I think the reactions shown by Turkish-American and Armenian-American organizations to protocols reveal some important structural differences worth noting.
Turkish-American organizations (much like Azeri-American ones, by the way) remain strongly in line with the concurrent foreign policy of originating nation (i.e., Turkey, Azerbaijan, etc.). This is the most fundamental deficiency in diaspora, inability to have an independent decision making mechanism based solely on community’s view and thinking. Ultimately, such approach visibly turns diaspora into another tool of executing the foreign policy of home government, makes organizations dependent (including economically) on foreign country, lowers their significance in influencing the politics of the host nation, the United States.
The reaction of Armenian diaspora shows exactly the opposite. It’s a strong and independent decision-making unit, able to influence the foreign policy of the United States, independently of Armenia, with or without its existence, and Sarkisian calculated this well too. Unlike Turkish reaction, the Armenian approach is driven by ideology and “soft power” not by state’s foreign policy, which makes Armenians so much more successful in achieving their goals on every front. And I hope both Turkish- and Azeri-American organizations can learn from this experience and have their own voice in future.
Leave a Reply