Memory as the Cornerstone of Statehood
The Armenian Genocide is not simply a historical episode. For Armenians, it is the defining event that shaped modern statehood, national identity, and the relationship between Armenia and its global diaspora. It informs foreign policy, public memory, and the language through which Armenia engages the world. For that reason, developments under Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan deserve careful scrutiny.
It is undeniable that Armenia has received increased international attention during his tenure - diplomatically, economically, and politically. Yet the direction of that engagement has coincided with a series of decisions that have altered how Armenia represents itself, its history, and its long-standing national priorities. Taken together, these shifts suggest not merely pragmatic diplomacy, but a broader redefinition of how central historical memory, particularly the genocide, remains to Armenian state policy.
The question is not whether Armenia should pursue peace or economic development. It should. The question is whether these efforts are being pursued at the expense of foundational historical and moral commitments that have long underpinned Armenian political life.
Sidelining of History
Under Pashinyan, the trajectory of Armenian statehood has changed in several significant ways.
The government removed the institutional body responsible for representing the Armenian diaspora, historically one of Armenia’s most important political and diplomatic assets. It altered its position on the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, formally acknowledging the territory as part of Azerbaijan. It has prioritized normalization and peace agreements with both Azerbaijan and Türkiye without first addressing longstanding historical inequalities and unresolved injustices. And it has increasingly stepped back from actively ensuring that the Armenian Genocide remains clearly and consistently represented in international forums.
Recent regional initiatives, including projects such as TRIPP, were presented as pathways to economic growth and stability. Yet in a region shaped by centuries of mistrust, economic cooperation alone cannot substitute for historical accountability or security guarantees. Symbolic gestures, however well intentioned, cannot resolve structural grievances.
Equally notable is what is absent from the government’s rhetoric. Pashinyan’s “Real Armenia” agenda makes little reference to Armenian historical memory, particularly the genocide, despite the fact that this trauma profoundly shaped both domestic political consciousness and the identity of the diaspora. For many Armenians, this omission signals not modernization but detachment from the historical foundations of the state itself.
The Erosion of Diplomatic Clarity
The consequences of this shift are increasingly visible in how the Armenian case is discussed internationally. When JD Vance removed a social media post referencing the Armenian Genocide, global commentary focused on American politics and media reactions. Yet an important detail received less attention: Armenia, under the current government, made no formal diplomatic effort to communicate that the term “genocide” must remain a factual and non-negotiable description of events.
This absence of clear signaling matters. Terminology is not merely symbolic; it shapes international recognition and historical accountability. Omitting the term “genocide” risks reframing the events of 1915 as a tragedy or wartime displacement rather than as an intentional campaign of extermination. Such ambiguity weakens both historical truth and Armenia’s diplomatic position.
The concern is compounded by Pashinyan’s willingness to open the topic of the Armenian Genocide itself to debate, a stance that has caused unease both within Armenia and across the diaspora. For many, this introduces unnecessary uncertainty about what was previously treated as settled fact.
At the same time, the world witnessed the forced displacement of roughly 150,000 Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh, events some observers again describe using softened language such as “deportation” rather than ethnic cleansing or genocide. For Armenians, the parallel is difficult to ignore: historical minimization appears to coincide with contemporary vulnerability.
Another development illustrates the growing asymmetry in regional claims. Ahead of JD Vance’s visit to Baku, the irredentist “Western Azerbaijan” community publicly asserted a right of return to territories within Armenia. Yet Armenia itself, particularly under the current administration, has not asserted comparable claims, neither for Armenians expelled from Nagorno-Karabakh nor for those deported from Western Armenia in 1915, now sovereign Turkish territory. This contrast highlights differing approaches to self-determination and historical rights.
The Limits of Realpolitik
International responses to the Armenian Genocide have always reflected political calculation as much as historical truth.
As a result, recognition of the Armenian case exists along a spectrum: from rejection, to political calculation, to moral obligation, to informal acknowledgment. It is not automatic; it requires consistent advocacy and clear national positioning. That is why Armenia’s current ambiguity is consequential. When the state itself softens its language or refrains from asserting red lines, other governments have little incentive to prioritize the issue.
Trading Memory for Diplomacy
Nikol Pashinyan has undoubtedly sought to reposition Armenia internationally, pursuing economic integration, diplomatic outreach, and regional stabilization more actively than many of his predecessors. These goals are understandable and, in principle, necessary. But foreign policy cannot be built solely on pragmatism if it sidelines the very historical experiences that define the nation.
From dismantling diaspora representation, to accepting the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh without asserting the rights of displaced Armenians, to failing to defend clear and consistent terminology regarding the genocide, the Armenian case increasingly appears fluid, shaped by geopolitical convenience rather than anchored in historical certainty. For a country whose modern existence emerged from the trauma of genocide, such fluidity carries risks.
Peace and development are legitimate objectives. Yet they cannot come at the cost of memory, dignity, and historical clarity. Without those foundations, Armenia risks gaining diplomatic flexibility while losing something more fundamental: the coherence of its own national narrative.
Kyourk Arslanian
Politics and Governance Student | American University of Armenia
