By Harut Sassounian

TheCaliforniaCourier.com

Over the years, I have frequently seen my weekly analysis of Armenian issues either reprinted or rebutted by Azerbaijani and Turkish media outlets.

However, what happened last week was very unusual. Three Turkish and Azeri media outlets published rebuttals to my article titled: “Turkish Research Center Repeatedly Praises Pashinyan and Criticizes the Diaspora.”

The most absurd article, written by Ulash Fakir, was published by ODATV, a Turkish nationalist online news outlet. It was titled “Their Names Were Listed One by One: Four Turkish Women Targeted by Armenians.” There were two major mistakes in the headline alone: 1) They were not targeted “by Armenians,” but by a single Armenian, namely, me; and 2) I did not target any “Turkish women.” I merely responded to the articles written by four Turkish analysts. I did not even know whether they were women or men. I wrote about a political, not a gender-related, issue.

ODATV wrongly referred to “the extensive coverage of [Aygun] Attar’s article by the diaspora press in the US.” There was no such thing. There was only one response: mine. ODATV disclosed that Pres. Recep Tayyip Erdogan appointed Attar to his “Security and Foreign Policy Council” in February 2021. Attar’s government post indicates that she cannot be considered an objective analyst on Armenian-Turkish issues.

ODATV went on to introduce the other three Turkish women whom it claims I “targeted.” All four women are highly educated, but that does not mean they are unbiased in their analyses of Armenian issues.

The second rebuttal to my article, written by Abulfaz Babazadeh, was published by NEWS.AZ in Baku, Azerbaijan. It was titled “Why Praise from Baku and Ankara Alarms the Armenian Diaspora.” He is described as “a scientist, a scholar of Japanese studies, and a political observer.” It is strange that a “scholar of Japanese studies” would write about an Armenian issue. Much of Babazadeh’s article was lifted verbatim from ODATV’s article, without any acknowledgment of the source. This is plagiarism by a so-called “scholar.”

However, I am pleased that Babazadeh praised parts of my article: “Sassounian deserves credit for identifying a genuine contradiction that is difficult to dismiss. The prime minister asks the diaspora not to interfere in Armenia’s domestic affairs while readily accepting its money for charitable campaigns. His criticism of [Prime Minister Nikol] Pashinyan’s meeting with ASA students rather than the broader Armenian community follows the same logic: engagement is selective rather than institutional. That is a legitimate criticism of the Armenian government — and it is directed at Yerevan, not Ankara.”

At the end of his article, Babazadeh offered several positive suggestions regarding relations among Armenia, the Diaspora, Azerbaijan, and Turkey:

“The first conclusion concerns tactics. The most effective support for normalization comes through restraint and concrete action. Every enthusiastic paragraph written in Ankara or Baku can become a quotation in Los Angeles. That is not an argument for silence. It is an argument for choosing words more carefully and backing them with tangible steps: opening borders, developing transport projects, expanding trade and strengthening humanitarian contacts.

“The second conclusion is strategic. The main front in the normalization process lies within Armenian politics itself — between the state and the diaspora, between memory and pragmatism. Only Armenians can resolve that debate. Armenia’s neighbors can offer predictability and wait for Yerevan to reach an understanding with its own society.

“The third conclusion is the most important for all sides. If Yerevan fails to create an institution through which the diaspora can influence decisions without blocking them, radical voices will gain a monopoly on the role of defender of the nation. Peace does not require defeating the diaspora. It requires integrating it into a new reality. Türkiye and Azerbaijan can contribute to that process in one crucial way: by avoiding actions or rhetoric that allow the peace agenda itself to be turned into a weapon against normalization.

“Sassounian’s column is written with a sense of grievance, and that grievance carries political meaning. It is a signal that part of the Armenian world feels excluded from the conversation. Ignoring that signal could prove costly. Hearing it — and responding with action rather than praise — could put peace on a much firmer foundation.”

The third rebuttal, written by Aygun Attar, was titled “The Armenian Diaspora’s Real Challenge is not Türkiye, but the Changing Geopolitical Reality. A Response to Harut Sassounian: Diaspora, State Sovereignty, and the Future of Peace in the South Caucasus.” The article was published by the Center for Eurasian Studies in Ankara.

Surprisingly, the Turkish analyst Attar is much more positive about the Diaspora than Pashinyan: “The Armenian diaspora possesses a deeply rooted historical consciousness, extensive organizational networks, and considerable political influence in several countries. Its role in preserving Armenian cultural identity and promoting Armenian causes internationally cannot be dismissed. Diaspora organizations in the United States and France, in particular, have long exercised influence over international discussions concerning Armenia.”

Attar acknowledged that “An Armenian living in Los Angeles, Paris, or elsewhere is fully entitled to advocate historical or political claims.” This is exactly what I have done, not as a representative of the Armenian government, but as a Diasporan.

However, Attar omitted two important points from her analysis: First, the discussion is not about one “Armenian living in Los Angeles,” but about millions of Armenians who live around the world. Second, this is not simply a matter of the Diaspora vs. the Republic of Armenia, but also of the many Armenians living within Armenia who vehemently oppose Pashinyan’s concessions.

In conclusion, Armenians around the world must be aware that foreign analysts and their governments closely monitor the opinions and declarations of Armenians both inside and outside Armenia.

Azerbaijan and Turkey should know that whatever compromises Pashinyan is making today will be rejected once he leaves office. Therefore, they must understand that these temporary concessions will soon be reversed.