On August 26, 2023, Facebook suspended Artsakh President Arayik Harutyunyan’s official Facebook account. Generally, Facebook suspends user accounts for a variety of reasons, such as violations of the site’s rules and regulations, suspicious login activity that signals unauthorized access, the use of false personal information, or other inappropriate or illegal actions that go against Facebook’s Community Standards or Terms of Service. President Harutyunyan, however, had not engaged in any activity that would violate the company’s policy. The reason behind the suspension of Harutyunyan’s page was rather strange, highly questionable and problematic, to say the least. The suspension was the result of a continuous campaign of complaints filed by Azerbaijani users. According to Armenpress, “The president’s office said Harutyunyan’s account was actively targeted with complaints for many months, which had gradually led to many restrictions, including the artificial drop in visibility of posts and ban on certain functions. And as a result of the recent complaints the page became fully inaccessible on August 26.” 

President Harutyunyan only made one “mistake” for which his account could have been suspended: he was the president of the Republic of Artsakh. To best understand the absurdity of the situation, one should simply imagine a similar title: “Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Official Facebook Account Suspended Due to Complaints Filed by the Russian Side.” Such a nonsensical title would be unimaginable for most, yet why does it become not only imaginable, but also real when it comes to the case of Artsakh’s president? Why has the game of double standards and hypocrisy become so mainstream that we no longer talk about it nor make an effort to fight it? 

This parallel reminded me of how I felt while studying in international academic settings. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, a significant majority of the international student body voiced their grievance and discontent toward Russia and stood up for Ukraine in all possible ways, from fundraisers to spreading awareness across social media platforms. I admired the sense of solidarity and shared the immense pain of my fellow Ukrainian peers, hoping for an immediate, peaceful resolution of the conflict. Yet deep down in my heart, I also ached. I ached to hear all the voices that spoke so boldly and blatantly against Russian aggression, the voices that were silent as the grave when the same was happening to the Armenian people. I ached, not because they stood up for Ukraine (in fact, I was more than happy to see the unanimous support), but because they never did for Artsakh. I ached, because the double standards and the “made-normal” hypocrisy have killed my people in the past and continue doing so in the present. I ached, because some crimes against humanity scream so loudly, and some others are silenced to death. 

The suspension of President Harutyunyan’s official account was a deliberate attempt at silencing to death. The page, with over 459,000 followers, was one of the few sources for the communication and exchange of timely information between Artsakh’s government and its population which, by the way, at the time had been deprived of basic human necessities such as food, electricity, hygiene products and medical supplies for months due to Azerbaijan’s illegal blockade of the Berdzor (Lachin) Corridor, the only humanitarian corridor connecting Artsakh to Armenia and the outside world. The suspension of the president’s Facebook account was not a silly game by Azeri users but a deliberate attempt to completely isolate Artsakh’s population, not only in the real but also in the virtual world—something completely unjust and unjustifiable, something which Facebook, whether inadvertently or intentionally, played a role in. 

Nevertheless, the suspension of Harutyunyan’s account is just one instance of Facebook’s problematic attitudes and decisions within the context of Armenian narratives. On October 12, 2020, Facebook announced an update in its “hate speech policy to prohibit any content that denies or distorts the Holocaust.” This is a praiseworthy decision, targeted at the prevention of denial or distortion of the factual historical event of the Holocaust. However, the decision becomes less admirable as one realizes that the update in hate speech policy applies to the case of Holocaust only and excludes other genocides such as the Rwandan or Armenian genocides. In fact, pages still exist that publicly and blatantly deny the Armenian Genocide. 

The Facebook page “Armenian Genocide Lie,” for example, not only has permission from Facebook to exist but is given the right to make posts and comments about the “mythness” of the Armenian Genocide on a regular basis, sharing books, articles and highly biased opinions that distort history and present the Armenian Genocide as a fictional narrative invented by the Armenian people. The page has over 9,300 followers and therefore plays a crucial role in spreading disinformation and repeating the generational cycle of history falsification among Turkish and Azerbaijani audiences. Ironically enough, the background image of the “Armenian Genocide Lie” Facebook page features the following statement: “Document + Mind + Conscience (Morality) = Justice.” It’s ridiculous to see the grandchildren of genocide perpetrators speak about “document,” “morality” and “justice.” 

The background image of the Facebook page “Armenian Genocide Lie”

Which document exactly are they referring to – the testimonies of Armenian Genocide survivors and their descendants (second and third generation), or the accounts of numerous international scholars, Arab and Greek eyewitnesses, rescuers and aid providers, foreign witnesses and Yezidi survivors, who all confirm the factuality of the Armenian Genocide? What do they really mean when speaking about morality? The “morality” of killing over 1.5 million ethnic Armenians by exposing them to all sorts of inexplicable violence that the average human mind would be incapable of imagining or seeing, let alone implementing? The “morality” of torturing and murdering children, pregnant women, the elderly and people with disabilities? Or the (im)”morality” of still denying the Armenian Genocide at the state level and openly supporting another genocide toward the Armenians of Artsakh over 100 years later? Perhaps to best understand how comical and ironic the words “document,” “morality” and “justice” sound in this context, both the admins of the “Armenian Genocide Lie” Facebook page as well as the policymakers at Facebook should watch the films The Lark Farm, Aurora’s Sunrise or The Promise. Perhaps after watching those films, the admins of the Facebook page who were raised and educated with biased and one-sided Turkish ideologies and narratives would be exposed to the historical truth and decide to take down the page by themselves.  

When the suffering of one group is validated and condemned, while the other’s is subjected to ignorance and indifference, important questions of impartiality, fairness and equity arise. Banning any content that denies or distorts the Holocaust while allowing the public denial of the Armenian Genocide on Facebook is another portrayal of double standards and hypocrisy to which the modern world, both physical and virtual, has become so accustomed. Acknowledging historical atrocities, such as the Holocaust or the Armenian Genocide, and banning any attempts at denial is a moral imperative, because it acknowledges the suffering of the victims and helps prevent such events from happening in the future. Denial and indifference, on the other hand, cause a perpetuation of injustice and suffering, facilitating the repetition of genocide. 

This phenomenon and the direct cause-effect relationship between denial and repetition can clearly be observed in the context of recent developments in the region: the devastating attacks by Azerbaijan on Artsakh in 2020 and in September 2023, the over nine-month-long blockade of the Berdzor Corridor and the resulting humanitarian catastrophe, the forced exodus of Artsakh’s Armenian population, and many other events that caused significant territorial and humanitarian damages and losses for the Armenian people, while leaving them under a new imminent threat. In fact, according to an article published on POLITICO on October 13, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned that his department is tracking the possibility that Azerbaijan could soon invade Armenia. This is not at all surprising, as Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev had previously spoken about his intentions to use force in order to solve the “problem” of opening a corridor along Armenia’s southern border in an attempt to link mainland Azerbaijan to an exclave bordering Turkey and Iran. As the crimes of the past are not punished, they are likely to happen in the future, and it is mind-blowing to witness that, in the 21st century, in this “civilized world” of transparent communication and timely updates, some social media platforms not only do not strive to prevent the repetition of a new genocide but even facilitate its success, whether by inaction and indifference or the one-sided suppression of voices and narratives.

As I recently moved to the College of Europe in Natolin to pursue my advanced master’s degree in European interdisciplinary studies, I had the chance to meet over 100 young people from various nationalities and backgrounds. As we were exchanging our contact information with one another, one of the students asked, jokingly: “Guys, is there anyone who still uses Facebook?” Everyone started laughing as if talking about something old-fashioned and outdated. This was a huge surprise for me, as in Armenia, Facebook is still one of the most commonly used social media platforms, where people discuss important socio-political matters and where the government exchanges important information with the population (such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, when communication between the prime minister and the population would mainly take place in the form of Facebook lives). There were as many as 2,163,300 Facebook users in Armenia in January 2022, which accounted for 74.3-percent of its entire population, whereas the registered voter turnout to the 2021 Armenian parliamentary election was only 49.37-percent. With such a large user base in Armenia and the “loyalty” of the Armenian population to the platform, Facebook should put some effort into making the platform more fair and just for its Armenian users and understand how big a role any of its actions and policies can have in the protection of historical truth and in the prevention of new crimes against humanity.

The Armenian diaspora in the United States takes great pride in its accomplishments and legacy–and rightfully so. Theirs is a remarkable story. The challenges of maintaining the identity and infrastructure of diaspora institutions to promote culture, religion and national rights while providing a significant amount of support to the homeland should never be underestimated. This is nothing new for Armenian Americans. In my youth, our communities raised funds for our brethren in the Middle East to help build their capabilities, particularly in education. This parallel path has been a part of diaspora history for decades and was elevated to new heights with the independence of Armenia in 1991. Every community and organization has done its share, rising to the challenges even as needs have increased. The latest tragedy in Artsakh has given particular visibility to our enduring strengths, as well as our weaknesses.

Before continuing, I would like to clarify a related point. It concerns me that in the general media, and even in some Armenian media, the people of Artsakh are referred to as “evacuees” or subjects of a “forced evacuation.” Most interpret “evacuate” as a removal following a natural disaster such as a wildfire. I suggest the term “deported” or “deportee,” since there was nothing natural about the exit. People were in an extreme state of fear given the Azeri aggression and left with what they could bring. It was the modern version of 1915, with horses and wagons replaced by cars. Deportation is a component of genocide. Let’s call it what it is. The Azeris, predictably, have the audacity to state that the exodus was “voluntary,” but the military carnage and continuous intimidation prove otherwise. 

The global Armenian nation has at times struggled to be assertive in addressing changing needs, but has never been short on compassion. Currently, many volunteers from America have gone to Armenia to help with the overwhelming task of providing support for the Artsakh refugees. We should all be proud of the volunteers who have put aside their grief to selflessly distribute food, secure housing and offer comfort to those experiencing what our grandparents did. A friend of mine from California is in Armenia volunteering with colleagues from the ARS in Yerevan and Syunik. This is the Armenian nation at its very best – putting aside personal constraints and committing wholeheartedly at a time of extreme need. It is an attribute that enables recovery and an eventual return to prosperity. 

Volunteers from around the world at the Aram Manoukian Youth Center in Yerevan

There are times, however, when our emotions can be a limiting factor. Diaspora organizations and institutions serve the needs of constituents in their locations and evolve in response to changing needs. The AYF was created in 1933 but has adapted to regional structures when communities have evolved. The AGBU established a “Young Professionals” wing in recognition of the emerging need for professional networking opportunities. After five generations, assimilation has not eroded the diaspora’s identity base. There are two factors that slow the impact of identity dilution: periods of migration that replenish the base and a solid connection to the homeland. We have experienced the former with emigration from the Middle East, Armenia and Baku over the last 60 years. In the last 10 years, the identity connection with Armenia has accelerated, through numerous youth- and professional-oriented programs. Some institutions, such as the church, have created impressive immersion programs, but have been slow to respond to the intermarriage reality and societal (secular) barriers.

The common thread between all these examples is that self-assessment has not been a traditional strength of the diaspora. Change has been driven primarily by reaction, not action. We wait for a problem to fester, then make attempts to mitigate the negative impact. The CEO of a company I once worked for told me that great companies never lose their appetite to improve, even during periods of success. In such a diverse and dynamic environment as the diaspora, we should have control mechanisms for continuous self-evaluation that trump authority, egos or defensiveness. We have no such mechanism to improve our effectiveness. We depend on individual organizations for improvement. Some have the leadership, and others don’t. This raises the question: Is the diaspora organized for success with the homeland? I have observed an emphasis on promoting one’s organization at the expense of macro goals and collaborative opportunities. Some pan-Armenian initiatives have emerged, but aside from an organizational presence in Armenia, the model has not changed. If we are to optimize the vast resources of the diaspora and explore new initiatives, such as in the defense industry, we need new collaborative models within our existing structure and new public-private ventures. This starts with bold leadership that has the resources to make a difference.

We all have opinions on the causes of the loss of Artsakh and where to assign blame. Assigning blame has never improved reality and only provides temporary emotional outlets. Most of the concern is directed towards the Armenian government. This is not unnatural. When you lose something, the initial response is to blame someone other than the image in the mirror. We have to focus on where we can make a difference. Most of us in the diaspora are not citizens of the Republic of Armenia. Our relationship is based primarily on an endearing love of the homeland, which is manifested through generosity and commitment. We also tend to be free with our opinions without regard to their impact. 

It is healthy and essential to conduct critical reviews of our performance in the diaspora. When it comes to advocacy for Armenia, are we focused on what the homeland wants or what we think is in their interests? Currently, Armenia is attempting a western alignment, which makes U.S.-Armenian advocacy convenient and popular. What would be our approach if Armenia advocated a strategic relationship, for example, with Iran and India? Would we still view it in Armenia’s interest to advocate a western alignment? How would it affect advocacy work here in America? 

Diaspora support must be at least loosely aligned with Armenia’s foreign policy. If we are to take credit for advocacy wins, such as foreign aid or U.S. recognition of the Armenian Genocide, then we should also accept our failure to influence U.S. policy as it relates to Artsakh and the Azerbaijani aggression towards Armenia. While our advocacy efforts address various subjects such as Genocide recognition and education, with Armenia’s survival at risk, America’s foreign policy toward Armenia is the priority. There are three branches of the United States federal government – judicial, legislative and executive – with numerous checks and balances, but foreign policy is essentially developed in the executive branch through the State Department. The legislative arm, Congress, has oversight, non-binding and review capability, but is not the main driver. Anyone who witnessed Sen. Menendez’s Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Artsakh saw the limitations of Congressional oversight. The PR firms and think tanks that influence the State Department should be considered an area of investment. 

We just suffered a devastating and frustrating lobbying defeat in this country with the Artsakh catastrophe. The United States did little to end the blockade or prevent the military attack and watched as Armenians were deported from their native land. Our failures represented the intersection of idealism and pragmatic self-interest. It may be time to consider shifting our tactics. Can we honestly say that the hundreds of statements and non-binding proposals of support from elected Congressional officials had an impact? The Armenian diaspora in France is producing results, seen in the French plan to deliver military defensive hardware to Armenia. Europeans have observers on the ground along Armenia’s border with extended commitment. America has offered support after the fact through USAID. There is a fear that the limited diplomatic support Armenia has received from the U.S. will be significantly diluted as a result of the Israel-Hamas war. Meetings with Congressional officials create the perception of influence but have delivered very little in terms of impact. This is a difficult message, in part because of the respect I have for the staff and volunteers of the ANCA and Armenian Assembly of America. They worked tirelessly for our people. I would suggest that we internalize this reality, assess the root causes and consider alternatives to improve the impact.

In an earlier column, I said that times of crisis create a crossroads. We have the choice of feeling sorry and directing blame, or we can take an honest look at ourselves, assess what we can control and take bold, corrective action. These are difficult times, but enlightened leadership should display no fear of new thinking. We should shed the distractions that distort our view of the critical goals. Pan-Armenian thinking should motivate our organizations to mobilize the diaspora to increase its impact in critical areas and open new opportunities. There are many collaborative models to consider that have been proposed in recent dialogue. Patriotic leaders should never be satisfied with sub-optimal processes. When opportunities are identified where collaboration can deliver greater impact, we should embrace those options and subordinate our affiliations in favor of the one that counts—the Armenian nation.

YEREVAN—A planned meeting between Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and European Council President Charles Michel has been canceled, the latest sign of the failure of the peace process between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The breakdown of negotiations became evident when Aliyev refused to participate in European-brokered talks in Granada, Spain at the beginning of this month. Yet he sent Azerbaijan’s foreign minister to Iran for the “3+3” format talks, which took place on Monday, October 23. While another meeting was scheduled between Aliyev, Michel and Pashinyan at the end of October, European Union Special Representative for the South Caucasus Toivo Klaar confirmed today that the meeting will not take place. The Speaker of the Armenian Parliament Alen Simonyan stated that the meeting between Pashinyan and Aliyev was canceled due to Azerbaijan’s opposition to holding the meeting in Brussels.

The idea of a “new platform for regional cooperation to ensure lasting peace and stability,” or the “3+3” format, entails a regional mechanism for peace, where the stakeholders include Southern Caucasus countries Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, and their more internationally influential neighbors Iran, Russia and Turkey. While Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan first suggested a regional format following the ceasefire agreement ending the 2020 Artsakh War, this format was formally introduced in October 2021 by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. 

The first round of talks in this format was held in Moscow in December 2021. While most countries were open to this format, Georgia declined from the start, citing the unsettled disputes with Russia over the breakaway territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and wary of upsetting the political alliance with the West. Georgia also refused to participate in the latest “3+3” talks on Monday. 

Foreign Ministers of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Russia and Turkey meet in Tehran on October 23 (Russian Foreign Ministry)

After the “3+3” format meeting held in Tehran, the participating parties issued a nine-point joint statement:

Taking into account the importance of the development of relations between countries based on mutual interests and neighborliness, they emphasized the peaceful settlement of disputes, respect for sovereignty, political independence, territorial integrity, the inviolability of internationally recognized borders, non-interference in internal affairs, the prohibition of the threat or use of force and human rights based on all the principles of the United Nations Charter.

They discussed the most pressing issues in the region and emphasized the importance of platforms such as “3+3” to provide opportunities for constructive dialogue and establish mutually beneficial cooperation between the countries of the region. They stressed the positive impact of economic cooperation on strengthening mutual trust, the well-being of nations and the stability of the region. They also noted the importance of cultural cooperation, people-to-people contacts and joint projects in the fields of education, science, tourism, culture and sports.

The countries’ foreign ministers also discussed strengthening bilateral and multilateral consultations and cooperation to promote lasting peace and economic development and welcomed the ongoing processes aimed at the regulation and development of relations between all the countries of the region. Positively evaluating the results of this meeting, they reaffirmed that this platform is open for the equal participation of Georgia.

The Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Russia thanked the Iranian Foreign Minister for the positive reception and successful meeting. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov announced that the next meeting will be held in Turkey in 2024, noting that periodic meetings of the “3+3” regional platform can expand and strengthen the environment of trust and cooperation in the region.

High ranking officials who participated in Monday’s meeting have made several announcements post factum. Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahyan stated that the meeting can create a basis for peace with the participation of regional actors and neighbors in the South Caucasus. Turkey’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said Ankara hoped the talks would “give impetus to normalization and peace processes.”

While some believe that these talks represent progress in the normalization of relationships between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the most important factor for regional stability is lacking. Political analyst Ruben Mehrabyan says that Armenia considers the “3+3” a consultative platform and is not foreseen to discuss conflict. “Armenia does not consider this platform functional to any extent until peace is established in the region, and peace will not be established on this platform at all,” he said. 

According to Mehrabyan, the “3+3” platform implies more risks than benefits for Armenia. This platform is focused on solving the problems of the region through the leadership of Iran, Russia and Turkey, without the West. Mehrabyan believes that without the participation of Georgia, any agreement within the format is between Ankara, Moscow, Tehran and Baku. “Azerbaijan has done everything to turn this meeting in Tehran into a factor that would allow Baku to avoid traveling to Brussels,” Mehrabyan added, which was confirmed today. 

In an interview with ABC Media, political analyst Tevan Poghosyan said that Aliyev will not sign a peace agreement after the signing of the ceasefire on November 9, 2020. Poghosyan added that Aliyev will not participate in any format that is not in favor of his interests. “He received all of the demands he had from Europe and now seeks a greater strategic advance through other formats,” Poghosyan said.