By Tigrane Yegavian
On April 20-22, the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia hosted a conference dedicated to studying the continuous nature of the Armenian genocide and the issue of Artsakh. Researchers, intellectuals, and activists from Armenia, Artsakh, and the diaspora gathered at the Catholicosate in Antelias, Lebanon, to share their analyses and debate topics as burning as they are vital.
Organized by the Cilicia Analytical Platform, set up at the beginning of the year by a team of researchers and intellectuals from Armenia, Artsakh and the diaspora, the conference featured two highlights.
Firstly was the visit by Louis Moreno Ocampo, who served as the chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court and whose visit was facilitated by his fellow Argentinians, Mario Nalbandian, vice president of the Socialist International, and Khachig der Ghoukassian, a member of the Cilicia Analytical Platform.
A leading figure in the fight against genocide, Moreno Ocampo twice stressed the urgent need to continue the fight to prosecute those in Azerbaijan responsible for last year’s blockade and ethnic cleansing of the Armenian population of Artsakh. In particular, he referred to the case of Sudan, where former President Omar al-Bashir was prosecuted for crimes against humanity in Darfur.
In general, the conference was organized around different themes, including pan-Turkism, regional geopolitics and the role of the great powers, Azerbaijan’s genocidal policies, the current state of the Artsakh issue, and the situation in the Armenian diaspora.
Another highlight was the appearance of Vartan Oskanian, who formerly served as Armenia’s former minister and who now heads a working group dedicated to protecting the rights of Artsakh Armenians. Drawing on his experience and professional network, Oskanian stressed the need to coordinate with the Cilicia Analytical Platform in the hope of creating a vision that can open up new perspectives.
This synergy is eagerly awaited, but can it be achieved without the participation of Armenia’s leaders? Is dialogue possible at a time when the prime minister himself is refusing to accept the hand offered by the catholicos of Cilicia, and is also selling off strategic Armenian territories in Tavush? Is coordination realistic when Nikol Pashinyan himself is sinking into revisionist rhetoric about 1915, opting to use the phrase “medz yeghern” in place of the eminently political word “genocide?”
At a time when Artsakh has disappeared from the map, the gulf between Armenia and diaspora has never been so deep, the diaspora has never been so weak, and Armenia has never been so vulnerable.
As we can see, the challenges are existential in nature, and dialogue as it stands seems unrealistic, even if indispensable.
What could be the outcome of such a process of analysis, exchange of information, and reflection?
Firstly, the catholicos of Cilicia, an eminent spiritual figure who spares no effort in bringing the voice of his people to the attention of a number of international bodies, should be strengthened.
The second step would be to work toward a pan-Armenian agenda, broken down into several parts in accordance with the given political and local contexts.
Catholicos Aram I: A leader for the diaspora?
Catholicos Aram I responds to these challenges with unity and concord. In his eyes, pan-Armenian unity must take precedence over everything else. During the commemoration of the genocide this year, he reached out to Karekin II, the Catholicos of all Armenians, taking into account the deterioration in relations between the Holy See of Etchmiadzin and the Armenian government. He called for solidarity based on the unity of the Armenian Apostolic Church, organized around two catholicosal sees, and for the unity of the nation. This unity is under threat by the polarization in Armenia and the weakening of the diaspora.
The Catholicosate of Cilicia is not only the main national and spiritual home of the post-1915 Armenian diaspora. It is a mission in and of itself.
That mission is focused on three axes: the defense of the rights of the Armenian people, ecumenical commitment, and interreligious engagement. Catholicos Aram I’s ecumenical commitment has earned him recognition from his peers in the Eastern and, above all, Western churches, and he has succeeded in opening the Armenian question and making it visible in the international arena.
But in addition to the existential challenges mentioned above, there is also the dramatic situation in Lebanon and the catastrophic situation of Syria’s Armenian community, the two historic lungs of the post-1915 diaspora. The collapse of the state and economy in Lebanon, the agony of the Syrian community, the demographic hemorrhaging, the loss of meaning, the search for a future elsewhere in the West…These are all major priorities that the Catholicosate should face fearlessly and confidently.
The weeks and months ahead will be decisive. They will be a test. The catholicos spoke of the loneliness of the Armenians, reminding us that this nation of survivors fighting for its existence has no friends. Hence the need for pragmatism and reorganization.
If his mission succeeds, it would mean that Armenia’s elites are capable of working together to go beyond declarations of good intent – a sine qua non for working toward an inclusive strategic vision and the necessary task of national refoundation.
“Beating Heart” of the diaspora? Ridiculous assumption. According to who? A religious official as a “leader”? Are we living in 19th century Ottoman Empire? The entire article reeks of hackneyed generalities – “pan-Armenoian unity”, blah, blah. It’s too late for such unity, even if such a vision is feasible and practical. For years the slogan “Armenia, Artsakh, Diaspora Union” was bandied about by Armenian leaders as the pillar for future development and security. It failed miserably. Does Yegavian take himself seriously? Do the readers of such pulp?