The panelists at the ARF “Diaspora” Conference

A Debate That Asked the Right Questions

On the evening of Thursday, March 12 the Krikor and Mariam Karamanoukian Glendale Youth Center became something rare in diaspora public life: a room where difficult, necessary questions were asked without the comfort of easy answers.

Organized by the ARF-WR’s “Diaspora” Conference Committee as a precursor to the upcoming Diaspora Conference, the Public Debate-Discussion on “Armenian Diaspora’s Nation-Building Opportunities in the 21st Century” drew a full house of community members, scholars, activists, and civic leaders united by a single conviction, that understanding must precede action.

Beneath the evening’s wide-ranging discussion lay a deeper question: before the Armenian diaspora can assume a decisive role in nation-building, it must first understand and define its own strategic capacity. The evening was not designed to produce immediate answers, but rather to map the conditions that would allow the diaspora to become a credible and equal partner in shaping the Armenian future. This is because the stakes could not be higher: today, more Armenians live outside Armenia than within its borders, a reality that places the diaspora not at the margins of the Armenian story, but at its very heart.

In addition, the evening was deliberately framed not around crisis or lament, but around opportunity. Five distinguished panelists — diaspora studies scholar Dr. Khatchig Tölölyan, international relations professor Dr. Khatchig Der Ghougassian, community and spiritual leader Rev. Fr. Karekin Bedourian, ARF Bureau member Khajag Mgrdichian, and prominent civic attorney and community advocate Lara Yeretsian — brought to the stage a rare breadth of expertise: from the theoretical to the pastoral, from geopolitical strategy to courtroom advocacy. brought to the stage a rare breadth of expertise: from the theoretical to the pastoral, from geopolitical strategy to courtroom advocacy. The debate was moderated by Dr. Kevork Hagopjian, Esq., minority rights expert, and an active voice in Armenian diasporic communal life for over two decades.

Starting From Strength
The debate opened with a question that set its tone from the first moment: what is the single greatest asset the Armenian diaspora brings to nation-building in 2026 that no previous generation possessed? The responses revealed a community that is, in many ways, more richly positioned than it has ever been, globally networked, institutionally experienced, economically established, and increasingly embedded in the civic and political structures of its host countries. Participants pointed to the diaspora’s unprecedented capacity for transnational coordination in light of advanced technologies and AI and drew attention to a generation of young Armenians whose hunger for evolving identity and meaning represents a profound, if still largely untapped, opportunity.

No Diaspora Without a Homeland
One of the evening’s most clarifying moments was a reflection on the very nature of diaspora itself. The panelists emphasized that there is no diaspora without a Homeland — Hayrenik. To be diasporic is not simply to live abroad; it is to carry within oneself a connection to a homeland, a consciousness of displacement, and a living desire to return or contribute. This is not sentiment — it is the defining condition that separates a diaspora from a mere immigrant community.

Complementarity, Not Competition
From this foundation emerged one of the evening’s most candid conversations: the relationship between the diaspora and Yerevan is not without tension. The concern raised was not one of rivalry, but of autonomy, mutual respect and strategic partnership. The panelists were clear: the diaspora’s nation-building role is only meaningful if it is treated as a genuine strategic partner, with its own voice, its own organizational logic, and its own contribution to defining the shared future. Complementarity, in this sense, is not a given. It must be built deliberately, on the basis of mutual recognition and equal partnership.

Re-Defining the Diaspora’s Strategic Value
The evening’s most intellectually charged exchange centered on a fundamental question of identity and purpose: should the diaspora develop its own distinct agenda — investing in itself, its communities, and its institutions on its own terms — or is its greatest contribution found in serving as a strategic force that amplifies Armenia’s power and presence in the world? The debate made clear that this is not an either/or choice, nor an abstract one. How the diaspora answers it shapes everything — from how it allocates resources, to how it organizes politically, to how it defines success across generations.

What emerged from the discussion was a more demanding proposition: that to become a truly effective partner to Armenia, the diaspora must first do the harder work of reassessing itself honestly — mapping its real assets, evaluating its organizational capacity, and clearly articulating its strategic value. Not as an article of faith, but as a credible, evidence-based case. Only then can it claim — and expect to be treated as — an equal partner by Yerevan.

Building Outward, Not Only Inward
The conversation highlighted that today’s youth possess professional, intellectual and entrepreneurial capacities that can be redirected toward a common national purpose. Yet the panel also recognized a tension: alongside an engaged and highly networked generation, there is another that is drifting, more individualistic, assimilated or disconnected. The challenge, then, is not merely to “save” youth, but to invest in their real potential, respect their individual paths to success and connect those successes to a larger Armenian collective project.

The discussion suggested that traditional Armenian institutions remain valuable, but cannot simply rely on inherited legitimacy. If they are to remain relevant, they must modernize their methods, language, leadership cultures and forms of outreach. Inclusivity was also highlighted as essential: the future cannot be built by narrower circles speaking only to themselves. A stronger Diaspora will require broader participation, greater openness and a clearer understanding of diversity as an asset rather than a weakness.

An equally important insight emerged around the diaspora’s presence within the mainstream institutions of its host countries. Nation-building, it was argued, is not only what happens inside Armenian community spaces — schools, churches, political organizations — but also what Armenians do within the broader civic, legal, and political structures that shape public life and foreign policy. For a diaspora that has historically built inward, strategically embedding Armenian voices and interests into the institutions of one of the world’s most influential democracies represents a largely underexplored dimension of nation-building — and a concrete demonstration of the strategic value the diaspora can bring to the partnership.

Among the threads running through the evening was also the question of language — the most intimate dimension of Armenian identity. The concern was clear: institutional strength, political networks, and financial support can all be rebuilt. A language lost to a generation is far harder to recover. In this sense, preserving and transmitting Armenian is not a cultural nicety, it is a nation-building imperative.

Understanding Before Action
What distinguished this evening from many community gatherings was its philosophical premise: that clarity of understanding is itself an achievement — and a prerequisite for any meaningful action. The debate was not designed to produce a roadmap. It was designed to ensure that when the Diaspora Conference convenes in couple of days, the conversations that follow are grounded in honest self-knowledge rather than inherited assumptions. In that sense, the most important question of the night was also its last: having now mapped where we are and what this moment holds, do each of these panelists still hold the same view of the diaspora’s greatest asset that they articulated at the start of the evening?

The answers varied — some reinforced, some subtly shifted. Which is precisely the point. A community willing to think out loud, in public, with rigor and without pretense, is a community that still believes in its own future. On the evidence of Thursday evening in Glendale, the Armenian diaspora is exactly that.

—