An Interview with Raffi K. Hovannisian
Raffi Hovannisian was born in Fresno, California, in 1959. He graduated with a BA in History and Near Eastern Studies from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and earned an MA in International Law and Diplomatic History from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, studying the foreign policies of Communist countries and writing his thesis on American diplomacy and the Republic of Armenia. He later studied at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C., where he was awarded with a Doctor of Law degree.
In 1989, he founded the Armenian Bar Association and in 1990, moved to Armenia with his family, becoming the director of the Yerevan office of the Armenian Assembly of America. In 1991-92, Raffi K. Hovannisian served as the first Minister of Foreign Affairs of the newly independent Republic of Armenia.
Hovannisian founded the Armenian Center for National and International Studies (ACNIS) in 1994 and, in December 2001, established the National Citizens' Initiative with the purpose of realizing the rule of law and overall improvements in civil society in Armenia. In 2005, he was elected Chairman of the Heritage political party.
This interview was conducted on 9 September 2005 in Yerevan, Republic of Armenia. It is part of continuing research for an article on the possible role of the Armenian Diaspora in democracy building in the Republic of Armenia.
ONNIK KRIKORIAN: Although you're now a citizen of Armenia, when everyone thinks of Diasporan involvement here, they almost always think of you. Given the positions you have held and the organizations you have founded, do you think that the Diaspora has a role to play in democracy building in Armenia and if so, should it?
RAFFI HOVANNISIAN: That's a very contemporary question with immediate implications for the Armenian nation and the challenges it faces in this century. Traditionally, the Armenian Diaspora, which is a product of great national tragedy over the centuries, has assumed a secondary role in terms of nation-building in Armenia and the development of democracy, human rights and a sound, modern nation-state.
By and large, in the post-Genocide era, the Diaspora and its communities and institutions were involved with rebuilding, regrouping and creating new families in new lands in order to first become organized communities, and then movers and shakers. Armenian communities have been driven more by the security and survival of the nation and state, in both its Soviet and post-Soviet manifestation, than by the actual quality of that nation-state.
I think that the time has come, and that it has long passed, for the Armenia Diaspora, or rather the Diasporas that are manifold and diverse throughout the world, to take an active interest in the quality of present-day Armenia. Without the forging a democratic, rule-of-law state that distinguishes national interests from partisan play, and that builds a society based on the absolute liberty of the citizen as well as the valuable role he or she assumes in the homeland, it will be difficult to talk about the realization of national aspirations and ultimately, national security.
As we are about to mark the fourteenth anniversary of Armenia's independence, we know that we have many failings that cannot be blamed on historical enemies such as the perpetrators of the Genocide or their progeny. Many of the issues that plague Armenia today are internal. The questions, as well as the answers, come from within, and I think that this requires not only civic engagement and a new paradigm of participation from the Republic of Armenia and its citizens, but also from those compatriots of ours who, by force of history or contemporary choice, have found themselves living abroad.
It is here that parallel with traditional concerns of survival and humanitarian assistance in a country with a 50 percent poverty threshold, as well as traditional concerns such as recognition of the Armenian Genocide and other important national and historical issues, the Diaspora, whether as an organized collective or as a bouquet of individuals participating on a variety of levels, must take an active interest in the democratic development of Armenia. That means a right of voice, a right of participation, and a linkage between the quality and scope of Diasporan participation and the rediscovery of Armenia's democratic credentials.
When I had the honor of representing Armenia in the international arena during the first year of our sovereignty, the circumstances were perhaps unique because against all odds, our generation had borne witness to the rebirth of Armenia for the second time in the same century. God would not give us a third chance and so we knew that we had to make things happen through a proactive foreign policy, the deepening of democracy, and the realization of all those nice slogans that are on virtually everyone's lips these days, regardless of whether they're in government or opposition, and even if they don't quite live by those same benchmarks and values themselves.
Why was that time different? Because it was a time of great romanticism and great euphoria driven by Armenia's natural revival. The general perception among our international partners, particularly in the West, was that Armenia was the democratic standard bearer of the region. Unfortunately, because of the way we comported ourselves, the movement that began as a legitimate quest for liberty and self-determination, decolonization, and civil rights for Armenia and Karabakh, began to retreat and recede after the declaration of independence.
Ultimately, through a series of very bad and shameful elections and other violations of individual and collective rights, we lost that democratic advantage. Hence, I think that while citizens and the body public of the Republic of Armenia have a primary role to play in the establishment of a national, democratic Armenian state, the role of the Diaspora is critical not only in helping Armenia make it over the geopolitical divide that it faces today, but also in confronting the mentality and overcoming the abyss in which we find ourselves.
Here too, in order to complete the analysis, one must expect that it is imperative that the Diaspora as a whole, and as a concept that is composed of different sub-cultures, organizations, institutions and individuals, lives up to the same measures of democracy, accountability and transparency that we expect from the Republic of Armenia.
OK: If the Diaspora was to involve itself by supporting the process of democracy building in Armenia, what could it do?
RH: It's not really for me to enlighten our compatriots in the Diaspora who are committed Armenians as well as devoted citizens of the states in which they reside, but I would think that the standard of participation, the criteria of vigilance, as well as a critical dialogue must be brought to a higher contemporary and professional level where emotion and compatriotic passion have their place, but where the abiding benchmark is the long-term stability, development and security of Armenia.
That is, it should be based on a final commitment that is quantifiable and qualifiable by specific criteria such as freedom, democracy and the rule of law.
You've lived in Armenia for many years so you know that this not only requires a leap of faith but also a lot of hard work because Armenia's problems with corruption and graft as well as with conflicts of interest are system-wide, nation-wide and can be found in every single domain. They descend vertically from the presidency all the way down and that's why, I repeat, the creation of a civic society is important. So too is the consolidation of democratic forces, an end to alienation and apathy via the empowerment of Armenian citizens, and ultimately, a change from the top so that the average Armenian citizen can look up to the leaders they eventually elect.
So far, Armenian leaders have not been duly elected, and citizens have not been able to look to them as examples of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and therefore, as a model for Armenian families, businesses and citizens across the board to follow. I repeat, this is the key issue that faces us today, and in that common quest I think the Diaspora has to reinvent itself, reassess its priorities and the way it approaches Armenia. In the Diaspora, as in Armenia, there is plenty of dilettantism and amateurism, personal intrigues and parochial interests, and the use and abuse of Armenian issues for less than national purposes.
Here, I think, there is a need to link commitment to Armenia with the nature and quality of its leadership without, of course, jeopardizing that half of the Armenian population which needs humanitarian assistance. There needs to be a distinction between daily humanitarian support which comes to the Republic of Armenia regardless of who is in government and a requisite developmental partnership that has certain stringent standards set not only by organized groups but also by benefactors and individuals who are given to personal relationships.
This is a model very difficult to break because as you know, because of our special and not always happy history, we have our good measure, and sometimes an overdose, of partisanship in the Diaspora, which finds its reflection in how those partisan groups relate to, and take positions on, issues and developments in the Republic of Armenia.
Because this is the case, and we can analyze Armenia from the first Republic through the Soviet period to the Ter Petrosian and current administration, you can see how different segments of the Diaspora have changed their positions depending on the identity of the government and of the opposition at a given time without necessarily referring to the standards, programs and qualities that are necessary for Armenia and its leadership, whoever it might be. We have not had an approach from the Diaspora which is blind to personalities, unfortunately, and I think that ultimately, this needs to change.
In both Armenia and the Diaspora we need organizational and systemic approaches that are not necessarily neutral to the role of character and personality but which can subsume those preferences to an overriding compendium of ground rules that will help Armenia achieve democracy. This will be impossible unless, as a prerequisite, the Diaspora and its institutions achieve that very same democracy.
OK: Since 2003, when there were many problems with the presidential and parliamentary elections, do you think that the Diaspora is slowly beginning to realize that it should be concerned with issues such as the democratization of Armenia? As a second part to that question, can Diasporas take on that role? Maybe the Armenian Diaspora will turn out the same as the Jewish Diaspora, for example. Is it changing and if it hasn't, why would it be different from other Diasporas anyway?
RH: First of all, while a comparison with the history and contemporary demeanor of the Jewish Diaspora, or the Irish Diaspora which is a more appropriate comparison for Armenia, is a very productive concern – and we certainly have a lot to learn from such comparisons – I think that Armenia needs to forge its own formula for relations with its Diaspora. For that, Armenia needs to be a self-confident, inclusive, outward-looking country that truly believes in itself and its people, not only in rhetoric but also in reality.
It must take its rightful place in the region and the world and make its pivotal contribution to contribute in terms of culture, economy, politics, civilization and security in the new epoch.
Until such time, in the prevailing situation where under the rubric of national interests you can find a complete web of private transactions and policies for personal benefit, it is the realization that Armenia has not developed over the last 14 years to become a true Republic that sees the Diaspora as its partner and as an asset and guarantee for its security and development in the 21 st Century. I don't think we've come to that realization yet, but I'm convinced that we're on the threshold of a national democratic transformation.
We need that quantum leap for Armenia and the Armenian nation the world over. I, along with others who are similarly situated and who believe that there is a direct correlation between how just you are in your domestic demeanor and how effectively you are able to pursue foreign policy objectives, will continue in the months and years ahead to struggle for that national transformation.
We've graduated beyond the last century and its mindset by which we naively thought we could knock on the world's door and demand justice on issues close to us historically and correctly without ourselves possessing those same stringent standards of justice, respect for the law, and civil and human rights in our own living nation-state. These are interlinked imperatives and against this background, the Diaspora has a lot of re-thinking to do.
It is almost impossible to generalize the Diaspora into one category. There is a multiplicity of opinion in the Diaspora, as there is in the Republic of Armenia, so one can't say in a contemporary setting that the Diaspora thinks this or should be doing that. There is a broad array of opinion and that's how it should be. Sometimes, unfortunately, that diversity of opinion lends itself to partisan posturing and taking positions on Armenian issues that are based more on one's stance and ambitions in one's own community [in the Diaspora] rather than on the actual merits themselves, or even what they mean for Armenia and the Armenian people.
The Armenian Diaspora will continue to be a multifaceted potential partner for Armenia and there will always be a healthy diversity within. However, it is to be hoped that this necessary competition of opinions and options will finally be translated into value-based, systemic solidarity with Armenia and its democratic development. But for that, Armenia needs to move beyond its “smallness” and its incapacity to create national institutions based on citizen participation rather than exclusion.
Armenia needs a guaranteed system of law, rights and democracy that respects and doesn't violate the fundamental freedoms of the citizen at every step.
Both in terms of a direct connection between Armenia's domestic track record and its foreign policy aspirations in favor of a qualitatively new synergy for Armenia-Diaspora relations, the case has been made. The question is whether our generation will be able to meet the challenges and close the deal with courage, creativity, foresight and relevance in our era. The jury is still out on this matter.
Raffi Hovannisian was born in Fresno, California, in 1959. He graduated with a BA in History and Near Eastern Studies from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and earned an MA in International Law and Diplomatic History from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, studying the foreign policies of Communist countries and writing his thesis on American diplomacy and the Republic of Armenia. He later studied at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C., where he was awarded with a Doctor of Law degree.
In 1989, he founded the Armenian Bar Association and in 1990, moved to Armenia with his family, becoming the director of the Yerevan office of the Armenian Assembly of America. In 1991-92, Raffi K. Hovannisian served as the first Minister of Foreign Affairs of the newly independent Republic of Armenia.
Hovannisian founded the Armenian Center for National and International Studies (ACNIS) in 1994 and, in December 2001, established the National Citizens' Initiative with the purpose of realizing the rule of law and overall improvements in civil society in Armenia. In 2005, he was elected Chairman of the Heritage political party.
This interview was conducted on 9 September 2005 in Yerevan, Republic of Armenia. It is part of continuing research for an article on the possible role of the Armenian Diaspora in democracy building in the Republic of Armenia.
ONNIK KRIKORIAN: Although you're now a citizen of Armenia, when everyone thinks of Diasporan involvement here, they almost always think of you. Given the positions you have held and the organizations you have founded, do you think that the Diaspora has a role to play in democracy building in Armenia and if so, should it?
RAFFI HOVANNISIAN: That's a very contemporary question with immediate implications for the Armenian nation and the challenges it faces in this century. Traditionally, the Armenian Diaspora, which is a product of great national tragedy over the centuries, has assumed a secondary role in terms of nation-building in Armenia and the development of democracy, human rights and a sound, modern nation-state.
By and large, in the post-Genocide era, the Diaspora and its communities and institutions were involved with rebuilding, regrouping and creating new families in new lands in order to first become organized communities, and then movers and shakers. Armenian communities have been driven more by the security and survival of the nation and state, in both its Soviet and post-Soviet manifestation, than by the actual quality of that nation-state.
I think that the time has come, and that it has long passed, for the Armenia Diaspora, or rather the Diasporas that are manifold and diverse throughout the world, to take an active interest in the quality of present-day Armenia. Without the forging a democratic, rule-of-law state that distinguishes national interests from partisan play, and that builds a society based on the absolute liberty of the citizen as well as the valuable role he or she assumes in the homeland, it will be difficult to talk about the realization of national aspirations and ultimately, national security.
As we are about to mark the fourteenth anniversary of Armenia's independence, we know that we have many failings that cannot be blamed on historical enemies such as the perpetrators of the Genocide or their progeny. Many of the issues that plague Armenia today are internal. The questions, as well as the answers, come from within, and I think that this requires not only civic engagement and a new paradigm of participation from the Republic of Armenia and its citizens, but also from those compatriots of ours who, by force of history or contemporary choice, have found themselves living abroad.
It is here that parallel with traditional concerns of survival and humanitarian assistance in a country with a 50 percent poverty threshold, as well as traditional concerns such as recognition of the Armenian Genocide and other important national and historical issues, the Diaspora, whether as an organized collective or as a bouquet of individuals participating on a variety of levels, must take an active interest in the democratic development of Armenia. That means a right of voice, a right of participation, and a linkage between the quality and scope of Diasporan participation and the rediscovery of Armenia's democratic credentials.
When I had the honor of representing Armenia in the international arena during the first year of our sovereignty, the circumstances were perhaps unique because against all odds, our generation had borne witness to the rebirth of Armenia for the second time in the same century. God would not give us a third chance and so we knew that we had to make things happen through a proactive foreign policy, the deepening of democracy, and the realization of all those nice slogans that are on virtually everyone's lips these days, regardless of whether they're in government or opposition, and even if they don't quite live by those same benchmarks and values themselves.
Why was that time different? Because it was a time of great romanticism and great euphoria driven by Armenia's natural revival. The general perception among our international partners, particularly in the West, was that Armenia was the democratic standard bearer of the region. Unfortunately, because of the way we comported ourselves, the movement that began as a legitimate quest for liberty and self-determination, decolonization, and civil rights for Armenia and Karabakh, began to retreat and recede after the declaration of independence.
Ultimately, through a series of very bad and shameful elections and other violations of individual and collective rights, we lost that democratic advantage. Hence, I think that while citizens and the body public of the Republic of Armenia have a primary role to play in the establishment of a national, democratic Armenian state, the role of the Diaspora is critical not only in helping Armenia make it over the geopolitical divide that it faces today, but also in confronting the mentality and overcoming the abyss in which we find ourselves.
Here too, in order to complete the analysis, one must expect that it is imperative that the Diaspora as a whole, and as a concept that is composed of different sub-cultures, organizations, institutions and individuals, lives up to the same measures of democracy, accountability and transparency that we expect from the Republic of Armenia.
OK: If the Diaspora was to involve itself by supporting the process of democracy building in Armenia, what could it do?
RH: It's not really for me to enlighten our compatriots in the Diaspora who are committed Armenians as well as devoted citizens of the states in which they reside, but I would think that the standard of participation, the criteria of vigilance, as well as a critical dialogue must be brought to a higher contemporary and professional level where emotion and compatriotic passion have their place, but where the abiding benchmark is the long-term stability, development and security of Armenia.
That is, it should be based on a final commitment that is quantifiable and qualifiable by specific criteria such as freedom, democracy and the rule of law.
You've lived in Armenia for many years so you know that this not only requires a leap of faith but also a lot of hard work because Armenia's problems with corruption and graft as well as with conflicts of interest are system-wide, nation-wide and can be found in every single domain. They descend vertically from the presidency all the way down and that's why, I repeat, the creation of a civic society is important. So too is the consolidation of democratic forces, an end to alienation and apathy via the empowerment of Armenian citizens, and ultimately, a change from the top so that the average Armenian citizen can look up to the leaders they eventually elect.
So far, Armenian leaders have not been duly elected, and citizens have not been able to look to them as examples of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and therefore, as a model for Armenian families, businesses and citizens across the board to follow. I repeat, this is the key issue that faces us today, and in that common quest I think the Diaspora has to reinvent itself, reassess its priorities and the way it approaches Armenia. In the Diaspora, as in Armenia, there is plenty of dilettantism and amateurism, personal intrigues and parochial interests, and the use and abuse of Armenian issues for less than national purposes.
Here, I think, there is a need to link commitment to Armenia with the nature and quality of its leadership without, of course, jeopardizing that half of the Armenian population which needs humanitarian assistance. There needs to be a distinction between daily humanitarian support which comes to the Republic of Armenia regardless of who is in government and a requisite developmental partnership that has certain stringent standards set not only by organized groups but also by benefactors and individuals who are given to personal relationships.
This is a model very difficult to break because as you know, because of our special and not always happy history, we have our good measure, and sometimes an overdose, of partisanship in the Diaspora, which finds its reflection in how those partisan groups relate to, and take positions on, issues and developments in the Republic of Armenia.
Because this is the case, and we can analyze Armenia from the first Republic through the Soviet period to the Ter Petrosian and current administration, you can see how different segments of the Diaspora have changed their positions depending on the identity of the government and of the opposition at a given time without necessarily referring to the standards, programs and qualities that are necessary for Armenia and its leadership, whoever it might be. We have not had an approach from the Diaspora which is blind to personalities, unfortunately, and I think that ultimately, this needs to change.
In both Armenia and the Diaspora we need organizational and systemic approaches that are not necessarily neutral to the role of character and personality but which can subsume those preferences to an overriding compendium of ground rules that will help Armenia achieve democracy. This will be impossible unless, as a prerequisite, the Diaspora and its institutions achieve that very same democracy.
OK: Since 2003, when there were many problems with the presidential and parliamentary elections, do you think that the Diaspora is slowly beginning to realize that it should be concerned with issues such as the democratization of Armenia? As a second part to that question, can Diasporas take on that role? Maybe the Armenian Diaspora will turn out the same as the Jewish Diaspora, for example. Is it changing and if it hasn't, why would it be different from other Diasporas anyway?
RH: First of all, while a comparison with the history and contemporary demeanor of the Jewish Diaspora, or the Irish Diaspora which is a more appropriate comparison for Armenia, is a very productive concern – and we certainly have a lot to learn from such comparisons – I think that Armenia needs to forge its own formula for relations with its Diaspora. For that, Armenia needs to be a self-confident, inclusive, outward-looking country that truly believes in itself and its people, not only in rhetoric but also in reality.
It must take its rightful place in the region and the world and make its pivotal contribution to contribute in terms of culture, economy, politics, civilization and security in the new epoch.
Until such time, in the prevailing situation where under the rubric of national interests you can find a complete web of private transactions and policies for personal benefit, it is the realization that Armenia has not developed over the last 14 years to become a true Republic that sees the Diaspora as its partner and as an asset and guarantee for its security and development in the 21 st Century. I don't think we've come to that realization yet, but I'm convinced that we're on the threshold of a national democratic transformation.
We need that quantum leap for Armenia and the Armenian nation the world over. I, along with others who are similarly situated and who believe that there is a direct correlation between how just you are in your domestic demeanor and how effectively you are able to pursue foreign policy objectives, will continue in the months and years ahead to struggle for that national transformation.
We've graduated beyond the last century and its mindset by which we naively thought we could knock on the world's door and demand justice on issues close to us historically and correctly without ourselves possessing those same stringent standards of justice, respect for the law, and civil and human rights in our own living nation-state. These are interlinked imperatives and against this background, the Diaspora has a lot of re-thinking to do.
It is almost impossible to generalize the Diaspora into one category. There is a multiplicity of opinion in the Diaspora, as there is in the Republic of Armenia, so one can't say in a contemporary setting that the Diaspora thinks this or should be doing that. There is a broad array of opinion and that's how it should be. Sometimes, unfortunately, that diversity of opinion lends itself to partisan posturing and taking positions on Armenian issues that are based more on one's stance and ambitions in one's own community [in the Diaspora] rather than on the actual merits themselves, or even what they mean for Armenia and the Armenian people.
The Armenian Diaspora will continue to be a multifaceted potential partner for Armenia and there will always be a healthy diversity within. However, it is to be hoped that this necessary competition of opinions and options will finally be translated into value-based, systemic solidarity with Armenia and its democratic development. But for that, Armenia needs to move beyond its “smallness” and its incapacity to create national institutions based on citizen participation rather than exclusion.
Armenia needs a guaranteed system of law, rights and democracy that respects and doesn't violate the fundamental freedoms of the citizen at every step.
Both in terms of a direct connection between Armenia's domestic track record and its foreign policy aspirations in favor of a qualitatively new synergy for Armenia-Diaspora relations, the case has been made. The question is whether our generation will be able to meet the challenges and close the deal with courage, creativity, foresight and relevance in our era. The jury is still out on this matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment