The Republic of Armenia is underdeveloped, landlocked and highly vulnerable to outside threats, pressure and manipulation. Given its geographic and demographic disadvantages, alongside the enduring consequences of the Armenian Genocide, Yerevan must use every means at its disposal to ensure the safety and security of its territory and people. What it lacks in military strength, it needs to compensate for with skilled diplomacy. Unfortunately, at present, there are not many signs of Armenian diplomatic success.
Recently, a shameful scene unfolded in Shushi, which was ethnically cleansed by Azerbaijan in 2023. While on a Baku-sponsored propaganda tour, foreign diplomats were seen smiling and laughing as an Azerbaijani propagandist mocked the fact that Armenians were the indigenous inhabitants of the region. Another scene depicts senior U.S. diplomat Amy Carlon dancing during the visit. Neither international nor Armenian diplomacy has shown itself willing to call out such disrespectful acts or demand accountability.
As disgraceful as this is for the foreign diplomats involved, it is also emblematic of the challenges facing Armenian diplomacy. The response from the Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the incident in Shushi proved insufficient. By advancing an overly accommodating and often defeatist government agenda on issues related to Artsakh, as well as Armenian sovereignty, security and the foundations of Armenian identity, culture, history and religious heritage, Armenian diplomacy is not seen as protecting or advancing Armenian state interests.
This disappointing reality reflects the deficiencies of the current regime. The diplomatic service of any country carries out the directives of its government, but effective governments also rely on their diplomatic professionals for candid advice in devising policies to advance the interests of the state. In the case of Armenia, however, the ruling elites seem to be confusing their personal, political and economic interests with the national interest. Their actions and inactions are encouraging and enabling the adversaries and enemies of Armenia and its people.
This assessment may seem overly harsh and may discomfort some readers, but Armenia’s move away from democracy is unfolding in real time. Whether it is the jailing of opposition figures on trumped-up charges, the illegal and immoral persecution and prosecution of the Armenian Apostolic Church or heavy-handed attempts to distort and undermine Armenian history, the current regime is acting in ways contrary to democratic principles. However, this negative critique stems from frustration with the Armenian government’s lack of strategic planning, foresight and analysis of international affairs.
Indeed, Armenia has produced many diplomats of the highest caliber, such as the late Armenian ambassadors to the United States Arman Kirakossian and Rouben Shugarian. These and countless other professional diplomats have advanced Armenia’s interests under some of the most challenging circumstances. Today, however, the current situation and the lack of adequate response raise the question of whether the political leadership in Yerevan is allowing Armenian diplomats to do their jobs.
There are many examples of Armenia’s struggling diplomatic efforts. The most troubling include Armenia’s diplomacy before, during and after the 44-day war of 2020; its response 2023 ethnic cleansing of Artsakh; and the ongoing failure to secure the release of Armenian hostages. Another pressing example is Armenia’s diplomatic relationship with Russia, its main trading partner. This vital relationship has all but collapsed and has pushed an already weak Armenian economy into an even deeper crisis.
While trying to distance itself from Russia, Armenia appears not to have developed contingencies for Russia’s predictable and all but inevitable response: closing its markets to Armenia’s exports.
Was there sufficient preparation to mitigate Russia’s trade restrictions on Armenian products? Did the government conduct a cost-benefit analysis before concluding that the European Union could replace the Russian market? Is Armenia’s orientation toward Europe based on a sound understanding of the current international correlation of forces? Does the government believe Armenia has a reasonable chance of European Union membership?
By all means, Armenia should deepen cooperation with various international organizations when its interests demand it, but the costs of such policies need to be clearly understood and addressed. Unless there is a strategic plan firmly in place to extricate Armenia from its dependence on Russia, it seems shortsighted to alienate Moscow. This is not a matter of being pro-Russian or anti-Russian; it is about designing policies that are best for the Republic of Armenia and determining the appropriate timing of those policies.
Armenia’s relations with Russia are not the only issue of concern. Azerbaijan continues to occupy internationally recognized Armenian sovereign territory while Yerevan continues a border demarcation process with Baku that is perceived as unfair. Armenian diplomacy has not forcefully pushed back against Baku’s demand for a revision of Armenia’s constitution to remove all references to Artsakh. In addition, Yerevan’s response to Israel’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide left many scratching their heads in disbelief.
What are we to make of these diplomatic shortcomings? President Harry Truman famously had a plaque on his desk that read, “The buck stops here,” popularizing the notion that leaders must ultimately take responsibility for the actions of their subordinates. In Armenia, responsibility for the country’s struggling diplomacy rests squarely on the shoulders of the current leadership.
