Recognition of the Armenian Genocide: Between State Disengagement and Diaspora Responsibility
- Association Hyestart
- Apr 26
- 4 min read
Updated: Apr 30
Alexis Rochette Krikorian
April 24, the Armenian Genocide Commemoration Day, once again highlighted the ongoing geopolitical tensions surrounding the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. This year, two key developments attracted particular attention: a statement by the Trump administration (1) that many observers perceived as a retreat from the official U.S. position (which unequivocally recognizes the Armenian genocide), and the Armenian government's announcement of the suspension of its international campaign in favor of this recognition. These developments raise a central question: how can the Armenian diaspora effectively continue its struggle for truth and justice in an uncertain political context?
The European Union's Backtracking: An Unclear Position on the Genocide and Armenia's Future
In another worrying sign, the European Union Mission in Armenia initially published a statement on its X account that explicitly mentioned the genocide. However, this reference was subsequently removed from the final version of the official communiqué, causing a wave of incomprehension and criticism. This withdrawal is all the more disturbing given that the European Parliament (the direct representative of European citizens) has recognized the Armenian Genocide on several occasions, as early as 1987.
This dissonance between the institutions of the Union and between the Member States undermines the coherence of its external human rights policy. It is further underscored by the decision of the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Estonia’s Kaja Kallas, to travel to Baku the day after the commemoration in Yerevan to "resume the negotiations on a new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Azerbaijan" (2), without any public mention of the Armenian hostages, the destruction of the heritage of Nagorno-Karabakh, or the right of return of the forcibly displaced persons under international protection. These are all issues central to any values-based diplomacy.
Even Moscow was quick to point out this contradiction. Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, called the reversal "incredibly cynical" and "vileless" (3). Beyond its political charge, this comment underscores the extent to which recognition of the Armenian genocide remains a highly strategic issue used as leverage in regional power struggles.
France's commitment: a strong voice in an uncertain context
In this uncertain context, the importance of France's commitment must be emphasized. France stands out for the clarity and consistency of its commitment. It was one of the first countries to recognize the Armenian Genocide and to establish April 24 as a national day of remembrance in its republican calendar. This act, both symbolic and political, testifies to the country's determination to remember and defend historical justice.
Despite current foreign policy challenges, France's stance provides valuable diplomatic and moral support to the diaspora, demonstrating that it is possible to combine fidelity to human rights with political realism.
In the face of disengagement, the need to rethink diaspora strategy
The Armenian diaspora is at a breaking point, as official silence and setbacks multiply: without strategic reinvestment, the momentum of recognition will run out of steam. It is no longer a question of simply commemorating, but of taking action, while rethinking the modalities of this action by:
1. Relying on the Armenian diplomatic apparatus without subordinating ourselves to it
Even if the Armenian government is de facto less active on the international scene, it remains prudent, even necessary, for the diaspora to continue relying on the Armenian diplomatic apparatus whenever possible. Ad hoc cooperation, based on common goals and respecting the autonomy of the Diaspora, could strengthen the weight of Armenian advocacy in key capitals.
2. Conducting active parallel diplomacy
The Armenian diaspora has always been a driving force in the struggle for genocide recognition. It has often compensated for the weaknesses of the Armenian state through an agile and dynamic parallel diplomacy. Today, this role must be intensified: a stronger, coordinated presence in multilateral forums (UN, OSCE, Council of Europe, etc.), bilateral meetings and partnerships (NGOs, states), alliances with other genocide survivor communities. Structured, permanent and multilingual advocacy can enable the Armenian issue to regain visibility and legitimacy.
3. Making better use of new technologies and digital platforms
By using social media, video-sharing platforms, and other digital channels in a more coordinated and proactive manner, and by going beyond community circles when the Diaspora talks to the Diaspora (especially on Facebook), the Diaspora can raise awareness of the Armenian cause among younger generations and better mobilize support on a global scale.
4. Linking memory, justice and reparation
Genocide recognition is not an end in itself. We need to intensify discussions on reparations, heritage preservation, refugee rights, and the fight against impunity for Holocaust denial. This link between memory and law can help renew advocacy and make it part of contemporary human rights issues.
To maximize the impact of the diaspora, create an independent, international body with headquarters in Geneva
Finally, in order to coordinate these efforts and ensure that they have the greatest possible impact, it is imperative to provide the Armenian Diaspora with a representative body on a global scale. Too often, responses have been ad hoc, fragmented, and reactive, especially since the 44-day war in 1980.
Such a body, with the capacity for diplomatic, legal and media intervention, would make it possible to structure the voice of the diaspora in international bodies. Switzerland, which is neutral and home to numerous international organizations, would be an ideal location for such a structure. The Council of Armenian and Armenophile Associations of Switzerland (CAAS) could initiate such a meeting.
This project is not utopian. It would be the symbol of a Diaspora that refuses to give in to fatalism in the name of justice and truth, and that is committed to a future in which Armenia and Armenians can live in peace, dignity, and security, with a democratic Turkey at last.
This project is no utopia. It would be the symbol of a diaspora which, for justice and truth, refuses to give in to fatalism and is committed to a future in which Armenia and Armenians can live in peace, dignity and security, with Turkey finally democratic.
Comments