Armenia’s top diaspora official laments diaspora groups’ stance against government

By Lia Avagyan

Armenia’s top diaspora official has criticized some traditional Armenian diaspora organizations, saying they should align their activities with the interests of the Armenian state and accusing some groups of working against its government.

Zareh Sinanyan, High Commissioner for Diaspora Affairs, also questioned the representative mandate of established diaspora bodies and challenged the long-running campaign for international recognition of the Armenian Genocide. His comments came in an interview broadcast by Armenia’s Public Television on Sunday evening.

“Our diaspora organizations should work in harmony with the interests of the Republic of Armenia,” Sinanyan said. He said Armenia, as a state with defined territory, a population and elected institutions, could formulate and represent a national interest. The diaspora, by contrast, is spread across different countries and political systems and has no central, democratically elected representative body.

“Talking about the interests of the diaspora, in my opinion, is very difficult and simply incorrect,” he said. Sinanyan also questioned how representative some established diaspora organizations were. Citing France, he said the two co-chairs of one Armenian organization had been elected with 989 votes while, by his estimate, 500,000 to 600,000 Armenians lived in the country.

He said support for the Armenian state also required cooperation with its democratically elected government.

“If the people of Armenia elect a government, then supporting Armenia, supporting the Republic of Armenia, also means supporting the government,” Sinanyan said.

He said that did not require agreement with every government decision, ideology or objective, but diaspora Armenians should respect the political choice made by people living in Armenia and bearing the consequences of those decisions.

Sinanyan contrasted governments led by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan with those of former presidents Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan. He said he had not regarded the latter governments as democratically elected, while Pashinyan’s governments had been formed through democratic elections.

Accusations against diaspora groups

Sinanyan directed some of his strongest criticism at diaspora organizations opposed to the current government.

He said some groups had tried to boycott meetings with visiting Armenian officials, urged Armenian organizations abroad not to meet them and, in some cases, appealed to foreign officials to do the same.

Citing France, Sinanyan said Armenian organizations had been contacted and urged not to meet representatives arriving from Armenia, while French officials had also been asked not to meet them.

“Fighting against our state is not a good thing,” he said. “They should not continue on this wrong path, because it is anti-national, because it is harmful.”

Sinanyan also alleged that some diaspora organizations were “guided by a third state.” He did not name the country, but said it had significant influence over a large part of the Armenian diaspora and over an organization that also had a political presence in Armenia.

He said his office had previously sought to engage diaspora organizations without distinction, including bodies affiliated with the Armenian Revolutionary Federation and Armenian National Committee.

But Sinanyan said that by around 2024 he had concluded that attempts at cooperation were being rejected and that “provocations” and “sabotage” were continuing.

His office was now concentrating its limited time and resources on organizations and individuals it regarded as supportive of the Armenian state and of the government elected by Armenia’s citizens, he said.

Genocide recognition campaign questioned

Sinanyan also questioned one of the main political causes pursued by Armenian diaspora organizations for decades: international recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

“We have historically overestimated that issue and framed it incorrectly,” he said.

Sinanyan said the genocide was a historical fact and questioned what practical benefits recognition by foreign governments had brought to Armenia or diaspora communities.

Many Western countries have recognized the Armenian Genocide, he said, but he could not identify a clear positive impact from those decisions.

“What has it led to? Has it produced any positive result in the life of the diaspora, in the lives of diaspora Armenians, or had a positive impact on the Republic of Armenia? I cannot see that positive impact,” he said.

He also questioned what Armenian National Committee organizations should focus on after recognition had already been secured in countries including France and Australia and across much of Europe.

Sinanyan said concentrating repeatedly on genocide recognition came at the expense of other issues facing diaspora communities, including maintaining Armenian identity and strengthening ties with Armenia.

He said the identity of young diaspora Armenians should not be built primarily around recognition or reaffirmation of the genocide. Greater emphasis should instead be placed on Armenian history, language, culture and ties with Armenia, he said.

Sinanyan also criticized foreign politicians who, he said, had learned they could win Armenian political support by speaking about genocide recognition without producing tangible results.

Sinanyan, who previously worked for an Armenian advocacy organization in the United States, said he had seen members of Congress speak about genocide recognition once a year and then continue to receive donations and votes from Armenian-Americans.

“That is the cheapest way in the world to secure Armenian support,” he said.

Sinanyan also defended the argument that the diaspora had historically grown “at Armenia’s expense,” citing forced displacement, the Armenian Genocide and large-scale emigration from Armenia in recent decades.

“Historically, the diaspora has grown stronger at Armenia’s expense. That is an axiomatic truth,” he said.

He said the strength of the diaspora should not be measured only by its size, but by how organized it was and how closely it worked with Armenia.

A strong Armenian state, Sinanyan said, could in turn help create a more organized and focused diaspora aligned with Armenia’s goals.

“A state will exist, and there will be religion and language,” he said. “If there is no state, there will be nothing.”