The second forum of Policy Forum Armenia (PFA) ends March 2. The three-day event gathering intellectuals, academics and policymakers has been held around the subject of Armenia-Diaspora Relations: 20 Years Since Independence. Representatives of all Armenian parties, charity and national structures had been invited to attend.

PFA, a D.C.-based think tank with associates from a dozen countries, has attempted to evaluate the current situation in the mutual relations of Armenia and its Diaspora as well as prospects of this relationship. The involvement of Diaspora in the life of Armenia is regarded in three aspects: economic development, reforms in the sphere of governance and public sector, civil society development. A PFA report contained critical evaluations on all the mentioned directions.

The relations between Armenia and its far-flung Diaspora that originated in consequence of the 1915 Genocide in Ottoman Turkey, have become a subject of many discussions in the past 20 years. All-Armenian congresses were convened in 1999, 2002 and 2006, during which prospects of Armenia-Diaspora cooperation were discussed.

Tigran Sargsyan has also been advocating the establishment of an “Armenian world” ever since he was appointed Armenia’s prime minister in April 2008. An Armenian bank is already operating within the framework of this project, but nothing is yet reported on the successes of this bank.

President Serzh Sargsyan also keeps stating that without the Diaspora Armenia is a 3-million strong country without resources, but together with it, it is a 10-million-strong nation with a great potential. Cooperation with the Diaspora is currently displayed in three directions – political lobbying in favor of Armenia, “ethnic” investments in Armenia’s economy as well as huge charity social work implemented mainly through the all-Armenian fund “Hayastan”. The Diaspora, meanwhile, has no political instruments of influence on decision-making in Armenia.

Since a considerable part of the Diaspora voiced strong opposition to the initiative of the Armenian authorities on establishing relations with Turkey without the genocide recognition issue being settled and compensations being paid, the difference in the approaches between Armenia and its Diaspora became even more so evident. In fact, the Diaspora has a lobby in many countries, but no lobby in Armenia.

The first reaction of the Diaspora – indignation – was exhibited in President Sargsyan’s pan-Armenian tour in October 2009. Almost at his every stop (including five major Armenian centers in France, the US, the Middle East and Russia) the Armenian leader was met with protests. The second reaction, alienation, got its manifestation in the course of the 11th annual telethon in November 2009, which resulted in an overall financial pledge two and a half times less than the previous year’s. A time for self-organization followed, as the Diaspora now is trying to assess the situation in order to take adequate measures. Thus, the Heritage party (founded by Armenia’s former US-born foreign minister Raffi Hovannisian) suggests starting a series of consultations with Diaspora organizations – as a legitimate side of the Armenian-Turkish historical standoff.

California Courier publisher Harout Sassounian advances the idea of creating a sort of Armenian parliament in which all Armenian communities and organizations will be represented and that would have a certain legal status in relations with Armenia. (The offer is remarkable because it implies a common ground for all Diaspora structures, differences among which also affect the efficiency of national programs.)

Political analyst Igor Muradyan writes that “wealthy people pursuing strictly personal interests or interests of certain government structures have come to the political circles of the Diaspora.”

The analyst thinks that the Armenian leadership shows concern over possible independent activities of Diaspora organizations.

“Following the events of 2009 when the political leadership of Armenia once again made sure that the position of many circles in the Diaspora is dangerous for its situation, no doubts were left that the policy of liquidating independent initiatives in the Diaspora should be continued. However, the Armenian Diaspora is already quite prepared for radical reforming, the forming of new political and public organizations. The international significance of the Armenian Diaspora has not been exhausted, it may be strengthened and the Diaspora may take a deserved place in the world,” says Muradyan.