A few days ago, a group of Diaspora Armenian figures issued a statement calling on the Armenian government and the Armenian Church to resolve their differences. COAF founder Garo Armen responded sharply to the appeal. On this occasion, we spoke with French-Armenian researcher and journalist Tigrane Yegavian about the Armenia-Diaspora relations.
- Can Armenia-Diaspora relations be considered separately from the confrontation between the state and the Church, or will the resolution of that issue be decisive for the future of relations?
- It is extremely difficult to step back and analyze the latent confrontation the state is waging against the Armenian Apostolic Church, but we can already confirm that Azerbaijan’s pressure on Armenia is clearly visible and helps explain the Armenian government’s desire to replace the current Catholicos with someone more “compliant.”
This crisis is further deepening divisions within the Diaspora between supporters and critics of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. This is evident, for example, in France: on the one hand, the CCAF has unequivocally condemned the ban on the Catholicos leaving the country; on the other, an open letter by François Devedjian has backed the Armenian government in the name of democratic legitimacy.
At the core of the problem lies a crisis in church governance and its role, particularly since the 2020 defeat. It must be acknowledged that the Church has moved beyond a purely spiritual sphere and has, indirectly, entered the political arena – most notably through implicit support for the “Holy Struggle” movement led by the Primate of the Tavush Diocese, Bishop Bagrat Galstanyan. The situation became even more acute after Catholicos Karekin II publicly called for Prime Minister Pashinyan’s resignation. The government’s reaction, while condemnable, is therefore also understandable.
I am concerned both by the instrumentalization of political events by religious figures and by the instrumentalization of religion by politicians who may deride spirituality yet seek to exploit it to consolidate power. In this clash, all sides incur losses – and Armenia’s adversaries have ample reason to rejoice.
At the same time, this crisis raises a fundamental question: whether Church and state can eventually reach an accommodation through negotiations, drawing to some extent on the model that operates in eastern France, in Alsace and Moselle. For now, however, such an option appears unrealistic, as the parties remain closed to meaningful dialogue.
- How has the Diaspora’s perception of its own role and of Armenia changed since 2020? What was the impact of the defeat, and how have subsequent developments over the past five years affected Diaspora-Armenia relations?
- The 2020 war marked a turning point not only for Armenia but also for the Diaspora. The long-held belief that the Diaspora could exert decisive influence on military and political outcomes suffered a profound shock. The defeat exposed the real limits of that influence, giving rise to disillusionment and, at times, to mutual accusations.
The developments of the following five years – the protracted domestic political crisis in Armenia, the exodus of Armenians from Artsakh, and shifting regional alignments – further deepened mistrust in Armenia-Diaspora relations. At the same time, however, a process of reassessment began. The Diaspora has gradually been moving away from purely emotional solidarity toward a more realistic model of engagement – one that can be critical, yet also more structured and constructive.
- On the one hand, we see a Diaspora that considers the preservation of Armenian identity as a vital necessity, yet its definitions and modes of transmission often fail to stand the test of time, becoming a heavy and sometimes incomprehensible burden for new generations. On the other hand, Armenia itself prioritizes integration into the wider world so as not to remain “out of the game,” at times at the cost of losing important elements of identity. In this context, is the preservation of Armenian identity now more urgent within Armenia itself? And how should that concept be defined so that it remains viable and unifying rather than divisive?
- Yes, I believe that under current conditions the preservation of Armenian identity has become even more urgent within Armenia itself. If the state weakens from within – demographically, culturally, through an educational crisis or a loss of value orientation – then all Diaspora efforts become secondary. The Diaspora can support, but it cannot replace a viable homeland.
At the same time, the concern that Armenia’s aspiration to “be part of the world” is sometimes framed as a renunciation of identity is also valid. Yet the question is not whether to resemble others or not; the real challenge is how to be modern without losing identity.
This is why the very notion of the “preservation of Armenian identity” requires redefinition. If preservation is understood as the mechanical repetition of traditions, the sacralization of the past without critical reflection, or the transformation of identity into a closed and defensive system, then it will indeed become a burden for younger generations.
But if Armenian identity is conceived as the living transmission of language, the cultivation of historical consciousness without a closed cycle of victimhood, the fostering of creativity, science, and culture, competitive education, and the strengthening of state institutions, then preservation ceases to be a conservative reflex and becomes a forward-looking project. Identity is not maintained by freezing it, but by continually recreating it; a nation endures not by stasis, but by development.
If understood as an open, inclusive, and creative process, the preservation of Armenian identity can unite Armenia and the Diaspora around a common goal: not only to remember, but also to build.
Perhaps the core formula is this: preserving Armenian identity should be – a strong state + living culture + free thought, and not merely safeguarding of monuments or a symbolic struggle.
In that case, it will not divide, but will become the basis for national unity.
- Against this backdrop, is there a noticeable identity crisis and a reformulation of Diaspora priorities in relation to Armenia’s new political vision - “Real Armenia,” including efforts to normalize relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan without explicit reference to the Armenian Cause?
- Yes, both an identity crisis and a reprioritization are clearly observable – especially as the discourse of the “Real Armenia” and the language of “normalization” have grown more prominent in Armenia’s official narrative, often without a clear articulation of the Armenian Cause or historical memory.
For part of the Diaspora, this shift is experienced as a rupture in a long-standing symbolic contract. For decades, Diaspora identity has been structured around memory, the pursuit of justice, security concerns, and a national agenda. The new political vision, by contrast, is presented in Armenia as pragmatic and state-centered; yet in Diaspora perception it can appear as a retreat from core identity axes.
At the same time, the crisis is not only “substantive” but also institutional and generational:
• traditional structures often continue to speak in a twentieth-century vocabulary,
• new generations seek a more dynamic, open, and contemporary identity,
• and Armenia itself prioritizes the logic of international “normalization” in order not to remain “out of the game.”
As a result, three broad responses are taking shape within the Diaspora:
1. Radicalization and closure - a hardening of the language of memory and struggle
2. Disengagement/fatigue - “if Armenia doesn’t recognize our agenda, what are we for?”
3. Reinterpretation, attempts to reconcile historical memory with practical engagement through state-building, education, media, and cultural initiatives.
In this context, the identity crisis becomes a deeper question: “Why does the Diaspora exist? Only to remember and to demand – or also to create and to transmit? This is precisely where the tension you describe emerges. On the one hand, the Diaspora views the preservation of Armenian identity as essential, yet some inherited forms no longer withstand the test of time and risk becoming a burden for new generations. On the other, the Republic of Armenia seeks to align itself with global norms, at times at the expense of certain identity components.
This duality is the point at which priorities are being reordered. What is needed is a language that can unite without erasing memory and that can adapt without self-deception.
- For many years you have studied the Diaspora and its challenges – particularly in Middle Eastern communities – and have written extensively on the subject. A collection of your articles was recently published “Escales arméniennes” (“Armenian Stopovers”). In your view, what are the principal challenges facing the Diaspora today, and what solutions do you see?
- Today the challenges operate on three levels – political, cultural, and institutional, and they are especially acute in Middle Eastern communities.
At the political level, the central problem is the limitation of influence. After 2020, many communities experienced disillusionment stemming from the gap between perceived Diaspora capacities and actual leverage. The international environment has also shifted: the Armenian Cause is frequently relegated to the margins of major powers’ agendas, and lobbying now requires more professionalized, evidence-based, and long-term strategies. The solution, in my view, lies in a more systematic reconfiguration: the Diaspora must move from emotionally driven mobilization toward programmatic influence – through expert platforms, alliances with other groups, and, above all, initiatives that contribute to strengthening Armenia’s state institutions.
At the cultural level, the principal challenge is language loss and a crisis in modes of transmission. Armenian identity is often defined as ritual, memory, or defensive closure – forms that do not appeal to younger generations. In the Middle East, this is compounded by war, emigration, and financial pressure on educational systems. Here the solution lies in educational modernization, bilingual or multilingual cultural production, and the cultivation of creative milieus. Armenian must become not only a “preserved” language but a living one, actively used in media, the arts, and knowledge production.
At the institutional level, traditional Diaspora structures face generational transition, unstable funding, and at times internal competition. While major organizations exist, a genuine culture of networked cooperation is often lacking. In Middle Eastern communities, the challenge is even more existential: the survival of physical infrastructures – schools, cultural centers, and the press. The way forward is a hybrid model: preserving existing institutions while simultaneously developing new transnational networks – digital platforms, youth initiatives, and professional linkages capable of connecting centers from Beirut to Paris to Los Angeles.
If I were to summarize in a single sentence: the Diaspora’s challenge today is not merely to preserve itself, but to reorganize itself – in meaning, in language, and in institutions. The answer lies in combining memory with future-oriented planning: more realistic politics, a more vital culture, and more flexible organizational forms.
- In the preface to your book you write that “the press is the keeper of collective memory, as well as a force capable of transformation, shaping a new transnational space.” In Armenia, however, the printed press has largely declined – at best replaced by digital versions of the same outlets, and at worst by low-quality information flows on social networks. In the Diaspora, print media still retains relevance. How can it remain alive and in step with the times?
- I used that formulation because the press is not merely a vehicle of information. It is also memory, language, and a culture of public debate. Today the crisis concerns not only print media but also attention itself: reading has become rapid, fragmented, and often unverified.
In the Diaspora, print media still matters because it functions as a community institution – a bridge between generations, organizations, and language. But to remain contemporary, it must evolve in form without losing its essence.
I see several ways:
1. Hybrid model
Print can no longer survive in isolation. It requires an integrated print + digital strategy, with a coherent editorial line expressed across formats – from paper editions to websites, podcasts, newsletters, and short-form video.
2. Depth vs. noise
The principal advantage of print lies precisely in what social media lacks: depth, context, fact-checking, and memory. If print attempts to replicate the speed and fragmentation of online flows, it forfeits its value. It must become “slow media” of high quality.
3. Engaging new generations, through participation not preaching
Younger audiences cannot be mobilized through exhortation - “read because you must.” They must be involved as contributors: authors, editors, producers. This means opening editorial space to new linguistic registers, emerging themes, and new audiences.
4. Multilingual and bridging content
The Diaspora is multilingual. If the press wants to remain a force shaping a transnational space, it must connect Armenian with the languages of host societies – French, English, Arabic, and others. This is not an erosion of identity but its extension: identity disseminated rather than confined.
5. New mechanisms of distribution and financing
The print media must have community support, but also modern financial tools: subscriptions, donations, sponsorships, partnership projects, as well as cooperation with schools and cultural institutions.
In conclusion, print media will not be sustained by nostalgia alone. It will endure only if it becomes a trusted platform and an intellectual hub – capable of linking Armenians across geographies around a shared language and memory, but also around a shared future.
- You often stress the need to move beyond victim syndrome and folklorized identity. Do you observe a rise or a decline in constructive and creative thought today? And to what extent is Armenian intellectual production created outside the Republic of Armenia accessible and accepted within it – and vice versa?
- I would say we are witnessing both growth and decline simultaneously. We are living through a transitional phase in which the most promising and the most troubling tendencies coexist.
On the one hand, there is a clear expansion of constructive and creative thinking. New generations – both in the Diaspora and in Armenia – are more fluid in their use of genres and language, more bold to pose difficult questions, and often seek to move Armenian identity beyond folkloric frameworks into the domains of contemporary culture, knowledge, and critical thought. One can see genuine innovation emerging in literature, documentary, podcasting, research, and the arts.
On the other hand, there is also a regressive tendency, intensified by the aftershocks of war. Traumatized societies often drift toward two extremes: a closed cycle of victim identity, in which everything is explained through grievance and betrayal; or, conversely, an empty pragmatism that treats identity itself as an obstacle. Both undermine creative thought: they impoverish language, constrict imagination, and polarize communities.
As for the mutual accessibility of intellectual production, the problem is symmetrical.
Armenian intellectual products produced outside Armenia are often not sufficiently accessible in Armenia:
• because of the language issue (materials in French, English, Arabic are rarely translated),
• because of weak dissemination channels,
• and sometimes also because of psychological legitimacy gap, expressed in stereotypes such as “Diaspora Armenians do not understand local realities.”
Conversely, intellectual work produced in Armenia does not always reach Diaspora audiences:
• because some communities remain enclosed within their own agendas,
• because materials are not adapted into formats accessible to multilingual publics.
The solution, in my view, is concrete rather than moralistic: the creation of institutions of translation, mediation, and circulation. Translation not only of language but of thought – so that the same idea can resonate in Yerevan and Beirut, Paris and Los Angeles without distortion.
For me, overcoming victim syndrome does not mean erasing pain or history. It means transforming pain into a generative force rather than a constraint. When the past is held in consciousness yet the future is built with intellectual freedom, Armenian thought ceases to be merely a response to memory and becomes a living culture capable of speaking to the world.
Eliza Sargsyan spoke with Tigran Yegavian
