An Interview with Asbed Kotchikian
Asbed Kotchikian is a Visiting Professor at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in New York where he teaches courses on the South Caucasus, the Middle East and International Relations. His area of research includes the foreign policies of small states; the modern political history of the post-Soviet South Caucasus; issues of national identity and Armenian-Georgian relations. He has spent a considerable time in Armenia and Georgia as a researcher and instructor at the local universities. He can be reached at kotchikian@hws.edu
This interview was conducted on 24 August 2005 in Yerevan, Republic of Armenia. It is part of continuing research for an article on the possible role of the Armenian Diaspora in democracy building in the Republic of Armenia.
ONNIK KRIKORIAN: Yesterday, there was a news report by RFE/RL’s Armenian Service saying that a prominent writer from the Diaspora called upon Armenian living outside of the republic to start engaging the government in the process of democracy building, respect for human rights and fighting against corruption. The same day, there was also an update on the continuing saga of Carolann Najarian who was defrauded in Armenia.
As we know, the alleged involvement of the General Prosecutor’s Office in frustrating justice being served has shocked many in the Diaspora. It’s taken a long time for this to happen. However, do you believe it should have happened and is it anyway relevant? Basically, is there a role for the Diaspora to play in the process of building a democracy and ensuring that the rule of law exists in Armenia?
ASBED KOTCHIKIAN: Many people would say that the Diaspora has a role to play in Armenia. The main question is what is that role? Just to make things easier for you because you specifically ask about the role of the Diaspora in democracy building or developing and strengthening democracy in Armenia, yes, the Diaspora should have a role. However, the question after that is can the Diaspora take upon itself that role?
The World Bank and IMF provide money to developing countries and at the same time have certain requirements and obligations that the Armenian government has to fulfill. However, the problem is that I don’t think the Diaspora has any collective institution with the right to demand such preconditions. That aside, you are also assuming that the Diaspora itself is democratic.
Many among the Diaspora might live in democratic countries, and as individuals they might consider themselves democratic, but as a collective mass, I don’t think that democracy is practiced in any institution. It is not practiced in the church, in political organizations or in other groups. So, we have this dichotomy. How can the Diaspora bring democracy to Armenia when the Diaspora itself is not democratic?
OK: Yet, if the Diaspora wants to invest in Armenia, democracy needs to develop, especially with regards to the rule of law and independence of the judiciary.
AK: That wouldn’t make any difference for the Diaspora. Look at Armenians in Iran, in Syria, or to a lesser extent, Lebanon. They invested in those countries even though there was either an absence or a lesser form of democracy. One thing that those who want to make serious investments here talk about, however, is the political situation. Whether a country is authoritarian, or not authoritarian or whatever, doesn’t factor in. On the contrary, some large companies might prefer to invest in countries where there is no democracy because it can be easier and less complicated.
In that sense, the role of the Diaspora as a collective mass in this area is minimal.
OK: Should we leave democracy building to outside powers, then?
AK: No. Let’s leave democracy building to Armenians in Armenia. You can not have democracy imported from outside because it would be fake. I don’t know how relevant this is, but it took Turkey 70 years to achieve democracy, or look at Iran. In 26 years, they achieved more than Turkey did in 70 years.
OK: So you don’t think international obligations and pressures have a role to play?
AK: If there’s something they think they can get out of it, then yes. However, it’s not that we have an authoritarian government that makes it impossible to invest. It might even be easier to deal with a semi-authoritarian system where they can deal with one person. Instead, the role of the Diaspora could be to develop a culture, which is a very vague term, of standing up for your rights, protesting the violation of civil or human rights.
However, that can only come from Armenian from western societies. I don’t think Iranian Armenians, Lebanese Armenians or Syrian Armenians are interested in, or have the culture of, developing democracy and the protection of human rights. Maybe Iranian Armenians are more in tune with their own student movements so that might not be entirely true but anyway, we do not have a critical mass of Diasporans from the west in Armenia that can make an impact.
OK: Ironically, even that small group of Armenians from the west now living in Armenia don’t seem to show much interest. As long as there are more restaurants in Abovian and boutiques on Mashtots, then the situation is fine for them.
AK: Not for all of them. There’s an issue of generation as well. Younger people are more active. Yes, they go to the restaurants, they go tot the cafes but younger people are more aware although they might not want to think or do anything about the situation here. However, the older generation is simply not aware.
OK: On a related note, are these young Armenians pushing for more freedom of thought in their own communities in the Diaspora?
AK: No. There aren’t any institutions in the Diaspora that allow democracy. For that you need state institutions although Huntingdon speaks about democracy coming in through [political] parties. You could have a democratic political party coming to power and the institutions of the party are superimposed on the government or the state. That’s how it develops. However, I don’t see that happening in Armenia. It’s going to be a bottom-up movement and only as long as there is a critical mass. However, I’m not in favor of dual citizenship…
OK: Which I don’t quite understand. As long as there are obligations that Armenians from abroad need to fulfill, including the need to be resident in the country for a certain number of years, is that wrong?
AK: No, but what about Russian Armenians? They don’t have the right to dual citizenship in Russia.
OK: But nor does the United States. It’s just overlooked. I think the loophole is that as long as no application process has gone through to obtain another citizenship. For example, if you’re born in a country where citizenship is automatically given, or the right to return in Israel.
AK: Yes, many people in the U.S. have dual citizenship. However, Israel is very much a nation-state but in the case of Armenia, it’s not a nation or a nation-state. It’s closer to being a nation-state but somewhere in the middle. Israel was anyway built by its Diaspora from the beginning.
OK: With regards to democracy and many other things, the argument is that by removing the restriction on dual citizenship in Armenia, more Diasporans would be able to feel they had a link to the country. Then, they would feel more inclined to engage in the process of nation-building.
AK: Do they need a piece of paper to do that?
OK: Unfortunately, they say that they do.
AK: How many people applied for the 10-year residency visa?
OK: I don’t know.
AK: Most probably not too many. Maybe those that live here or come here frequently but I don’t think that’s an issue. Frankly speaking, I would prefer that Russian Armenians become more involved with Armenia because they’re more aware of the culture, many were from here originally and they’re closer culturally and linguistically than Armenians from France, Canada or the U.S.
OK: This is perhaps going back to a specific theme of interest for you, Hayrenik and Hayastan, and as a result, there’s no real attachment to the republic.
AK: No, there’s a real attachment in physical terms such as the cafes, that kind of attachment, there’s just no emotional attachment. Of course, if you have to live here for a certain period of time in order to become a citizen maybe it could be possible to talk about the role of the Diaspora in democracy building. You would have people that have lived here and you’d have that critical mass.
However, they wouldn’t be on par with other people living here because they’d have the money and they’d receive preferential treatment because they’re from the Diaspora.
You yourself have witnessed that. Ultimately, the ego or self predominates. That’s the problem with every society. To what extent do we have Diasporans coming into Armenia with a culture of understanding what democracy or civil society is? There’s also the factor that subconsciously, many Diasporans know that they’re not going to be here for more than a short period of time. However, it can work the other way. Perhaps a local Armenian who has a successful business might also be effectively isolated from what is going on around them.
I’m not talking about the oligarchs here but even locals who might be well-educated, working in an NGO and earning a decent salary. They too might not be in touch with the rest of society.
You have that in every society but if you’re talking about democracy building you need more people in tune or in touch with the people even in the villages. If you look at it sociologically or politically, revolutions and social changes occur when you have disenchanted groups getting educated, becoming intellectuals or whatever, but because they do come from the poor social strata in society they have that connection. They would be the advocates for change because they know both worlds.
There’s also another factor since 1996 and even 1991. I asked one of my students if she went to any of the opposition protests last April and she responded by asking why. She said that her parents went to Levon Ter Petrosian and then they later went to Kocharian but nothing happened. Why would she now go to the opposition? I don’t know if this is something specifically Armenian in terms of a national psyche that always gives up but it’s a major issue.
Therefore, the only way the Diaspora can help is to work with these people even if it’s by coming here to train. However, then the criticism would be these Diasporans have come from outside.
OK: Maybe it would be more acceptable if it came from ethnic Armenians from outside?
AK: No, it’s not. When I came here to teach I was told that I work for the State Department. I said, no, I just came here to teach. Without dual citizenship, the only things we can do is to nurture, or at my level I can write and talk about various issues without suggesting what people should do. Or, if you are a photojournalist, you can report on it with a twist, talking about policy, raising awareness or whatever. However, ultimately, democracy should be built from inside. Nothing else would make a difference.
OK: There are those that believe that a large influx of Armenians from the U.S. or Europe would result in a huge transformation in Armenia.
AK: Not only Diasporans, but also western educated Armenians from Hayastan.
OK: However, the problem is that very few of these people seem to be coming back, right?
AK: Not as few as you think but there isn’t that critical mass yet and the dictate of the day is to, you know, make a living. As long as you’re involved in making a living you don’t think about changing things because that would disrupt your own livelihood. Again, I think that Diaspora could make an impact but in terms of repatriation, what are we talking about? I’m very much against the concept of repatriation. To begin with, it’s not repatriation.
Definitely, however, those Armenians that go abroad to get educated, come back. There are lots of them. There are about 50 or 60 people and sometimes even more that go abroad for education and about 40 come back. So, in the past ten years that’s about 400 people. It’s not a small number, especially if these people enter the educations system here and there’s a snowball effect.
However, it’s still not a critical mass and there other issues such as can you raise the morale and the short attention span of people as a collective mass. They want changes now but how do you explain to people that it takes longer than that? Then, the problem with revolution is that people expect changes to happen immediately. That said, the collective wisdom of people as a whole is very strong.
Most probably, that’s why there is so much cynicism -- it comes a greater sense of realism.
OK: There’s also another argument, however, which is that in countries such as Armenia, you need to have an authoritarian government to push through reforms that might one day result in the development of democracy.
AK: Guided democracy.
OK: Because the people don’t understand what democracy is.
AK: Guided democracy. Then again, having an intelligent, wise and intellectual government makes the whole difference. Absolute power corrupts absolutely so we need to keep that in mind. It will be interesting to see what happens in Iran now. Putting aside politics, there might be more changes in terms of society. That might be some indication of how a president elected by the people, and who is from the people, would make social and domestic changes. Forget about democracy but at least regarding social inequality. The two are not mutually exclusive, on the contrary they’re mutually inclusive for developing democracy.
Going back to your question, however, can the Diaspora have any impact? Maybe there are people in the Diaspora who can do that.
OK: However, when we talk of the Diaspora we think of a unified mass but the reality is that the proportion of the Diaspora that is active is exceedingly small. It’s really a minority.
AK: One scholar who works on Diaspora speaks about this – the idea of an active and passive Diaspora.
OK: Perhaps this goes back to what you were saying about there being no democracy in the Diaspora. That is, the vast majority of Armenians in the Diaspora remains distant from their communities and especially because there is no tolerance for freedom of thought.
AK: Some form their own groups. However, hayastantsis living abroad could have a greater role to play in Armenia. From my experience in dealing with them, they still have a greater connection with Armenia deep down inside. I’ve seen many of them come back but they probably haven’t grasped the essence of democracy as much as a Diasporan born and raised in the west. The danger is that they would revert back to how they were before they left. However, they are people who understand the situation better, and that’s why I think it’s Russian Armenians that have more of a role to play. They understand the socio-economic and political fabric better to be able to make a difference.
OK: Back to the Diaspora, however, there’s still this mental block in speaking out about the situation in Armenia. Instead, the Diaspora sees its role as propagandizing for the Armenian government, to support the Armenian government and in a sense, the Armenian government is the embodiment of the state. Maybe the government should be the embodiment of the state if it can genuinely say it represents it.
AK: The Dashnaks had a very interesting slogan in the early years [of independence] when they had a confrontation with Ter Petrosian. They said that their problem was with the government and not with the state. That was one of the times when you could see the manifestation of a political maturity when a differentiation was made between government and statehood.
For groups in the Diaspora, however, it goes back to the ritualistic or conceptualized idea of state. Whereas in the past it was Ararat and Mayr Hayrenik, now it’s the president and the flag and so on. In that sense, I don’t think the Diaspora is ready to give up that “emotional blanket.”
For the Diaspora, territory is also a very important factor. The Diasporan national consciousness and identity is very much territorial and that’s the dichotomy between state and nation where the state is willing to give up land in order to have peace for the well-being of its citizens, whereas the Diaspora, because of an emotional attachment to the land [in Eastern Turkey], would be very much against it.
When it comes to the question of opening the Turkish border, you would have a smaller amount of Armenian nationalists opposing that, but a larger number opposing the return of land around Karabakh.
OK: Do you think that integration in international structures is more important for the Armenian government than appeasing the Diaspora? Also, if there was recognition of the Genocide, what would the Diaspora do afterwards?
AK: Regarding the first question, no, they’re as important. International organizations have more structured ways of integrating Armenia into larger processes be that good or bad, that’s beside the point. In the case of the Diaspora, you have money coming in, even though it’s channeled through the government. They’re equal and they achieve different things. I don’t think it’s a matter or prioritizing between the two.
As for the role of the Diaspora after Genocide recognition, it would most probably transform into what the Jewish and other lobbying groups in the United States do. It would be aimed at supporting the government in terms of policy and aid. That transformation is already happening so it wouldn’t have so much of an impact on the lobbying groups.
Identity wise, there would be a kind of sense of relief. People in Armenia are able to transcend the victim mentality whereas in the Diaspora you don’t have that yet. They’re still under that [psychological] pressure. Would identity change? Perhaps but I think that might even strengthen a connection with Armenia and Armenians. Of course, don’t forget that if the Genocide were recognized then the next step would be lobbying for reparations.
There would always be something to lobby for -- either land or financial reparations. In any case, it would be a turning point for the Diaspora in terms of identity.
OK: Would you say that just as Armenia is in transition after independence, so is the Diaspora?
AK: Definitely, because for some, although not many but certainly a growing number of people, the concept of Hayrenik and Hayastan are being superimposed, especially for young people who don’t make a distinction between the two. The idea of an independent Armenia is some kind of a morale boost, something to connect with, but at the same time it also undermines to some extent the Diaspora’s sense of self-importance.
Some have embraced Armenia, others are wary of it because they have had to give up some of their so-called rights to represent Armenia, so it’s had a dual impact on the Diaspora. To a larger extent, however, it’s a generation thing as well. The new generation is becoming more and more connected to Armenia. Individuals in the Diaspora don’t need “middle-men” anymore which has created an issue for many Diasporan organizations.
---
Some of Asbed Kotchikian's analytical articles on Armenia, Georgia and the Diaspora can be read online at http://www.groong.com/ro/index.html
|
