded at a specific moment in history, after the Holocaust, when specific historical conditions and wider global trends favoured the creation of nation states. The global trend in the foreseeable future is for economic integration, along with further cultural fragmentation. In other words, we are — and will be — seeing a world in which greater and greater regions are being integrated while more and more cultures assert their identity without necessarily tying it to a specific and concrete land. I believe this is the direction the Armenian diaspora is going as well. Obviously, I don’t have a crystal ball, and maybe in 200, or 2000 years our descendants will recreate Armenia. But today’s politics, and today’s needs and strategies cannot be governed by something that is so abstract. Perhaps I am too much of a realist lacking a national vision of 2000 years, but somehow I doubt Jews in the Middle Ages organised their politics around return to Jerusalem (the Zionist movement – i.e. Jewish nationalism – was, like other nationalisms, a product of the 19th century).

Finally, the point about diasporas not having a “foreign policy.” This is true in the traditional sense of politics. Foreign affairs is the prerogative of states. However, I don’t see politics from an exclusively state-centric perspective. I believe diasporas can and do have their own “foreign policy,” but I always put the words “foreign policy” in the diasporan context in quotation marks to delineate the difference. Political parties and their affiliated institutions that organised and led the post-Genocide Armenian diaspora acted as “governments-of-exile” (this point was first made by Khachig Tololyan some 20 years ago) who did have a “foreign policy” that was different from the Armenian SSR. Similarly now, diasporan organisations do pursue policies which can be characterised as “foreign policy” separate from the policies of the Republic of Armenia.

Sorry for the long reply. I hope I managed to clear some points and not obfuscated matters more! We do need as much critical debate as possible in the Armenian world! I do welcome your comments.

You say this: “Whoever our neighbors are we cannot get rid of them. We need to talk with them. We need to have working, active borders.”

Armineh, are you sure you live on this planet?

It was Turkey that tried to “get rid of” Armenia.
And Armenia has never refused to talk to Turkey. Moreover, are you unaware that it was Turkey that closed the border, not Armenia?

Also, Sevag says this:

“Nevertheless, Eastern Armenia has been part of the Russian Empire and the collective consciousness of Eastern Armenians has been influenced by their past association with Russia not Turkey.”

Yes, and so? In other words, Sevag believes Turkey can no longer constitute a real danger to Armenians. If this is true, why has “Russian Armenia” chosen to have Russian troops guard its borders against Turks?

The answer: present-day Armenia’s consciousness is fully aware of the Turkish danger and Turkey’s centuries old ambition to expand to the east. Russia also knows this. Sebvag does not. Sevag, are you aware that Russia – knowing of the Turkish danger – does not want Turkish intrusion into the Caucasus and Central Asia and has worked to prevent it?

“None are so blind as those who refuse to see.”

How dare you to make such a “gross generalization”? Who gave you the right to measure the “Armenianness” of those who live in Armenia? If nothing else, it is NOT YOU or NONE of the Diaspora Armenians, who live there, protect and build Armenia.

Don’t you understand that such an approach is just contributing to what Turks are trying to do – “Divide and Rule” (c).

The author is implicitly advocating that not only we give up our rights in our lands, but that we also contribute to the Turkish economy by going to our lands as “tourists”. My sincere belief is that if we continue the struggle and consolidate our efforts, one day – probably not in our life-time – we will earn the right to go to our lands not as “tourists”, but as the rightful owner of the land for which Armenians lived and died for thousands of years.