The Republic and the Diaspora: Patriotism Demands Responsibility

By BERGE JOLOLIAN

A recent exchange between Armenia’s Security Council Secretary Alen Simonyan and Ara Khachatourian, editor-in-chief of the Los Angeles-based Armenian newspaper Asbarez, has reopened a familiar and troubling debate about the relationship between the Republic of Armenia and its diaspora.

Simonyan, who served as President of Armenia’s National Assembly until August 2026, criticized certain diaspora Armenians in France and the United States who publish historical territorial maps, insult Armenian officials, and speak of patriotism while remaining distant from the realities facing Armenia.

His October 6 remarks were unnecessarily harsh. Referring to critics as “fake patriots,” invoking altered Armenian surnames, and telling them to stay away from Armenia’s politics was inappropriate language for a senior government official.

Khachatourian responded in an article first published by Asbarez and subsequently republished in French by Nouvelles d’Arménie Magazine. He defended the diaspora’s historical contributions while accusing Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s government of distancing itself from diaspora Armenians and undermining Armenian national identity.

But his response raises an equally important question: Why should respect be demanded only in one direction?

Respect Must Work Both Ways

For years, Armenian political discourse has been marked by accusations of betrayal, disloyalty, and hostility toward national interests. Some diaspora commentators have contributed to this increasingly personal confrontation.

Harut Sassounian, a prominent diaspora columnist, offers two documented examples. In his May 25, 2026 column, he questioned whether Pashinyan’s conduct represented the behavior of a “sane person.” In a March 2 column, he dismissively described the prime minister’s chief of staff, Arayik Harutyunyan, as a “clerk for Pashinyan.”

Sassounian also reported that Harutyunyan had called him an “over-the-hill columnist.” The exchange illustrates how personal disparagement can become reciprocal, replacing substantive disagreement with mutual contempt.

Khachatourian’s own response follows a similar pattern. He questions whether Simonyan has meaningfully engaged with diaspora institutions or merely enjoyed expensive restaurants in Beverly Hills and Paris.

These remarks invite examination of the standards being applied. If Armenian officials are expected to address diaspora critics respectfully, should diaspora commentators not demonstrate the same restraint toward elected officials?

The right to criticize a government is fundamental. Armenia’s leaders must answer difficult questions about national security, diplomacy, governance, and their treatment of political opponents.

But criticism does not require personal ridicule, accusations of treason, or questioning another Armenian’s national loyalty.

Nor should disagreement with a government automatically become evidence that the government has abandoned the Armenian nation.

Respect cannot be a one-way obligation.

No Political Organization Owns the Diaspora

The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) and the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) have long histories of political advocacy. Their contributions deserve recognition, just as their political positions deserve scrutiny.

But neither organization speaks for the entire Armenian diaspora.

The diaspora consists of millions of Armenians with different histories, political convictions, priorities, and relationships with the Republic.

Many contribute through education, philanthropy, investment, professional expertise, cultural preservation, and international partnerships without belonging to any political organization.

No party, newspaper, or advocacy group possesses an exclusive mandate to define Armenian patriotism.

Nor should any political movement confuse its opposition to a particular government with the position of the diaspora as a whole.

The same principle applies to Armenian officials. They must recognize that diaspora criticism does not diminish an Armenian’s attachment to the homeland.

The diaspora is larger than any political party, and the Republic is larger than any government.

Armenia Cannot Govern from the Past

Armenia cannot conduct diplomacy in 2026 as though it were negotiating with the Ottoman Empire of 1915, the Soviet Union of 1975, or even the regional powers of 1994.

The world has changed. Armenia’s geopolitical environment has changed. Its security challenges, opportunities, and potential partnerships have changed.

Historical maps have their rightful place in our collective memory, classrooms, archives, and museums. They preserve the history of our people and the lands from which generations were uprooted.

But maps drawn a century ago cannot substitute for a national security strategy today.

The Armenian state must deal with the Turkey, Azerbaijan, Russia, Europe, and United States that exist today, not merely those remembered from history.

This does not mean forgetting the Armenian Genocide, abandoning the memory of Artsakh, or disregarding the rights of displaced Armenians.

Historical justice remains important. So does the preservation of Armenian identity.

But the responsibilities of a sovereign state are different from those of a community preserving its historical memory.

Armenia must protect its internationally recognized territory, defend its population, strengthen its military capabilities, diversify its international partnerships, and develop its economy.

These responsibilities cannot be fulfilled through historical slogans alone.

Those who oppose the government’s diplomatic approach are entitled to do so. But serious alternatives should explain how they would better protect Armenia’s borders, strengthen its negotiating position, and reduce its vulnerabilities.

That is not an unreasonable demand. It is the substance of responsible political debate.

The Republic and the Diaspora: Different Responsibilities, Shared Interests

In my August 31 article, The Diaspora and the Republic: Preserving Memory, Building Armenian Power, published in MassisPost, I argued that the existence of a sovereign Armenian state has transformed the diaspora’s responsibilities.

Preserving Armenian memory remains essential. But Armenia also needs the diaspora’s capital, expertise, technology, international networks, and political influence to strengthen the living Republic.

The diaspora does not need to determine Armenia’s government to contribute to Armenia’s future.

Its greater opportunity lies in helping ensure that whichever government Armenians elect inherits a stronger, more secure, and more independent country.

Diaspora Armenians have every right to participate in national discussions, criticize government policies, and advocate for Armenia’s interests.

But diaspora political organizations do not possess a veto over decisions made by Armenia’s constitutional institutions.

Those institutions, in turn, must remain accountable, transparent, and respectful toward Armenians living abroad.

The Republic and the diaspora are partners, not political overseers of one another.

Their responsibilities are different, but their long-term interests should converge around Armenia’s security, sovereignty, prosperity, and independence.

Defending the Republic Is Not Defending a Government

There is an essential distinction that too often disappears from Armenian political arguments.

Supporting the Republic of Armenia does not require supporting Nikol Pashinyan, Alen Simonyan, or any particular political party.

Governments come and go. The Republic must endure.

Armenia’s officials must be held accountable for their decisions and failures, including security incidents, diplomatic miscalculations, and inappropriate public statements.

The recent border incident in Syunik, in which an Azerbaijani serviceman entered an Armenian home and shot a woman, raises legitimate questions about border security and institutional coordination. Those questions deserve serious investigation and public accountability.

But the institutions of the Armenian state should not be confused with the individuals temporarily occupying them.

Similarly, political opposition to the government should not become a claim of exclusive ownership over Armenian national interests.

A government’s policy does not become inherently wrong because its opponents dislike the government. Nor does a policy become correct simply because it is presented in the name of national security.

Every proposal must be judged on its merits and consequences.

Armenia’s sovereignty, constitutional institutions, territorial security, and long-term prosperity are larger than any political faction.

A Responsibility Shared by All Armenians

The exchange between Simonyan and Khachatourian should encourage reflection on both sides.

Armenian officials must show greater care when addressing diaspora communities whose attachment to the homeland has survived generations of displacement.

Diaspora commentators and political organizations should likewise examine whether their language contributes to constructive national debate or merely deepens political hostility.

Historical grievances cannot be erased. Political disagreements will not disappear. Nor should legitimate criticism be silenced in the name of national unity.

But Armenia’s future requires more than preserving the political arguments of the past.

It requires stronger institutions, credible diplomacy, diversified partnerships, economic development, and a diaspora prepared to contribute to those objectives without demanding political conformity.

Patriotism cannot be measured by the loudness of one’s accusations, the age of one’s maps, or the intensity of one’s opposition to a government.

It should be reflected in the responsibilities one accepts, the alternatives one proposes, and the contributions one makes.

The question should not be who is the greater patriot.

It should be whether our words, policies, and actions strengthen the Republic of Armenia.

That is a responsibility shared by Armenians everywhere.

Berge Jololian is an Armenian-American IT and cybersecurity professional based in Yerevan, Armenia, and Watertown, Massachusetts. His writing examines Armenian statehood and sovereignty, relations between the Republic and the Diaspora, regional security, and the strategic choices facing small states.