When the Homeland is Collapsing, All Armenians Must Come to its Rescue — By Harut Sassounian

In the last several years, various hired pens have written dozens of commentaries criticizing the Armenian Diaspora’s hard line toward Azerbaijan and Turkey. Many of these “writers” are lavishly compensated by Azerbaijan. Most of these articles have appeared in various Israeli newspapers. Regrettably, I cannot respond to every one of them; otherwise, I would be writing about nothing else every week.

Making an exception, I decided to respond to an article written in Turkish by Tugce Tecimer titled “The conflicting interests of the Diaspora and the Armenian government: The ANCA example,” which is posted on the website of the “Center for Eurasian Studies” at Ankara University. The reason I am replying to her is that, unlike the other anti-Armenian “writers” who are full of venom, she did not use abusive language.

Tecimer is the Managing Editor of the Armenian Studies Center. Interestingly, on her LinkedIn page, she states that she has “Professional working proficiency” in Armenian, “Elementary proficiency” in Russian, and “English.” She received her Ph.D. in history from Istanbul University and a degree in “Armenian language and culture” from Ankara University. In recent years, Turkish universities have been inviting professors from Armenia to teach Armenian to Turkish students. You can guess why.

Tecimer starts her article by stating: “The ANCA (Armenian National Committee of America) has been operating for many years as one of the most influential lobbying organizations claiming to defend the interests of the Armenian diaspora and, indirectly, Armenia in the United States.” She goes on to present her main argument: “However, one of the structural problems frequently encountered by diaspora-based interest groups like ANCA is the incompatibility between the material and political priorities of diaspora organizations and the political line of the homeland state and the strategic interests of the country [United States] whose citizens they are. The ANCA example once again demonstrates the tension caused by this dilemma.”

I will try to show that this is a false argument. I have been the target of similar comments by some pro-Pashinyan Armenians who disagree with my criticisms of the Prime Minister. Rather than presenting counterarguments, Pashinyan’s defenders make baseless personal attacks instead of trying to answer my criticisms.

They falsely accuse me of:

1) Supporting Armenia’s former leaders;

2) Being Pro-Russian or getting paid by the KGB;

3) Having no right to criticize the government since I do not live in Armenia.

Naturally, they are all false arguments.

1) I have been a staunch critic of all leaders, past and present. More importantly, I said my criticisms boldly to the leaders’ faces while sitting in the Presidential Palace, and not hiding like some do behind a computer keyboard. Most of my critics did not dare to open their mouths when these leaders were in power, afraid that they would either lose their jobs or worse.

2) Obviously, I am neither pro-Russian nor a KGB agent. Those who say such shameful things imply that only KGB agents are anti-Pashinyan. There is an Armenian saying that perfectly describes this situation: “Swearing indicates a lack of evidence.”

3) To those who say that I have no right to state anything critical about Pashinyan since I live in the Diaspora, I reply:

a) You are trying to silence my criticism of Pashinyan not because I live in the Diaspora but because you don’t like what I am saying. If I were defending Pashinyan, you would never tell me that I have no right to express my opinion.

b) Armenia is the homeland of all Armenians worldwide. No one has the right to tell another Armenian not to speak about the homeland, regardless of where they are living.

c) As a human being and as a journalist, I have the right to express myself freely. No one can shut me up just because they disagree with me.

d) Why is it that is it acceptable to comment about events taking place in many other countries, but when it comes to Armenia — our homeland — we are asked to remain silent?

e) I am a dual citizen of Armenia and the United States; therefore, I have the full right to comment on developments in the country of which I am a citizen.

f) Those who say that it is unpatriotic to criticize the Armenian government, my response is that, on the contrary, when you see that your homeland is on the verge of collapse, it is actually unpatriotic to remain silent.

g) Most Pashinyan supporters cannot distinguish between criticism of the Pashinyan government and the State of Armenia.

Returning to Turkish scholar Tecimer’s article, she is wrong that the ANCA should not criticize either the Armenian or the US governments. When someone sees the homeland is on the wrong course, is she suggesting that we turn a blind eye and ignore what is going on?

How can the ANCA not react, witnessing what is happening in Armenia? Since Armenia’s current leader is pursuing policies that are not in the best interests of the country, should we all blindly follow and praise those policies or should we do everything we can to rescue the nation?

It is understandable that those who challenge the government’s policies will suffer consequences, such as loss of employment, public scorn, accusations of being unpatriotic, and even arrest and imprisonment. But that is the price to pay to reverse the wrong-headed policies of the country.

It is ironic that Tecimer thinks it is wrong for the ANCA to criticize Israel for arming Azerbaijan, since the US supports Israel. Meanwhile, Tecimer is doing exactly what she criticizes ANCA for. Since Pres. Erdogan is harshly critical of Israel, she should follow her own advice and not go against the policies of her government.