Policy Forum Armenia (PFA) co-founder David Grigorian stated that the current format of diaspora-Armenia relations would be better described as relations between the elite of the traditional diaspora political parties and the Armenian government.

In a word, there is no contact between grassroots organizations on both sides of the divide.

Grigorian, who left Armenia in 1994 and now works as a senior economist at the IMF, argued for the creation of mechanisms and structures facilitating more meaningful contact amongst average Armenians at a public discussion organized by the Sardarapat Movement in Yerevan.

"Relations must be lowered down to the micro-level," he said, adding that only then would the diaspora be able to conduct a series of practical actions to utilize the human and technical resources it possesses to make real changes in the lives of ordinary people in Armenia.

Grigoryan noted that for a long time it was deemed heresy to raise such issues as corruption and poor governance in Armenia and said that many diaspora Armenians just remained silent rather than attracting the enmity of others.

He criticized the traditional structures in the diaspora for the intolerance they show to new voices and groups wishing to set up shop and introduce new modalities and ways of thinking.

"There is an absence of real democracy in the traditional diaspora structures and this is reflected in relations between the diaspora and Armenia. The field is dominated by these very organizations," argued Grigoryan.

The analyst stated that in terms of resolving tactical and strategic issues, traditional organizations in the diaspora have hit a brick wall and are in crisis mode.

"The diaspora wasn't able to formulate a joint vision of developing relations with Armenia. Directly or indirectly, it was the negative in Armenia that was spurred on," Grigoryan said and cited the flawed 2008 presidential election and the March 1st repression that followed.

He argued that the diaspora has done nothing to see that such events are not repeated in the future. In addition, the diaspora completely overlooked and didn't grasp the importance of creating a civil society in Armenia.

In its State of the Nation Report on "Armenia-Diaspora Relations: 20 Years since Independence" , published last year, Policy Forum Armenia takes the diaspora to task for not preventing the exodus from Armenia and for not assuming a serious role in poverty reduction even though there were certain successful projects that could have served as future models.

The PFA also criticized the diaspora for not creating investment funds and scientific centers that could have assisted in developing Armenia.

Mr. Grigoryan said that the All Armenia Fund not only failed to live up to expectations on a qualitative level, but that it wasn't able to incorporate the sufficient amount of funds that Armenia's economy needs.

He said that the time has come to professionally analyze the resources and potential of the diaspora and to draft an appropriate plan of action regarding the utilization of these assets in order to lift Armenia out of the morass it is now in.

"In the 21st century, the diaspora's global network is just as important as it financial resources and inherent potential. It is a network of tremendous importance," Grigoryan said.

He said that there are now positive signs coming out of the diaspora, especially after 2008 and the Armenia-Turkey Protocols. The diaspora is more informed as to developments in Armenia and new groups are getting involved in Armenia relations.

Garegin Choukaszyan, an IT specialist and Sardarapat member, described diaspora-Armenia relations during the past 20 years as a complete failure and said that one just has to look at Armenia's population numbers for proof.

"We should at least have a population of 4-5 million today. But, in many ways due to the diaspora network, supposedly a positive global factor, the exodus of people from Armenia has been facilitated," said Choukaszyan.

He argued that Armenia conducts the same policy regarding the diaspora as during the Soviet era; only the center has been changed from Moscow to Yerevan.

As to the role of the Ministry of the Diaspora, David Grigoryan noted that it was a welcome addition at the beginning but that tragically it now wants to cover over many of the deep-seated problems facing Armenia and put a positive spin on things.

During the question and answer segment that followed, someone from the audience raised a matter of semantics; i.e., would it be correct to label the return of elements of the traditional diaspora as "repatriation" (հայրենադարձութիւն), since their origins are in western Armenia and not the territory of the current Republic of Armenia.

Choukaszyan said that such a discrepancy exists since the Republic of Armenia was based on eastern Armenian territory; an area that makes up a tiny fraction of the historic Armenian homeland.

"However, I am convinced that this is one homeland and one center in the sense that if the Republic of Armenia was truly independent it would have to be concerned, at a priority level, with the survival of western Armenian. There would be schools teaching the language in the RA."