When history meets politics: The crisis at the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute
The firing of Dr. Edita Gzoyan from her position as director of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute (AGMI) for donating Ara Katibian’s “Azeri Aggression Against Armenians in Transcaucasia (1905-1921): Reports from the U.S. Press” raises a deeply troubling issue about the institute’s dependence on the Armenian government.
Ultimately, the AGMI is funded by the government, which inevitably limits its institutional independence and raises concerns about its ability to support truly free academic research. Any institution in nondemocratic or semidemocratic countries that depends on government funding is, to some extent, subject to government oversight and pressure. Given current geopolitical shifts and regional security concerns, the government may also feel compelled to ensure that research outputs and public statements from the AGMI do not conflict with official policy.
However, this dynamic creates a profound problem. As long as the AGMI remains under the direct control of the state, free scholarly inquiry will always be constrained, regardless of which government happens to be in power. Historical research should not be subject to political calculations. Yet in such a structure, historical truth risks becoming hostage to shifting government policies — policies often shaped by political expediency rather than by an appreciation for the importance of independent academic inquiry.
I have personally engaged with many brilliant scholars at the AGMI who have produced exceptional research on various dimensions of the Armenian Genocide and the broader history of violence targeting Armenians in the region. The unconventional step taken by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan in removing Dr. Gzoyan without consulting the AGMI’S Board of Trustees sends a chilling message to these scholars. It may lead many of them to feel increasingly constrained in expressing their views through honest academic work on the Armenian Genocide, its denial and the ethnic cleansing of Artsakh.
Equally troubling is the decision to replace Dr. Gzoyan with a politician who is neither a specialist nor a scholar of the Armenian Genocide. Such a move risks undermining the extraordinary work carried out at the institute. Even more concerning is the announcement that the institute’s work will be directed to conform to government policy. This sends an alarming signal not only to scholars within Armenia but also to the global academic community.
How can we move beyond this troubling situation?
There is an urgent need to establish an independent academic institute in Armenia devoted exclusively to the study of the Armenian Genocide as well as other genocides.
Such an institution must be free not only from government interference but also from the influence of political parties and partisan agendas. It should be governed by its own board of trustees and administrative leadership, whose responsibility would be to evaluate the institute’s work according to the highest academic standards.
Some may argue that such a project is unrealistic given the current circumstances in Armenia. I disagree. If established properly, this institute could become a global center for genocide studies. Many Armenian and non-Armenian scholars have the expertise and experience necessary to help build such an institution.
Despite persistent and aggressive denialism by Turkey and Azerbaijan, the Armenian Genocide has become an essential case study for understanding genocide in both the modern and premodern periods. A truly independent institute could expand this field by situating the Armenian experience within the broader comparative study of genocide.
Of course, ideas are easy to propose. Implementing them requires financial support from individuals, foundations and institutions. The institute must transcend Armenian political and religious divisions and adopt a transnational character.
Its research agenda should be defined by experts in the field. It should employ full-time researchers, publish a scholarly journal and book series, and actively engage academic and public audiences worldwide through conferences, symposia and lecture series.
Such an institute would not only deepen our understanding of the Armenian Genocide but also contribute to the global study of genocide as a phenomenon that has tragically affected societies across the modern world.
I therefore call on Armenian organizations and philanthropic communities across the globe to seriously consider funding such a project. Establishing an endowment for this institute would guarantee its financial stability and create an environment free from political constraints and government interference.
Only under such conditions can the field of genocide studies — and the scholarly study of the Armenian Genocide in particular — truly flourish.
