How does the Diaspora view Armenia right now, after our defeat in the war? In several ways.
If we are to look at the group of people who left Armenia after 1990, then a portion of them went due to the fact that they want to forget about Armenia and their Armenianness as quickly as possible. Therefore, they are not interested in the war and the casualties.
Another portion of those Armenians is so angry with the former regime that they continue to support Pashinyan even after this humiliating defeat. In that sense, that group of Armenians acts similarly to Pashinyan’s electorate in Armenia, who will support the reproduction of this government on June 20th. But both here and in the Diaspora, this mass has no separate intellectual and, in many cases, material weight.
Finally, there is a group of our former compatriots living abroad for whom the homeland and the state are more important than previous deprivations. These people are naturally very frustrated and depressed.
Read also
But the traditional Diaspora? I have reason to believe that its trust towards Armenia has greatly decreased, and several factors played a role here. The first, of course, is the national humiliation, which, I think, is felt by any Armenian with dignity and certain intellectual abilities. But the humiliation among the Diaspora Armenians can lead to a crisis of national identity. Until the fall of 2020, they had the opportunity to feel like representatives of a winning nation in a foreign environment, but now they do not have that opportunity.
Then, one of the reasons for the distrust is the suspicious actions of the Hayastan All-Armenian Fund, to put it mildly, which has created problems especially for our compatriots living in the United States. (It is good that at least the government decided to return that 52 billion to the fund).
And finally, Diaspora Armenians also do not like the current authorities’ statements that now is the right time to establish friendly relations with Turkey, which has defeated us.
At the same time, there are people in Armenia and Artsakh who are ‘unaffected’ by pre-revolutionary and revolutionary defects and whom Diaspora Armenians trust. These people should forget about their political preferences, not take into account who is currently leading Armenia, and implement perhaps not large-scale, but important programs for the homeland for their ties with the Diaspora, not only charitable but also investment opportunities, as well as the use the experience and intellectual potential of our compatriots. Of course, given the ‘peculiarities’ of the current authorities, ‘scenes of jealousy’ are possible. In the past, the main obstacle to establishing such programs was corruption. Now, it is people’s childish aspirations to make themselves known. That can also be overcome somewhat through emphasized political neutrality and constrained loyalty.
In all cases, we must live even after our humiliating defeat in the war, and we must give our brothers and sisters hope to reclaim their identity. Of course, those who need that hope.
Aram Abrahamyan
