A Period of Disunity: The ADL Experiences Difficulties in Overcoming Division in Its Ranks

As a member of the executive of the ADL, how would you imagine the economic revival of Armenia? What are the prospects?

We must accept that the economic crisis in Armenia is not a unique situation. I am sure that you are well aware that it is a consequence of the depressed world economic condition, without even taking into consideration the unique difficulties of our homeland connected with the blockade, the fighting in Artsakh, the penalties being exacted against Russia by the West, and other factors independent of Armenia.

Despite all this, unfortunately the indifference of the oligarchs concerning this situation continues. They continue to exploit the wealth of the country in a one-sided manner without consideration of the rights of the people. As in the case of other formerly Soviet countries, in Armenia during a very short period of time, a handful of people who came to head the government or were connected to the regime controlled the natural resources and real estate of the country.

Weak laws were never applied and many of them remained unpunished. Patriotic Armenian businessmen from the diaspora immediately after the proclamation of the third republic came to Armenia but returned emptyhanded and disillusioned, sometimes having lost their capital investments.

Time brings experience, and today too a group of diasporan Armenians continues to make investments, with the hope that these mistakes will not be repeated. I am sure that these difficulties will be overcome eventually, and people will freely establish new businesses in Armenia.

Fortunately, Russia has opened its doors wide before Armenia’s workers, and they send the money they earn to their families. Here at the risk of being repetitious, it is necessary to remind our compatriots that Russia remains Armenia’s sole reliable friend in the region. Political figures who advance anti-Russian sentiments are simply unrealistic people.

How do you envision the future of diasporan Armenians, and Armenia-diaspora relations in the economic, educational and cultural spheres?

The experience of decades shows that the ADL has always fostered sincere Armenia-diaspora relations. I am happy to say that Minister of the Diaspora Hranoush Hakobyan is well aware of its sincerity. She is very familiar with our leaders and with the founders of the Tekeyan Cultural Association. Again at the risk of being repetitious, let us recall that throughout the years of McCarthyism and the Truman doctrine during the Cold War, we fearlessly retained our ties with Soviet Armenia. We encouraged Diaspora Armenians to have a part in the homeland’s successes and achievements, in its cultural, educational, scientific life. On the one hand, we familiarized diasporan Armenians with the great names in Armenia, and, reciprocally, the Armenians with diasporan ones. It should not seem strange if we say that 25 years ago when the third republic was born that the diasporan Armenians were already familiar with its achievements.

These relations must become closer over time. Political party or factional interests must not guide them — they must be led by pure patriotism. It must not serve to create zones of influence in diasporan communities for otherwise, this will cause the generation born and brought up in foreign countries to grow distant from the ideal of the homeland.

The activity of the Church of Armenia has also always been a special focus of attention for the ADL. How do you evaluate the church’s actions in Armenia and the diaspora from the perspective of the strengthening of faith, spiritual, educational and cultural activity, and the cooperation among the hierarchical sees?

It is not possible to have serious cooperation among the hierarchical sees or between our traditional political parties, the ADL, ARF and the Social Democratic Hunchakian Party, and the hierarchal sees, as long as the church crisis remains unresolved. Let people not pretend that this crisis does not exist. Some of the dioceses traditionally and legally belonging to the Mother See — the three dioceses of Iran, divided Greece, and three dioceses of North America — still remain separated from Echmiadzin, and in addition to Antilias, they are under the immediate supervision of the political authorities of the ARF. Though the serious events and national developments of the last 25 years, such as the great earthquake, the birth of the third republic, the Artsakh war and the liberation of territory, changes in the diaspora, the sad state of Syrian affairs, and the commemoration of the centennial of the Armenian Genocide, temporarily froze the church crisis, it still remains the sad pain of the Church of Armenia. It is not possible to assure the unity of the church without restoring a lawful structure. This is the result of the Cold War. Now that the latter has ended, and Echmiadzin is living a golden age compared to the history of the last six hundred years, there is no reason for the division to stubbornly be perpetuated. Our church’s spiritual, cultural and educational activity will become much more evident and fruitful if we appear before Armenians and the world as a single, undivided church.

It must be recalled that this division had, and still has, its negative effects on the peaceful coexistence of Armenian communities. Large sums are being wasted in vain in order to maintain two diocesan seats and related institutions in the same communities. The separated church does not have the right to spend these sums collected from the people for the same purposes, if there already exists, for example, a legitimate Armenian diocese established for over one hundred years in the same city.

All of this becomes the reason for faith to gradually weaken among the new generation — the faith of the Armenian, respect toward the church. The church must not remain politicized and serve as a stage for political party and factional activity. The holy altar must serve the faith of the Armenian, as a symbol of love and unity.