An Abridged Analysis of the PFA and its Recent Report

BY WILLIAM A. BAIRAMIAN

The Policy Forum of Armenia (PFA) recently hosted a forum at the Glendale Public Library based on its publication, Armenia-Diaspora Relations: 20 Years Since Independence. The Report is meant to be a critical analysis of the relationship between the Diaspora and Armenia since an independent Armenian republic was established. I believe that the PFA’s message in the Armenia-Diaspora report is counterproductive and is simply an organized iteration of an already tired discourse.

Although a more thorough critique of the PFA’s Report and corresponding panels is possible, and necessary, I will aim to concentrate on two areas: first, the purported discord between Armenia and the Diaspora and second, the supposed inefficacy of Diasporan organizations in improving Armenia’s lot.

I. Inventing Discord

An initial conjecture by the PFA is that there has been a drift between the Diaspora and Armenia from the time of the Republic’s independence movement. This is confounding because it is unclear what relations between the two were in existence prior to Armenia’s independence that such a drift could even occur. That is akin to saying that the planets in the universe were drifting apart before the universe ever existed. Regrettably, this disingenuous statement was the model which was followed throughout the PFA’s report, without proper qualification.

This dubious “drift” notwithstanding, the PFA’s idea that there is discord between the Diaspora and Armenia is premised on an idea of bringing “the two halves of the nation together”. It proceeds by implying that the Diaspora has certain responsibilities toward Armenia and that it has failed in fulfilling those responsibilities. In general terms, it is wrong to portray the relationship between the Diaspora and the Armenia as though the former has a debt to pay to the latter.

The Diaspora is wholly independent of Armenia as an entity, it developed in the void of an Armenian state and, in that time, it assumed a distinct character. Expectedly, its objectives oftentimes do not correspond to those of the Armenian government or the necessities of the Armenian citizenry. Accordingly, to point to these differences between the Diaspora and Armenia as though they belie a discord between the two is maladroit.

Just as Armenians who lived under the Soviet yoke for eighty years have had an occasionally difficult time adjusting to newfound freedoms in both the Diaspora and in Armenia, likewise have Diasporan Armenians had to adjust to the reality that there is an Armenian state with which they may now establish a relationship. Even when individuals from the Diaspora have made forays into Armenia, they have sometimes, unfortunately, had to deal with the vastly different circumstances of doing business there, including corruption and a weak legal system.

Although, given these realities, it would have been understandable if Diasporans took some time to warm to the idea of an independent Armenia, the complete opposite occurred and relations were quickly established between the two. To criticize the Diaspora for not living up to its potential chooses to ignore the incredible confidence that Diasporans have indeed placed in Armenia’s development, despite very significant differences of opinion with their brethren.

The PFA’s neglect of the many Diaspora-Armenia organizations that have continuously fulfilled social and humanitarian needs, among others, over the past twenty years, is truly befuddling. Diasporans have attempted to repopulate Armenia’s forests (Armenian Tree Project and Armenian Forests NGO); established the worldwide Armenian Bone Marrow Donor Registry; built roads, hospitals, schools, and waterways with millions of dollars that have been raised though ArmeniaFund; helped to rebuild homes (AYF Youth Corps and the Land and Culture Organization); and, hundreds of Diasporan volunteers, both youth and professionals, have volunteered in the fields of civil society improvement, law, women’s rights, and development (Armenian Volunteer Corps and Birthright Armenia).

Based on the PFA’s criticism of the Diaspora, one might think that it expected the Diaspora to act as an international organization, à la the UN and World Bank, providing economic aid and creating “investment vehicles”, governance assistance programs, and policy advice pipelines. Although I credit the PFA for being ambitious, it could have certainly made such suggestions without attaching a critique of the Diaspora’s efforts for context.

There are certainly many problems with the Armenian Diaspora, its disjointed governance, its internal struggles, its apathy, and its own existential worries as it concerns the survival of an Armenian identity and language within it. The PFA chooses to superficially touch upon these problems without properly considering their gravity and how they might affect the Diaspora’s relations with Armenia – typical of a coffee shop argument based on hyperbole rather than any multi-variable scientific study one might expect from a policy think tank.

It is surely helpful to believe that more can always be done and that is an approach that would benefit Diaspora-Armenia relations. Nevertheless, to categorically ignore reality and then to present a suffocatingly negative perspective is really an excess that could have been avoided if the PFA’s true objective was to foment any sort of progress.

II. Scapegoats

Curiously, the Policy Forum of Armenia seems overly concerned with the failings of the current Diaspora political organizations and less with suggestions about what the Armenian community can do to improve its effectiveness in the American political system. I postulate that this is because many of those involved with the PFA, although strikingly critical of the work of current Diaspora political organizations, have a scant understanding of how those organizations work to offer a proper critique of them. Moreover, I venture that those PFA individuals have spent few hours assisting or doing any of the work they are criticizing those organizations of not doing, such as increasing economic aid to Armenia.

Our Diaspora political organizations lack two grave resources: manpower and money. Although, for example, an organization like the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) has a large grassroots network, its staff in Washington, DC, is comprised of four full-time employees and two part-time ones. With such a small workforce, it is a wonder that Armenia is able to get any economic aid from the United States at all. But they do.

Despite their small size and comparatively limited financial resources, Diaspora political organizations have been able to win aid for Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh; they have required elected representatives to take note of, and respond to, the Armenian-American communities throughout the United States; and, they have made progress in motivating Armenian-American Diasporans to participate in the electoral process, among many other things. The PFA acknowledges some of these accomplishments but treats them as being given, failing to properly appreciate the difficulty with which these victories were achieved, again, likely as a result of their unfamiliarity with politics on the ground level.

The PFA Report makes strong statements about why Diaspora organizations are not serving the communities they represent but their claims lack the statistical analysis – surveys or polls – that would support its points; analysis that might be expected after reading about its operational objective of “using the latest social science research methodologies[…]” on its website.

It would have been useful to see the PFA study the phenomenon that despite the massive increase in the number of Armenians in the United States in the past thirty years, there does not seem to have been a corresponding increase in the number of active participants in national political activism by Armenian-Americans, nor has there been a markedly large increase in the financial resources of these organizations. This is very likely the result of the tendency of many Diasporans, both newly arrived and longtime residents of the United States, to act as armchair observers and offer their opinions about what is not being done without doing anything themselves.

What I do find especially fascinating is that although the criticisms about the organizations and their work are plentiful, there has not been any sustained effort to fill the gaps that these organizations indeed have left open.

If one were to speak to anyone involved with any Diaspora political organization, they would know that many criticisms about their shortcomings emanate from the organizations themselves. The difference between these individuals and those of the PFA’s ilk is that the former are actually working while the PFA is enumerating known problems.

I would be sincerely pleased to see a Diasporan organization wholly committed to increasing economic and military aid to Armenia. Thus, I propose that the PFA assume this responsibility so as to alleviate the workload currently borne by the existent organizations in the absence of others who could be doing that work instead.

III. Words and Actions

The perverted aspect of PFA is that it gives our community members who already do nothing an outlet for them to justify their apathy and inaction. They can now point to the panelists with prestigious titles that are leveling opprobrium onto the Diaspora and its current organizations and say that they would indeed like to get involved were it not for the inherent problems of the system. This convenient excuse will undoubtedly lead to the PFA enjoying an increase in its support base but it will not change the dynamic when it concerns Diasporans taking a more active interest in both their own political affairs, and those of Armenia’s.

The trap of political intellectualism is that it is often accompanied with a vociferous commitment against physical involvement, endless musing and conversation being preferred to actual work. As such, the PFA’s approach is to place the onus of responsibility on others – the Diaspora, the Diasporan organizations, the Armenian government and populace – while it observes and critiques their activities.

The Armenian community is already replete with critics; what it needs are actors. I commend the PFA for endeavoring to invigorate discussion about ways to improve Armenia. But, if it intends to reach its purported goal of “strengthening discourse on Armenia’s economic development and national security and through that helping to shape public policy in Armenia”, it would do well by engaging apathetic Diasporans instead of formalizing the inane political analyses of the dinner table.

Armenians have not earned the right to criticize their Diaspora and its organizations because they are far from being involved and active enough in them to have reached that point. Once individual Diasporans assume the burden of responsibility on each of their own shoulders, they may begin to criticize those who have already done so, albeit with much due respect.

Authors

Discussion Policy

Comments are welcomed and encouraged. Though you are fully responsible for the content you post, comments that include profanity, personal attacks or other inappropriate material will not be permitted. Asbarez reserves the right to block users who violate any of our posting standards and policies.

6 Comments

  1. Gagik Melikyan said:

    Excellent article. This is an in-depth and constructive analysis of current state of affairs. What we do not need, as a nation, is more negativism, more critic, more apathy, and more indifference. People have to come forward, get involved, and contribute to the best of their abilities, without offending anybody, or diminishing the accomplishments of others. We are a relatively small nation, and we need to UNITE. It’s time to learn to talk to each other without antagonizing the audience, community, and peers. Our wealth is a large number of highly trained, devoted professionals and business people, and this is the time when we, as a nation, have to capitalize on it. Waiting on the sidelines to see what happens, or which government is in power in Yerevan, is not justifiable any more, by any standard, or by any criterion.

  2. varoujan said:

    well said! Activism always gives results. The contingent of supporters of PFA or others that came from Armenia and feel that the Diasporan orgs or political parties have a disconnect with reality in Armenia than they should work from within and bring change. Talk is just talk and no action.

    I remember how in the mid 70s young Lebanese Armenians who came to US from the war torn Beirut were revolted by the apathy of the American Armenian community while they would have to defend their Armenian communities baring arms. Yet they entered the structures of US Diaspora orgs and have given a huge breath of life and activism to our orgs. Maybe one day the large immigrant population from Armenia will be active and learn to dialog and do team work, cooperate and do joint events, rather than be lone rangers, pushing forward their own ego.

  3. Steven said:

    Well done at debunking the popular “coffee house” scapegoating found in the PFA report.

    The sad truth is that the Armenian State has failed to take the mantle that was expected of it by its citizens and the Armenian people everywhere Those include:

    1. Pursuit of Hai Tad by representing its peoples lawful claims before the international court and community as only it can;

    2. The promise of return for diasporans. At a time when it suffered a striking loss of almost one half its population this last 19 yrs it should have established a return policy of easy citizenship and a “40 acres and a mule ” program;
    To repopulate and reinvigorate an economy and a nation. (Even its Soviet overlords recognized the value of that in the 40’s)

    3. It has failed to work closely and cooperatively with diasporan organizations that have vital experience in governmental affairs and international relations, such as the ARF and its network of political offices in over 22 countries around the world. Thereby further weakening and insuring itself to a satrap role in the region with almost all means of production and its infrastructure controlled by Russia.

    4. Finally it has failed to establish a means of communication with its large and well established diaposra to fully harness its means in all arena to better the lot of the Armenian State and the dream it promises of a culture and place for that people for perpetuity.

  4. Vasgen said:

    Finally, a well written critique of Armenian Politics. Not only do we need writers and articles about these issues, but we need action! Sure, the ANCA has started, but they only concentrate on their own agenda’s. We need to expand, but before that, we need to step back,reorganize,revitalize, and reinstate our agenda in a clear and concise manner.

  5. Armen Vahramian said:

    Mr. Bairamian:
    You have prepared a very sobre and detailed analysis of the so-called “Policy Forum Armenia” meeting. I am afraid you are giving these people a lot more importance than they deserve. I am glad you noticed that their analysis is flawed, but it is not the first time. Look at what they prepared for the impact of the Economic crisis on Armenia (see their report where, for instance, they forecast the price of gold to fall after Dec 2008!). Top that with their arrogance in dealing with fellow Armenians (Dashnaks in particular) and you get an idea of what I mean.
    I draw the readers’ attention to an exchange I have had with one of their senior fellows on the Armenian Weekly comment section. The reader can draw his own conclusion as to the type of people we have here pretending to run a ‘forum’: http://www.armenianweekly.com/2010/02/20/second-annual-pfa-forum-on-armenia-diaspora-relations/ please go down to the comment section to see the exchange.
    You can also see the arrogance of their senior co-founder in the exchange I had with him here: http://www.armenianweekly.com/2010/03/31/hovannisian-%e2%80%98armenia-diaspora-relations-20-years-since-independence%e2%80%99/ Note the uncouth language he uses (still kicking huh?). Now you get the idea of the kind of people we are dealing with. And to think that they accuse the Dashnaks of being ‘rough’!
    I hope they learn a lesson and treat fellow Armenians with respect, if they still want to pretend they run a ‘forum’.
    Thank you again for the excellent analysis.
    AV

  6. Pingback: Corruption in Armenia: Not What You Think | theGampr

*

Top