• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
20.11.2007

ON SOME ISSUES RELATING TO ARMENIANS

   

Gagik Ter-Harutyunyan

It is a well known fact that at present for about the two-third of Armenians live abroad. Besides, it is not the subject of dispute that the Armenians spread all over the word are our most serious resource. At the same time, such a status of a nation supposes different inward and outward challenges, the lack of equivalent responses to which is sure to cause undesirable developments. The revelation of the essence of these challenges and elaboration of counter-action mechanisms is one of the most urgent problems of the Armenians. At that, a common impression is created that at present our national elite has no such social scientific knowledge and political technologies to solve such kind of national problems.

Thus, although the Armenian communities existing in quite different countries have a history of many centuries, they were only studied mainly in the descriptive-historiographic genre. Still, the value of such an approach must not be underestimated, taking into consideration that the history of Armenian communities, as a whole, is one of the most important component parts of the Armenian history. However, a confession should be made that only limited number of researches were conducted to reveal general or partial regularities of the activities of Armenians inhabited abroad. It has neither been put forward the task of giving some solutions of economic and applied character, which would raise the Armenian communities’ activity in the context of overall interests of Armenians. As the history of Armenian communities has shown, lack of such workings played a negative role in the past. Basing on up-to-date tendencies of global developments, lack of conceptual approach to the Armenian communities perhaps make the elaboration and realization of national strategy impossible.

The elaboration of new approaches first of all supposes certain specifications and clarifications in widely accepted and implemented conceptions and terminologies. In particular, Self-governing status of our Third Republic and up-to-date global processes make the issue of substituting the conception of Diaspora with a more capacious one (for example, Armenians or Armenians all over the world) very urgent. It has been proved that outside our Republic, in their historical fatherland live many of our compatriots (not less than one million), and it relates not only to the Armenians inhabited in the Eastern Armenia but also the ones inhabited in Javakhk. It is principally wrong and insulting to rank these Armenians among the “Armenians living in Diaspora” or “Armenians living abroad.”

Perhaps, some other stock phrases, existing in our vocabulary, need to be reinterpreted as well. For example, it has become a common thing to speak about Motherland-Diaspora relations on every convenient or even inconvenient occasion. Of course, Armenia is a key conception for all the Armenians and without the idea of motherland the formation of the vital national conception would be principally impossible. However, the essence of the Motherland-Diaspora relations needs to be made more exact and supplemented. In any case, one should accept that they qualitatively differ from the formulations made under the Soviet rule. The claims to “strengthen relations” only suppose strengthening of bilateral (communities and Armenian) relations. At that, the conception of Armenians and up-to-date world order dictate cooperation on a higher system level, that is – by the principle “everyone with everyone.” In the system supposing such a high organizational level, cooperation is necessary not only between the motherland and communities, but also among the communities themselves. Such a complicated mechanism of cooperation is probable to suppose more conceptual and full informative content. In other words, in this sphere certain concepts should be added to traditional relation, which would make a ground to gather the Armenians all over the world to carry out various global national projects.

It goes without saying that the list of the problems relating to Armenians and needed to be elucidated is very long. We should only mention the process of reduction of the role of some traditional institutions in the lives of the Armenian communities (for example, Armenian political parties) and the rise of influence of new social organizations. It is also important to specify the organizational net of the structures which must be engaged in the Armenians’ problems: one should suppose that in those net structures a considerable place should be given to research-analytical institutions.

Another fundamental problem is the presentation of the very formulation of the question about integration and preservation of identity in the context of their interaction. Contraposition of such approaches are ineffective and the preservation of originality doesn’t suppose psychology of the inhabitants in ghettoes, but the ones aspiring to get to the all-Armenian surface by means of integrating to a foreign community.


Return
Another materials of author