Author: Tania Jagharian

During this summer, Artsakh is forever on our minds. Unfortunately, it is not a peaceful experience but one filled with the angst and anguish of uncertainty. It is too easy to blame others and that list is long: the duplicitous Russian peacekeepers, the European rhetoric, the American obsession with weakening Russia, and of course, the barbaric Azerbaijani/Turkish alliance. It is far more difficult to look in the mirror and ask ourselves the honest questions: Have we given this crisis our best effort collectively? Has our campaign been worthy of the incredible bravery of our people in Artsakh?

Too often, we measure our performance on effort and not results. Most Armenians profess an enduring love of Artsakh as a part of their patriotic portfolio, but again the effort (and emotion) is greater than the results. It seems that everyone is resolved to the fact that Artsakh will not only be an unprecedented (in the sense that it was an autonomous oblast during the Soviet times) part of Azerbaijan and that the so-called “reintegration” will be ethnic cleansing and cultural deprivation. These are softer terms for genocide used by Europeans and other pacifiers. If this is what people believe, then the “rights and security” agenda makes a mockery of the inalienable rights of the Armenians of Artsakh. What I find remarkable is the general acceptance of this prediction as if we are a victim nation only and must comply with what others dictate. This mentality seems pervasive with the exception of certain patriotic corners in the diaspora and Armenia and the most important in this crisis—the citizens of Artsakh.

 Two generations of Artsakhtsis have lived with the terror unleashed by the barbaric Azerbaijani government. These are the same people who were forced to exit Artsakh during the 2020 war (an estimated 45,000 refugees) and returned after the trilateral agreement. They returned, in some cases, to nothing but the land they are willing to die for. Others, from Hadrut for example, were completely uprooted and relocated to other areas of Artsakh. These are the same people who have courageously endured unspeakable hardships with the inhumane illegal blockade. Have there been any press reports in the last eight months of our brethren in Artsakh sounding like defeated victims? I have not heard any complaints about their personal well-being—only for the sake of the nation. This is remarkable and should inspire us to find new avenues. Meanwhile, in Yerevan, our increasingly sophisticated lifestyle continues with shopping, nightlife and happiness. One would hardly know that four to five hours to the east, our people are threatened in Syunik and Artsakh. 

The diaspora has devoted a significant amount of time criticizing the Armenian government. While the policies are controversial, the approach has two major limitations. First, the vast majority of the diaspora, particularly in Europe and the Americas, are not citizens of the republic. Although I have a different vision of a global Armenian nation, the current reality is that the citizens voted for a government in a democracy. Ranting about Pashinyan and his government has no real impact. Our present circumstances are the result of limited options in the 2021 election in the absence of an organized opposition. The other concern is that all of us gain credibility by delivering results. Effort is respected, but power and influence come from results. In the diaspora, we have not been able to use our significant capability to deliver results for Armenia and Artsakh. Despite overwhelming evidence for its enforcement, Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act continues to be waived by the administration and military assistance continues to go to Azerbaijan. How about NATO Turkey, Azerbaijan’s biggest supporter, and it’s substantial military aid and training? We have made noble efforts, but the bottom line is that we have not delivered. In fact, the Western/Russian Cold War has trapped Armenia in this convoluted three-level process on the issue of dialogue with Azerbaijan. With U.S. sponsorship and the EU and Russia working in some rotating fashion, it almost feels like a competition to see who can outflank the other—with the content of the deal becoming secondary. The diaspora has certainly succeeded in creating goodwill toward Armenia and Artsakh, but goodwill doesn’t stop Azerbaijani aggression. Aliyev is clever like his cousin in Ankara; they create violent chaos and then pose like good citizens, knowing full well that the ramifications for their behavior will be negligible. Other than certain legislative attempts and goodwill diplomacy, the diaspora has been far too decentralized and ineffective. The failure to coordinate resources between the homeland and the diaspora is certainly a contributing factor, but there remain divided loyalties from an international perspective. Armenia’s most reliable ally (Iran) is the mortal enemy of Israel and the United States. Even in the duplicity of self-interest, this is a huge limitation on the Western relationships. Israel does not trust the security of any arms from India going through Iran to Armenia. Certainly this influences the options for Armenia, yet this dilemma exists simply because Armenia cannot defend itself with Western reliance. How can the diaspora lobbying efforts address advocacy when the host countries’ interest and Armenia’s are not fully aligned? The diaspora is obviously reluctant to overtly focus on anything except where interests are aligned or where we attempt to influence those interests.   

I feel the pain and even shame that we (collectively) have not given Artsakh our best. While thousands of Artsakhtsis rally in Stepanakert, demonstrate in front of the Russian “peacekeepers” and pitch tents for a sustained protest this week, we seem to resolve ourselves to our failures. I am not referring to the official efforts but to the general attitudes from blogs, messaging, direct conversations and other forms of mass communications. If we have a large majority willing to advocate, then they have been silent. Most of the people I speak to feel disempowered or behave like a victim. Imagine the contrast of 120,000 people who have suffered more in the last few months than most of us will in a lifetime. Our people in Artsakh need to know every day that we are with them. So, while tents are being pitched to protest the Berdzor (Lachin) blockade, where are the comparable settlements on the Armenia side? Why can’t our clergy (I would nominate Archbishop Bagrat in Tavush) lead acts of civil protest at the border? If the people in Artsakh back away, this matter will be resolved. Their resistance is what is keeping this alive. We have a responsibility to protect, to speak, to hold lectures, to write and to resist. These Armenians in Artsakh possess the unique qualities that we have seen throughout our history—in Avarayr, Van, Musa Dagh, Sardarapat—that not only reverse the course of tyranny but inspire succeeding generations. We rightfully revere the heroes of Musa Dagh in our modern history. Artsakh is this generation’s example of another oppressed Armenian enclave surrounded by hostile Turks bent on genocide. We owe our survival as a nation to examples like this when they have chosen to resist. When I see the resiliency of these people, I feel ashamed when we do not give our utmost. Times of crisis bring out the best and worst attributes of our nation. We are not any better or worse than others, but this is our fight. We have seen unparalleled valor and also the Achilles heel of disunity. Successful nations know when to create national unity when external threats are imminent. Apparently, we are still on the learning curve. The diaspora has no right to say “I told you so” and take no responsibility. We have been part of the problem and are also a major part of the solution. Are we frustrated? Yes. Are we giving up? No.

A few days ago, I read with sorrow that the Azeris had opened fire at Armenian positions in Paruyr Sevak, which is located on the southern border with Nakhichevan near the Ararat Marz border with Vayots Dzor. These types of incursions by the Azeris are common and designed to intimidate the border communities. This one hit me harder because of our relationship with the people of this village. They are our colleagues, our friends, and they bring joy to our lives. After pondering the implications of what I read, it occurred to me that perhaps that was the difference. When Armenia and Artsakh become more than names, but rather friends and colleagues, it takes on a higher meaning. This is one of the reasons that I advocate connecting with the people of Armenia and Artsakh as the key to a sustained relationship with the homeland. In the diaspora, we all start off as tourists, but we must evolve if we wish to establish that special bond. Some work there, some repatriate, others are in an immersion program—for my family, it was establishing a relationship with a border village. There are many paths, but once you follow your chosen road, the future of Armenia and Artsakh becomes much more personal. Just as the beloved people of Artsakh are resisting, it has become a natural response for them. They are not naive. They face incredible danger every day. They simply are defending their homes. If we call this the homeland, then perhaps we should start taking this more personally. The diaspora seems to be operating the best it can given its very decentralized silo structure. It is long past the time to make adjustments to more optimally connect with the homeland. These conflicts cannot be a hobby for us in the diaspora. We need to be “all in.”