Just the other day, New York City Mayor Eric Adams was indicted on federal felony charges. At the moment, the indictment remains sealed, but based on the leaks published in leading international outlets, the matter involves the provision of illegal lobbying services to the Turkish government. To be specific, on procuring campaign finances by evading the law on fundraising regulations and rules, and violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) enacted in 1938. According to sources, the Adams’ refusal to issue statements on the Armenian Genocide Memorial Day (24 April) was one of the terms of the financial support. Coincidentally, Nikol Pashinyan welcomed Erdoğan’s book as a gift with a wide grin in the very same building where the Turks held their meeting with Adams. Let us not be surprised if, after all this, Pashinyan is the one who will stand up in defence of the New York mayor and even present him with a state award. The corruptness of politicians, irrespective of the country, as well as Ankara’s professional and systemic involvement with its agents of influence is not an eye-opener for us. Yet we got another occasion to revisit the important subject of diasporas and ethnic lobbyism.
Surely everyone has at least once in their lives encountered the concept of ‘diaspora’. As a rule, it refers to some ethnic group residing outside the country of origin. Such a definition may be considered valid in layman’s terms, but it is entirely inappropriate when it comes to states and political processes. Diaspora is a fundamental well-organised and structured institution that brings separate organisations on the ground together. At present there are only two accomplished diasporas in the world, the Irish and Jewish diasporas, with the Polish diaspora in an active phase of establishment. Israel and Ireland are the world’s sole small states possessing the might and capabilities of any superpower. The origin of this power is encapsulated in the far-reaching and well-organised networks of influence within the world’s major powers. All these networks operate within a unified system that is subordinate to the interests of the state of origin. This kind of system enables them to be quick and flexible, thus minimising damage to the state and the nation at times of crisis.
All the remainder are either ethnic groups (the first stage) or communities (the second stage). The first stage is recognised by the absence of institutions responsible for preserving ethnic identity and creating mechanisms for unleashing its social, political, and economic potential. To put it simply, everyone moves on with their lives. The lack of support leads to disorientation and lack of sense of retaining one’s ethnic self. On the contrary, a process of erasing one’s ‘disadvantageous’ identity in favour of a more ‘advantageous’ one is in motion.
There are only two instances where we can point to the transition to the ‘community’ stage. The first is the preservation and protection of that ethnic group by the country of origin. The second is the availability of an internal intelligentsia assuming the function of the protector of the ethnic group. We are at the latter stage, since throughout several centuries the Armenian Church as a spiritual and religious institution (about the significance and challenges of which we have already written) has served in the capacity of guardian of the Armenian identity. Following the collapse of the Soviet Empire, independent Armenia was restored and a victory was achieved in the war of liberation over Artsakh. These two developments aroused and galvanised Armenian communities that had previously been united around the church and the principle of recognition of the 1915-1923 Genocide. There was a viable prospect of developing a united Diaspora around the idea of strengthening Armenia and the Armenian factor in the global world. However, the aim of the policy of the ‘fathers’ of the Republic of Armenia was the exact opposite – to use the community’s financial and other resources for the conservation and reproduction of their power, keeping the communities at the ultimate distance from participating in shaping the socio-political agenda.
Selected institutions within the communities were transformed by the leaders aeating in Yerevan into tools of their own influence. Hence, a conundrum emerged, where the establishment of home country as a state not only did not contribute positively, but rather brought about the conditions for a setback to the first stage. Previously, the Church and individual political organisations (represented by the three traditional parties) were on their own and at least had some stake in the preservation, enhancement, and development of their communities. Since the late 90s, they have been attached to some or other clan in Armenia, offering their services – from organising fancy meetings with community representatives, to fundraising. In other words, everyone located their ‘patron’ and went about the business of legitimising him within their community. Other community organisations, having failed to secure a patron in Yerevan, have marketed themselves to external players (usually host countries), providing them with various kinds of services on the Armenian track. Such is the reality of communities divided into two clusters: a narrow minority focused on its own agenda and a majority left to fend for itself.
Apparently, it is impossible to earnestly speak of some kind of Armenian lobby given such circumstances. The gains on the lobbying front in late 1988-94 owed largely to the prevailing geopolitical environment in which the United States supported pro-Armenian initiatives out of self-interest. To some extent, Washington factored in the presence of the Armenian community, whose members were quite vocal in both parties. But after major American (and beyond) oil and gas players entered Azerbaijan with the Contract of the Century of 1994, the balance of interests and perceptions shifted in Baku’s favour. At that point Yerevan and the leaders of the community organisations needed to grasp that the only way to confront this was through the establishment of their own influence system. Instead, they opted for the plain path of not changing anything and steering clear of grand politics. The outcome of such an approach can be gauged by the deadly situation in which Armenia and the Armenian communities have found themselves.
