Armenian positive neutrality in Lebanon: continuity or change?
Throughout the Lebanese Civil War, the Armenian community in Lebanon maintained a policy of positive neutrality, whereby relations with various Lebanese sectarian groups were based on safeguarding dialogue, security and political stability. This policy stems from the Armenian community’s commitment to Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Irrespective of their ideological differences and political positions regarding various Armenian issues, the three Armenian political parties—Tashnak, Hunchak and Ramgavar—united to safeguard the community’s interests amid the dangers of the war.
The war generated two main problems for Armenian leadership: first was the position adopted by the Armenian political leadership regarding the conflict and the belligerent forces involved; and the second was the impact that the war had on the Armenian community in Lebanon and the measures needed for protection. As regional and internal changes evolve, the essential question becomes—what has changed in the understanding and implementation of Armenian positive neutrality? This article provides an overview of the evolution of this policy, highlighting its continuities and transformations within the broader context of Lebanese politics.
Armenian positive neutrality: A historical context
Armenian neutrality in Lebanon can be traced back to the 1915 Armenian Genocide and the subsequent resettlement of thousands of Armenian refugees throughout the Middle East. In its search for security and stability, the Armenian community did not get involved in inter-sectarian clashes and adopted a policy of least interference in Lebanese politics. This neutrality was most palpable during the Lebanese Civil War (1975-76) when Armenian political parties and institutions attempted to remain non-aligned in the face of warring factions. Armenians were mainly concerned with maintaining the sovereignty of Lebanon and the Armenian cultural identity—embodied in language, schools, culture and the Armenian Question.
During the war, local Armenian militias engaged very little in active fighting, focusing instead on defending Armenian-populated areas such as Bourj Hammoud and Anjar. Sometimes outside forces pressured Armenians to take sides in the war, challenging the community’s neutral position. Still, Armenian leadership remained committed to their policy of positive neutrality and focused on finding solutions to the conflict through dialogue rather than violence.
The post-civil war period: Stability and realpolitik relations
In the aftermath of the civil war, Armenians remained committed to positive neutrality and formed political affiliations that were more pragmatic than ideological. The community’s cautious participation in Lebanese politics was guided by strategic calculations, not political beliefs. The 2005 assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and the ensuing division of Lebanese politics into the March 8 and March 14 alliances tested Armenian positive neutrality—dividing the community between the two blocs. The Hunchaks and Ramgavars were aligned with March 14, whereas the Tashnaks had close relations with the March 8 bloc. Still, Armenian representation in government remained moderate so that no single faction could dominate Armenians’ political allegiance.
At this time, Armenian organizations such as the Apostolic Church and the community’s schools and institutions continued to consolidate and maintain a stable cultural identity. The Church became an important social and religious institution, guiding its members and helping needy Armenian families affected by the Lebanese economic crisis. Community-based educational, cultural and religious institutions were vital to the Armenian identity and inter-communal relations.
Recognizing Lebanon’s social and economic challenges, Armenian leadership chose to tone down its political activism and prioritize the community’s long-term stability. Political leaders balanced various parties to avoid conflicts with other parts of Lebanese society, ensuring the protection of Armenian community interests. Politically, Armenian leaders continued to reflect a balanced approach, ensuring that no single faction monopolized Armenian political loyalty.
This mixture of political strategy and institutional stability helped maintain Armenian positive neutrality in Lebanon while avoiding harmful political disputes.
International and domestic developments
The outbreak of the Syrian Civil War in 2011, combined with other factors, such as the increased interest of foreign powers in Lebanon, have further complicated Armenian positive neutrality. Lebanon’s economic and political decline and a change in population structure have also affected the Armenian populated areas—and the arrival of Syrian Armenian refugees has added to already existing Armenian political issues, due to concerns about integration and the allocation of communal resources.
The financial crash, paired with the Lebanese uprising, which began in October 2019, have changed the country’s political environment. Widening economic gaps has turned communal fears into realities and further fueled heated discussions on whether or not it is possible to remain neutral in Lebanon’s increasingly polarized political scene. Although many Armenian political leaders have chosen to act thoughtfully in these situations, anger towards the system of governance and the miserable economic condition of Armenian youth indicate that a change might occur.
The August 2020 Beirut Port explosion further intensified the problems the Armenian community faced, as heavily Armenian-populated areas like Bourj Hammoud suffered significant damage. Armenian institutions stepped in to provide aid—demonstrating their commitment to positive neutrality by placing humanitarian needs over political disputes.
Challenges and future perspectives
Armenian positive neutrality today presents a plethora of problems. The ongoing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, the growing irrelevance of old political parties and the emergence of new political movements are dilemmas for Armenian leaders in Lebanon.
The split in the community is another important determinant of Armenian neutrality. While older generations are accustomed to relying on traditional alliances, younger Armenians are becoming active members of civil society and pushing for political change in Lebanon. This is a positive development in the hopes that neutrality will transform from a static, passive, subdued form of engagement to a politically active stance—one which carefully assesses Armenian participation in Lebanon’s shifting political context.
Notwithstanding these difficulties, Armenian positive neutrality remains the principle of primary importance to the community. However, the implementation of this neutrality is changing. While traditional approaches to neutrality center on non-engagement, modern pragmatic neutrality involves proactive participation while avoiding involvement in harmful sectarian conflicts.
Conclusion
Historically, Armenian positive neutrality in Lebanon has been a tool for communal survival amid the country’s political shifts. While intact at the core, the region and internal newer developments have compelled changes in strategy. The future of Armenian positive neutrality seems to hinge on the extent to which the community can balance its enduring loyalty to security, stability and neutrality with the ever-changing political environment in Lebanon.
Preserving a neutral Armenian identity poses challenges and will demand comprehensive approaches to deal with domestic and international factors. The combination of past experiences, socio-economic factors and generational change will influence the political attitudes of Lebanon’s Armenians. This changing landscape in Lebanon will test the Armenian community’s resolve to adhere to the notion of neutrality, but as always, the utmost necessity will be given to guaranteeing stability and prosperity for the community’s long-term survival.
Vera Yacoubian
Tհe Armenian “positive neutrality” policy during the 1975-1990 Lebanese Civil War was generally accepted that it was framed by Dr. Melkon Eblighagtian, who was the only ARF parliamentarian at the time and headed the Armenian parliamentary blog which, for the first time also included an Armenian in the person of Dr. Antranig Manougian, as the representative of the Evangelical community of Lebanon. “Positive neutrality” as a policy meant that the Armenian community, at the onset of the civil war, had the means and could side with a faction but chose not to. In historical context the Armenian “Positive Neutrality” policy during the Civil War, had no relevance to the post Genocide Armenian neutrality for the nascent community in the making in Lebanon.