The emergence of independent Armenia was welcomed by many businessmen of Armenian origin around the world. Many of them have previously devoted decades to participating in the life of their communities, which were in some sense united around the agenda of international recognition of the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923. It is important to realise that we are talking about a generation of fathers and children who witnessed and experienced all the horrors of the massacre. They did not concern themselves with the geopolitical and economic aspect, they acted out of the logic of restoring justice by any means necessary. This emotional background was more than understandable, though unacceptable. Local community organisations at the time were actively using these people’s feelings as a foundation for their business models. Powerful philanthropists like Kirk Kerkorian or Vahagn Hovnanyan did not even attempt to get into the heart of what they were funding. And that was the case with most of the business people in Armenian communities from Los Angeles to Paris, and from Beirut to Canberra. They acted within the confines of a simple and clear logic, that is, it is necessary to provide money for Armenian causes.
The Armenian cause was then understood as the Genocide recognition. And none of the benefactors at the time were bothered about the subjects of the recognition being promoted or what was meant by it. Armenia was part of the Soviet empire, due in part to which Kemalist Turkey survived and succeeded. And despite the instant turnaround to the West following the Lausanne conference and the subsequent passive support of Nazi Germany, the Bolsheviks covered Armenian history (especially the Genocide part) in hundreds of locks. The Atlantic world, led by the United States, had been acting in a similar fashion to avoid damaging relations with Turkey, which President Harry Truman saved from potential geopolitical death by admitting it to NATO after World War II. Washington did not wish to start a conflict situation with Ankara, which Moscow could take advantage of. Yet large American taxpayers represented by transnational corporations were actively engaged in the Turkish market and were keen to lobby for the preservation of a stable, positive dialogue between the two countries.
It was obvious that in the context of “cold war” the problem of Armenian genocide can be revived only by one of two centers of power (USA or USSR) as a tool to meet their own objectives. So it happened: the Soviets allowed the Tsitsernakaberd complex (memorial to the victims of the Armenian Genocide) to be built in Yerevan after the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Moscow sought to punish Ankara for attempting to have sabotaged an agreement between American President John F. Kennedy and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to dismantle and remove American Jupiter missiles from Turkish territory. Americans “launched” the discussion on the Armenian genocide after the unilateral decision of the Turkish leadership to invade and occupy Northern Cyprus in 1974. Washington could not disregard such a move, as this démarche led to a sudden rapprochement between Greece and the USSR. That is the brief story of how and why the two superpowers brought the Armenian issue back to the agenda after dozens of years of silence.
Was that a bad thing? Definitely not. In the absence of a state, one must be able to make the right use of every opportunity. The geopolitical consequences of Turkey’s behavior opened up great opportunities for the Armenian world. The problem was that it had nor shape, neither content. Crushed, divided and scattered around the world, Armenian people were left to the mercy of fate. The so-called “elites” represented by three parties – Dashnaktsutyun, Ramkavar, and Hnchak – were at war with each other, creating even more division lines within the broken Armeniancy. The leaders of these “parties” did not seek to establish dialogue and create a meaningful national agenda, on the contrary, they destroyed the meanings under which Garegin Nzhdeh and Shahan Natalie endeavoured to consolidate the communities. These “political parties” acted within their narrow formulas: “you are Armenian if you are either Dashnak, Ramkavar, or Hnchak”.
In such a setting, Armenian benefactors who really aspired to have a strong and cohesive Diaspora should, at the very least, have stopped sponsoring the forces whose business model was based on the principle of “divide and conquer”. At the time, Jewish businessmen (including the Rothschild family) challenged the leaders of the various political streams within the communities to create a common platform that would enable every Jew to grasp the national objectives and to aid in the pursuit of those. This is how the World Jewish Congress (WJC) was born in 1936 with a motto “All Jews are responsible for one another”. Organisations, parties, and movements that chose not to become part of the WJC were thus marginalised, eventually losing the trust and support of their own members. The creation of WJC led to the transformation of fragmented communities into a political unit, the Diaspora, within which an ideological roadmap was developed. With the establishment of Israel, the WJC introduced just one but essential adjustment, announcing the recognition of the primacy of the state in the self-determination of the world Jewry. Today, the state of Israel and the WJC form a unified transnational system that exerts huge influence on global politics and economy.
This is just one example. Irish maecenas in the US, Canada, France, and Australia have long funded hundreds of different organisations that promised a breakthrough in the Ireland’s liberation struggle (the country was a part of the British Empire at that time). However, after the tragedy of the Great Famine in 1845-1849, many sponsors ceased their activities. Some were frustrated, others became fearful for their own safety, and others simply passed away, leaving everything to their children, who no longer perceived themselves as Irish. At that turning point, the O’Mara family appeared. James O’Mara, as an intellectual businessman, unlike his money-giving predecessors, spent a significant amount of time studying the fundamentals of politics and International Relations. Having delved into the matter, he concluded that the only way to defeat the British Empire was by creating a national aristocracy.
He gathered many patrons around this approach, even those who had been previously disenchanted. In 1881, the first Congress of the Global Irish Aristocracy (Irish Race Conventions) was held in Chicago which aimed to strategise the unification of divided communities into Diaspora. This transformation was the foundation of the national movement for Irish independence, which culminated in an impressive victory over a powerful empire. The above example (as well as the Jewish one) clearly indicates that for a grand triumph, it is quite enough to have even one resourced passionary intellectual. Such examples have nurtured generations of benefactors who carry on the cause of nation- and state building to this day, as it is a permanent process that cannot be interrupted or halted. Individual politicians, bureaucrats, parties, and movements come and go, they have different qualities and different aims, but even their highly amateurish endeavours cannot eradicate the robust immunity, the foundations of which were laid by personalities whose calibre cannot be grasped by any earthly measure.
It would be naive to assume that those noble patrons who failed to recognize the importance of the formation of the Diaspora and national aristocracy would accept their share of responsibility for an independent country. They acted within the same logic as their predecessors – financed the agenda proposed by the authorities. The difference is that they used to deal with the leadership of so-called “traditional parties” (Dashnaktsutyun, Ramkavar, Hnchak), and then they started doing so with those who sat in spacious offices at Baghramyan, 26 (in the residence of the President of Armenia). None of these benefactors, including the National Heroes of Armenia Kirk Kerkorian and Eduardo Eurnekian, tried to create their own substantive agendas or ask questions about how correct they were supporting politicians who failed to bring the victory in the Artsakh war to the logical end, providing Azerbaijan with time for recovery and strengthening (Armenia agreed to sign a ceasefire agreement – 1994 Bishkek Protocols). Irrespective of their noble aspirations, we got a very definite result – their money was used not to build a nation and a state, but to fund a vicious, filthy, and twisted feudal system instead. And if at least some philanthropists of Armenian origin think that they are exempt from responsibility for this, they are deeply deluded. A simple and undeniable logic applies: ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
Some philanthropists took the stance of helping the country but staying away from politics, others spent dozens of years to realise the viciousness of the feudal authorities with whom they were dealing (after which they decided to withdraw and shut off for good), others simply saw an opportunity to do business using Armenia as a bargaining tool, while others keep persuading themselves and everyone around them that the struggle for the country and the nation is doomed to fail. The presence of such groups is not surprising, as the Armenian business community has shown its inability to protect even the most prominent of its members. An instructive example is Levon Hayrapetyan, who sincerely and massively supported Armenia and Artsakh, but was detained and subsequently deceased in a Russian prison. Other benefactors (such as Ruben Vardanyan) rather than analyzing political processes in cold blood and developing a long-term strategy, let other forces (internal and external) drag themselves into dubious games with quite predictable negative outcome for everyone – themselves, the people, and the country.
One can speculate a lot about the intricacies of the failure of the Third Republic and the role of those who are generally regarded as great benefactors. If we were willing, we could come up with hundreds of excuses and justifications for these philanthropists, but in this case we have to honestly state that the Hollywood movie “The Promise” is on top of Kirk Kerkorian’s Armenian legacy, “Zvartnots” airport – Eduardo Eurnekian’s, “Tatev” ropeway – Ruben Vardanyan’s, power grids – Samvel Karapetyan’s, and so on. Then we must also accept and concede that no one in the Armenian world (neither feudal lords in Yerevan, nor philanthropists) is to be held responsible for the loss of Artsakh and the uprooting of the Armenian population (more than 120,000 people), for the creeping occupation of Armenia and the humiliated and fragmented people.
To be continued…
