We present the Eastern Armenian version of the article by Raffi Artalchyan published in the newspaper "Azdak" titled “What is the Real ‘Widespread Myth’. In Connection with the Views of Parliament Member Arman Yeghoyan on the Diaspora”:
Raffi Artalchyan
Recently, parliament member Arman Yeghoyan brought to the parliamentary podium a topic of debate regarding one of the prevalent perceptions about Armenia-Diaspora relations. He asserted that the strengthening of the diaspora can mainly occur at the expense of Armenia, as the numerical growth of the diaspora comes from emigration from Armenia or relocation from one colony to another. Therefore, according to him, the strengthening of the diaspora is the weakening of Armenia.
There is a portion of truth in this mindset, but the conclusion drawn from it is fundamentally wrong:
First, it must be accepted that the diaspora is not a state. It has no government, army, unified budget, or a single decision-making center. We agree. However, the diaspora is also not a new phenomenon that emerged after the independence of the Republic of Armenia. It is an Armenian network formed over centuries due to our history, which existed long before the current republic and created significant economic, cultural, intellectual, and political resources throughout different historical periods.
Second, considering the demographic weakening of Armenia as the strengthening of the diaspora is undoubtedly wrong. When Yerevan or Gyumri are devastated, while Glendale is growing, it does not mean that the collective Armenian strength is increasing. Many of us have sadly observed the waves of emigration since independence and the resulting demographic weakening of Armenia and the ongoing waves of emigration. Moreover, due to regional instability, we have sadly witnessed the waves of Armenians seeking refuge in Armenia and outside of it, whom we unfortunately could not permanently retain in Armenia — the Armenians from Baku, Iraqi Armenians, Syrian Armenians, Lebanese Armenians, and recently even some from Artsakh. But in the end, every Armenian decides their own life path and destiny and where they want to live. Our community must create the conditions and institutions that will encourage Armenians to repatriate to Armenia and allow them to settle there permanently when seeking refuge in Armenia.
Photo: REUTERS
It is also interesting to note the reverse movement. If we look closely at the Armenians settled in Armenia, we will see that among them there is a significant presence of conscious Armenians who grew up or were educated in Armenian institutions. That is, sometimes it is the national capital created by the diaspora that returns to Armenia years later.
Yes, repatriation should be encouraged. Armenia strengthens when diaspora Armenians live there, work, establish businesses, create value, and build their families.
But here lies the main issue with Yeghoyan's argument. The strength of the diaspora cannot be measured solely by the number of people. One million well-educated, organized, interconnected Armenians can have a much greater capacity than two million fragmented Armenians. The question is not just about numbers, but about potential. Capital, knowledge, access to universities, governments, and companies, political connections, cultural institutions, technology, and global networks are all sources of strength. The diaspora may numerically weaken but still strengthen in capacity.
This phenomenon is not new in our history. The small Armenian colony in Madras became one of the important centers of Armenian thought. There, Shahamir Shahamiryan and Osep Emin worked, and ideas about Armenian statehood and political revival were born without increasing that colony through emigration from Armenia. At the same time, the Mekhitarists in Venice and Vienna created enormous intellectual and cultural resources. Armenian strength has not always been created within the geographical borders of Armenia and has not been strengthened through emigration from Armenia.
Yeghoyan poses an interesting question about the diaspora in his speech: “Who owns this phone number?” The answer is simple: no one. And perhaps that is how it should be:
It is not necessary for a nation to have one command center. It needs institutions that can create connections, coordination, and cooperation between its various centers. Yes, the Republic of Armenia today is the sovereign political center of the Armenian people. But this does not imply that all Armenian capital must be located in Armenia. Throughout our history, we have created capital not only in other states but also established Armenian statehood in Cilicia during periods of statelessness.
However, it is worth recalling what this “without a phone number” diaspora has done for Armenia over the past four decades. Since the 1988 earthquake, it has helped the victims, participated in the restoration of the new state after independence, financed roads, schools, apartments, and hospitals, purchased and donated buildings for Armenian embassies in various capitals, and organized international political support during the first war in Artsakh and thereafter. Kirk Kirkorian's “Lincy” Foundation alone has provided more than one billion dollars to Armenia. With the initiative or participation of Armenians from the diaspora, the American University of Armenia, TUMO, FAST, COAF, the “Tree Planting Program in Armenia,” “Aurora,” and the Global Armenian Fund were created and developed. The capital of Armenians from the diaspora participated in the modernization of “Zvartnots,” the development of Armenia's technological system, and the rise of science, culture, education, and entrepreneurship. And thousands of others have dedicated their money, knowledge, connections, time, and sometimes their lives to the service of Armenia and Artsakh. The capital, knowledge, and connections of Armenians from the diaspora have also played a significant role in the establishment and development of high technologies in Armenia, including the recently implemented Firebird artificial intelligence deal. Our small family foundation is also one of many examples: with its modest resources, it has contributed to several programs in Armenia and played a significant role in establishing the national vaccination program.
Photo: REUTERS
And I am sure I am forgetting thousands of other bright spots in this short enumeration. The people of Armenia know what I am talking about. Every time I visit the country, I see that recognition and gratitude towards the diaspora in people's eyes:
All this happened without “one phone number,” without one center, and without one commander:
So the issue is not about choosing between a strong Armenia or a strong diaspora. The political issue is to multiply the capacities of both and connect them with each other. But this is a long topic, for which we have not yet found a joint answer since independence:
And it is precisely for this reason that today we must beware of one danger: the internal political struggle in Armenia has already created sufficiently deep divisions. Exporting this to the diaspora will not create new strength. On the contrary, it will divide the Armenian potential that needs to be unified and multiplied today:
We do not need new fronts. What we lack is the political imagination and institutions that can connect the Armenian resources spread across Armenia and the world:
Parliament member Arman Yeghoyan may need to consider that the diaspora may not have a “clear weight category.” But the real “myth” seems to be that Armenian strength is only strength when it is concentrated in Yerevan:
This article was published with the support of the Gulbenkian Foundation: the views expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of the Gulbenkian Foundation or Mediamax.
