One of the most prominent British politicians, Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, has an interesting and very profound quote: ‘Circumstances are beyond human control, but our conduct is in our own power’. Decoding has a complex history and context, but its essence is simple: those, who want to rule something and someone, must first put themselves in order (establish power over themselves). Recently, a group of influential foreign figures of Armenian origin, including Noubar Afeyan, Lord Ara Darzi, Eric Esrailian, Vatche Manoukian and others, issued a statement that Nikol Pashinyan should stop interfering in the affairs of the Armenian Church and seeking the forced removal of Catholicos Garegin II. According to the initiators, such conduct of the Armenian government may undermine the Armenia-Church–Diaspora trinity.
In our opinion, the statement itself stems from good intentions – to protect the Armenian Church, which is an important element of the Armenian identity. However, we have repeatedly said that good intentions per se – without sober and unemotional analysis, awareness of realities we are dealing with and a consistent strategy – lead to extremely negative and often disastrous consequences. Let us try to highlight the issues with such statements and why they predictably do not produce viable outcome.
Firstly, lack of a strategic mission/goal. A statement is just a tactical act that should explain to the audience what the purpose of its initiator(s) is. Is there a mission/goal and, if so, what is it? This statement does not provide an answer to this question. Moreover:
a) The initiators refer to the Turkish collaborationist regime as the ‘government of Armenia’, thereby legitimising its decisions. In other words, there is no goal to get rid of or reject this regime, to give it a fair assessment, or at least to declare that it is not authorised to make decisions that endanger the survival of the multi-million Armenian communities around the world;
b) They focus on the personality of Garegin II, on the principle of secularism and on ecclesiastical laws, ignoring the fact that the accelerated dismantling of the institution of the Armenian Church is a direct result of the tacit condonement of Pashinyan’s policy since 2018. Like many influential Armenians around the world, Garegin II has recognised Pashinyan’s authority and legitimised his subsequent actions by standing next to him and shaking his hand – the last time the majority of the signatories of the statement and Garegin II himself did this was on September 29, 2024.
c) The message is addressed to two non-independent parties – the Armenian Church and ‘the Government of Armenia’ – to resolve all differences. It is completely unclear what kind of disagreements we are talking about. Pashinyan has no disagreements with the Armenian Church, for him it is just a prey, and he is implementing a straightforward assignment: to destroy it as the last pillar of institutional Armenian identity and recraft it in accordance with Turkish instructions. Garegin II also does not care about values or heritage: his only objective is to retain his own power, and his faithful long-term service to the feudal-clan system under Robert Kocharyan, Serzh Sargsyan and Nikol Pashinyan is the best indicator of his ‘devotion’ to the ideals of the Armenian Church.
So, what is the purpose of this statement? To urge the Armenian Church, the victim, to find a way to negotiate with the predator, the Turkish satrap Pashinyan? Or to recognise the Turkish collaborationist regime as legitimate, accepting the ‘spoils’ of its activities (surrender of Artsakh, its population and leadership, erasure of the Armenian history and identity) in exchange for ending personal attacks on Catholicos Garegin II ? Or maybe to remind Pashinyan that the ephemeral ‘Diaspora’ does not agree with his policy?
Secondly, lack of own legitimacy. If the goal is to articulate to Pashinyan the position of the ‘Diaspora’, then it is doomed to total failure for a simple reason: there is no institution of Diaspora. Today, we have thousands of communities scattered all over the world that do not have a unifying value base or ideological platform, a system of legitimisation, or institutions that shape and advance national interests (similar to the World Jewish Congress or the Celtic League). None of the initiators of this statement can explain where their right to speak not only on behalf of the unstructured (and, by implication, non-existent) ‘Diaspora’, but even on behalf of their local communities, comes from. These influential Armenians have not yet created a mechanism that would allow local Armenians to delegate the right to make statements and decisions on their behalf to someone else.
Reading the statement, Pashinyan can ask a simple counter-question: who has given its authors and signatories the right to speak on behalf of the ‘Diaspora’? This is exactly what he did through a certain Jacques-Raffi Papazian, around whom Pashinyan has been moulding a loyal network within the Armenian communities of France. From the first day of his ‘rule’, Pashinyan has been shaping alternatives to traditional organisations within the largest and most important communities, which have long ceased to be a reference point for the vast majority of Armenians in those communities. At the same time, Pashinyan provides these loyal organisations with something that other organisations do not have: ‘legitimacy conveyed through recognition by the Republic of Armenia, even if in its status as a Turkish colony’. He meets with the leaders of these ‘new organisations’, receives them in official capacity in Yerevan, presents with state awards, thereby sending signals to these communities: ‘Armenia recognises them as leaders of the Spyurk’. However, the threat is much deeper: through this collaborationist regime, the Turkish world gets the opportunity to create its own networks inside Armenian communities, turning them into an instrument of its influence. If we ignore this threat, in the medium term we will witness how the global Armeniancy will become a part and an instrument of a large transnational Turkish network with all the ensuing consequences.
Thirdly, acknowledgement of realities. The Third Republic is a de facto colony run by a collaborationist regime, which is destroying the foundations of Armenian identity: its historical memory and the unique and distinctive religion of the Armenian Apostolic Church. Nikol Pashinyan is a satrap, who makes decisions in the interests of the Turkish world, into which he intends to integrate the remnants of modern Armenia and the disparate Armenian communities. Recognition of these facts can be painful and unpleasant, however, it is a prerequisite for crafting an effective resistance and fighting strategy. Without an accurate diagnosis, the patient cannot be cured. As experienced doctors and biotechnologists, Noubar Afeyan, Ara Darzi, Eric Esrailian are well aware of this.
After acknowledging these facts, it is important to determine the primary strategic objective. It is absolutely futile to engage in a struggle within geographical Armenia today. This is due to the fact that the collaborationist regime and the ‘opposition’ legitimising it, which are jointly responsible for the current catastrophe, have total operational control over the critical infrastructure of geographical Armenia (media, financial resources, enforcement and repressive mechanisms). In such a dense political swamp, where there is no place for Armenian subjectivity, it is a priori impossible for an Armenian-centric force to arise, which would be capable of uniting around itself the necessary critical mass and resources to fight the monopolistic feudal-clan system that enjoys substantial external support.
No matter how painful it may be to admit, the collaborationist regime will reproduce itself in the so-called ‘elections’ in June this year, and, while the ‘opposition’ may change its facade, in essence it will be a continuation of those, who are commonly called the ‘former rulers’. Pashinyan will get ‘peace’ with Turkey and Azerbaijan, destroy the Armenian Church and other institutions that hinder the realisation of his task – turning the country into a geopolitical brothel called ‘Real Armenia’. And all this will receive external legitimacy from leading centres of power, which take it for granted that Pashinyan is now the only (phantom) ‘subject’ forming and pursuing the (phantom) ‘Armenian interest’.
What to do? To begin the process of nation-building by forming mechanisms that will transform disparate communities into an organised institution(s) of the meaningful Diaspora. If the global Armeniancy had a global institution today (similar to the Jews, the Irish, or the Poles), then the statements of such influential Armenians, as Noubar Afeyan, Ara Darzi, Vatche Manoukian, and Eric Esrailian, would have a qualitatively different meaning and influence. Moreover, the presence of an organised transnational network would have significantly reduced the likelihood of Armenia’s colonisation, procrastination of its feudal-clan system, the loss of Artsakh, the capture and shameful humiliation of its leadership in the Baku prison.
Armenian Republic has a clear understanding of how to implement the nation-building process and which instruments would be required. For obvious reasons, such information cannot be published in the public domain. In this regard, we have a question: are the initiators of the statement and other influential Armenians around the world ready to accept the realities and begin a qualitatively different struggle to preserve their right to remain Armenian, pray in the Armenian Church, read and pass on Armenian history to new generations and be proud of the sovereign Armenian statehood? We would like to hear the only correct answer for an Armenian, since it is high time get our act together.
