Is there any meaningful consensus on what we want?
The commemorative events marking the 110th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide have ended. It seems like an appropriate time to review our position as a global nation. April 24 is a time of both remembrance and demands for justice. Unfortunately, the list of crimes against the Armenian people continues to grow. With each loss, we add new items to our justice portfolio. For decades, we have advocated for recognition of the crime of genocide, reparations, and the return of Western Armenia and Cilicia. The “Wilsonian” territory, based on the unsuccessful proposal made by President Woodrow Wilson in the Treaty of Sevres, has often been our focus.
Our enemies in Turkey in Azerbaijan continued their assault on our identity, with the cultural genocide in Nakhichevan added to our grievances. Most recently, the atrocities in occupied Artsakh, including genocide and the illegal detention of Armenian hostages, have been prominent focuses in our rallies.
The church, always an important player in commemorative events, has made an important adjustment in its focus over the last 10 years, with the canonization of the martyrs of the Armenian Genocide. There are no longer requiem services for their souls, but rather prayers seeking intercessions on our behalf as they rest in heaven as saints. Local and state events have increased the number of genocide remembrance days, weeks and even months.
Most of these activities reflect the diverse interests of the diaspora. Armenians in every corner of the globe remain firmly committed to remembrance and activism. In the United States, our advocacy groups are devoted to influencing the legislative process and foreign policy. Those efforts include lobbying for financial sanctions against Azerbaijan and limits on foreign aid to Turkey. In Armenia, April 24 continues to be a solemn day of remembrance, as thousands march to Tsitsernakaberd, the genocide memorial. In recent years, opposition groups have held public rallies protesting the detention of Armenian hostages, the occupation of Artsakh and Azeri aggression on Armenia’s sovereign borders.
April 24 is a barometer not only of historical injustices but also current challenges. The Armenian government maintains a respectful participation in commemorative activity, but is careful in its commentary given the sensitive negotiations underway with both Turkey and Azerbaijan. It is an awkward irony that the objects of our demands for justice are the principals in the normalization dialogue.
I find it a bit overwhelming to confront our non-Armenian supporters with a long list of demands that encompass over 110 years. Do they take us seriously when we bring up the return of Wilsonian Armenia, our hostages in Baku and border incursions in the same statement? The long and successful battle for genocide recognition has evolved into maintenance, with a few remaining important holdouts such as Great Britain and Israel. From a scholarly and political standpoint, the Armenian Genocide is a fact. There are many perspectives on where we go from here, ranging from “moving on” to full reparations. The work of building pragmatic consensus is challenging but important if we wish to sustain the struggle. Practically speaking, our list of demands does not present a clear priority to our stakeholders.
Where are we at this moment? Probably the most controversial incident in the United States was the president’s annual commemorative statement. President Donald Trump failed to use the term “genocide,” opting instead for the Armenian term, “Medz Yeghern.” This is a very sensitive issue, as the omission carries legal ramifications under international law. Some have said that Trump’s statement does not change U.S. policy, since both the House and Senate have passed permanent resolutions. Many view it as a regressive compromise to avoid alienating NATO ally Turkey. This was a battle that the diaspora thought it had won. Compromise in this domain has a deep impact on our collective psyche.
For the diaspora, justice for the genocide—and for more recent atrocities—is a personal matter. The majority of diaspora Armenians are descendants of survivors. The diaspora itself is a byproduct of the crime. The Artsakh tragedy demonstrated the risk of continued crimes when the perpetrators are not held accountable. Turkey feels no remorse, despite the overwhelming evidence. Perhaps more dangerously, it feels empowered to continue threatening Armenians’ existence.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan is convinced that peace is the only solution to save Armenia. The compromises proposed by Armenia and the irresponsible responses by Azerbaijan demonstrate that they have vastly different objectives. Armenia is banking on a treaty that will subdue Azeri aggression and win the support of larger nations that advocate for peace in the South Caucasus. It would be a major concession for Azerbaijan to sign a treaty, since Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev wants to maintain an aggressive posture. Dictators like Aliyev need external distractions to keep the support of their oppressed societies. Armenia’s destruction is his distraction.
The issue of “territorial integrity” has created more challenges. While both countries claim to respect each other’s territorial sovereignty, Armenia has walked the talk by formally renouncing any territorial claims over its neighbors. Azerbaijan, on the other hand, continues to occupy over 200 square kilometers of sovereign Armenian territory and openly refers to Armenia as “Western Azerbaijan.” With continued border violations and historical revisionism (no thanks to the Catholic Church), Aliyev displays contempt for these principles.
How do we reconcile the position of many in the diaspora with the position of Armenia’s government? Armenia is recognized as the legitimate voice of Armenians on the world stage. Yet, for years, many in our communties have advocated for “moving on” from our past in order to lift the cloud of the genocide. This has resulted in vociferous debate and widely different perspectives.
Armenia is a small, landlocked and blockaded country, but it is ours to love and defend.
While Armenia pursues strategies for its survival, making claims against those who threaten us seems unrealistic. The answer lies between pragmatism and idealism. In my view, we all have a responsibility to unify our thinking.
Prior to 1991, the diaspora toiled away at keeping our cause alive while building an infrastructure. With the establishment of a sovereign state, we all praise and adore the concept of a free Armenia, a place where our culture thrives. We visit with love, and then many of us return to our homes in the diaspora.
This is the difference. We don’t live there and are not citizens. We must accept the limitations of the diaspora regarding the governance of Armenia. When we disagree, we must find ways to have internal dialogue in the best interests of our nation. There are a plethora of positive diaspora-Armenia engagements in the areas of science, education, business and economics. When it comes to foreign policy matters, the diaspora is doing what it believes is appropriate but may not be aligned fully with the government of Armenia. Our small nation must operate at full efficiency. Since we have worn out and distorted the term “unity,” I will choose another term. How about harmony? It reminds me of an orchestra, in which there are many instruments, each with their own identity, but blended into oneness.
Last week, I commented on how special April is for us as Armenians and Christians. It also reflects the complexities and challenges we face as a people. We have many admirable attributes as a global nation that are reflected in our superb reputation and credibility. We also have great difficulty in reaching out to each other to prevent and resolve issues.
This year, the message I have internalized for April 24 is the need to come together in a more harmonious global mode. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has spoken openly about the diaspora, as if he is disappointed that a few survived. We can be his problem, but we cannot let him or the thug in Baku exploit us. Harmony with Armenia eliminates one of their most potent tools to divide us.
There is a great deal at stake, and the answers are not easy, but perhaps it is time for some self-reflection. The recognition campaign was an identity builder. Our people need a crisp and focused set of next steps that have a similar rallying impact. Vartan Gregorian once stated, “There is more that unites us than divides us.” If we take Dr. Gregorian’s advice, we might find harmony—a realistic goal.
Stepan Piligian
Latest posts by Stepan Piligian (see all)
- Service has no expiration date - May 8, 2025
- Is there any meaningful consensus on what we want? - April 30, 2025
- A very special month to embrace - April 22, 2025
Thank you for another poignant article, Mr. Piligian. Like always, you are spot on. While we continue to demand justice, we are losing our ancestral lands and assimilating into the diaspora – an inevitable reality. And yet, despite these harsh realities, we persist in repeating the same actions, expecting a different result. One newspaper covering the 2015 centennial protest marches remarked, “After a century, Armenians still march for justice.” That should have opened our eyes: if we’ve done something for 100 years without any success, perhaps it’s time to acknowledge that we’re doing something fundamentally wrong.
As you rightly state, “Our people need a crisp and focused set of next steps that have a… rallying impact.” That next step, I believe, is to focus on strengthening Armenia. This alone will determine our survival as a people. All else is doomed to failure. It’s time we stop marching in the streets demanding justice, because history has shown us that there is no justice, and no group has ever received justice simply by demanding it. Why do we expect to be the first? And while the pain of the Genocide is real and deep, it’s time to put it aside and redirect our energies toward more urgent issues threatening our survival. Let’s be honest: we, too, pay little attention to the genocides unfolding today around the world. So why should we expect others to care about ours, which happened more than a century ago?
These are critical questions we must confront head on. Motivated by this reality, my wife and I launched a pilot project in 2019 to explore whether a diasporan couple like us could help strengthen Armenia one village at a time. We adopted the village of Gosh and began implementing our plan, and the results have been inspiring. A few friends have already begun to replicate our model in other villages. But for this effort to grow, we need help. We would be honored if you visited us this summer to see firsthand the transformation that’s taken place in our village, and to explore how we can work together to spread the message. Hopefully, we can bring to life the kind of rallying impact you so eloquently call for.