Who Does the Congress of Canadian Armenians Really Represent?

7 comments

1. CCA and Knights of Vartan

   Dear Dikran,

   I realized that founding members of CCA are also members of Knights of Vartan. Is CCA an offshoot of Knights of Vartan?

   1. An interesting observation
      Dear Hagop,
      I am not privy to such information. Probably a member of Knights of Vartan or the executive of the CAA may shed light on this matter.
      Dikran

2. CCA

   The Hnchak Party of Canada is a member of the Congress of Canadian Armenians (CCA), according to the latter’s website. Since the CCA supports the Protocols, it follows that Hnchak’s are also pro the protocols. However, two weeks ago, at a televised public gathering in Glendale, California, the Hnchak spokesman denounced the protocols without equivocation. I am confused. Are the Hnchaks pro or anti the protocols?

   1. Curious development
      I think AGBU Montreal chapter too was a member in CCA, but not now. I will not be surprised to hear that the Henchaks of Canada will withdraw their membership in CCA following the latest developments related to the Protocols. They endorsed the joint declaration of the three traditional parties and took part in the popular political gatherings against the protocols. It would at least sound unprincipled to endorse such a declaration and at the same time be part of an umbrella formation that by and large supports the present course of the Government of Armenia.

3. Hnchags divided?

   Like divided RAG, who can play on two strings, may be Hnchags are playing the same game. There is a term for that in Arabic, “neither tied nor divorced…”.
    

   Do the members of these parties read their initial manifesto? How do they feel about their daily lives when the organization like Hnchag was founded on social democratic principals?

    

   Regards,
   Hagop

4.  Thank you for this

   Thank you for this commentary, Dikran.

   I know many Armenians who feel as you do (including myself), about how these organizations do not represent their views. Many organizations are led, dictatorially, by individuals who gain from aligning themselves with Armenia’s criminal regime. They may benefit in the form of receiving presidential awards or dual citizenship; receiving the right to purchase large tracts of land (even if they are protected regions); benefitting from the suspension of laws that are null for such allies but still apply to everyone else, etc.

   I also feel that "normalization of relations" between Turkey and Armenia cannot occur until Turkey takes responsibility for the Armenian Genocide and all that entails, not to mention guaranteed self-determination for Artsakh. Most "No Protocols" petitions out there right now (and the views of at least one recent columnist appearing in Keghart) treat it as a foregone conclusion that normalization of relations must occur between these nations at this time, even if the genocide issue is marginalized, ostensibly forever.

   This treatment of the issue as a foregone conclusion is rarely discussed. In fact, those who do discuss it are often labeled "naive," "hostile," and even psychopathic because such ideas disrupt the balance of power existing between many of our organizations and the current regime.

   I do not agree with the premise that normalization must occur right now  — a normalization that does not serve human rights but serves anyone who benefits from a pipeline going through the region.  Armenia’s geographic position makes it incredibly valuable to the West, a value that carries bargaining power with it, much as the West wishes us to believe Armenia is a charity case and nothing more. In fact, despite this knowledge, I have signed a petition or two that refer to "no preconditions for the normalization of relations" because the main point made, that the protocols must be rejected, seemed paramount. 

5. Suggestion for a model

   Though I am not certain if these few lines will be published here, I do understand the dilemma the author describes quite well in regard to his "unfortunate experiences ", shall we say, with some of our organizations.

   There is so much to disapprove, rather – not be in accord – with those some …I better keep quiet.

   My efforts have always been to "suggest", never advise, nor offer, nor even convince, persuade…my compatriots to whatever organization or political party they belong to. I "suggest", for I am scared, afraid to tell my compatriots, for we are rather a race – people of Ishkahns and Ishkhanuhis.

   When I first entered the Armenian activism -never been a partisan and don´t wish to be so- I always respected them all, and tried to keep a distance.

   If we aspire or pretend to be a nation that has acquired or reached the stage of having "Formacion Social", then we should all respect each others viewpoints, ideologies, irrespective of our disagreements. That is current political parties and/or even those who do not bear a particular ideological denomination.

   They are all Armenian, but…

   Before we can claim that we have attained that said stage, we should also consider the great big collectivities: the "Professional Colleagues", already formed Associations. There are already 5 on the scene. These good people
   represent our backbone. I dare say they are 100,000 strong or more. They are endowed both with human resources and material. There will some day, hopefully, become 11 more such Associations, electing their delegates for
   their merits to the Interprofessional Colleagues’ Associations, the Elite, by "campaigning" based on the following
   merits:

   (a) having advanced positions in their respective fields,
   (b) having attained respected recognition in national and international culture, apoliticized persons with networking capacity
   (c) having financially sound positions.

   Gaytzag Palandjian

Comments are closed.