Instrumentalized and Alienated: Nagorno-Karabakh Armenian Refugees in Armenia
31․10․2024
By Karena Avedissian
The discourse around Armenian refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh in Armenia following the region’s ethnic cleansing by Azerbaijan in September 2023 highlights the troubling tendency for vulnerable refugee populations to be politicized. The plight of these refugees—marginalized by virtue of their displacement—has been overshadowed by how various actors in Armenia, from government officials to civil society figures and even foreign diplomatic missions, have used them as a political tool.
This instrumentalization isn’t unique to Armenia, but its local manifestations reveal unsettling patterns, from targeted rhetoric to symbolic photo-ops. In a time of national trauma, one might hope for compassion and genuine support, yet the response has too often been marred by blame-shifting, stereotyping, and divisive narratives.
Officials’ Participation
Within Armenia since 2020, political figures have begun framing Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians as “the other”—a population somehow separate from and even burdensome to the rest of Armenian society. This dynamic was illustrated in comments made by Gagik Melkonyan, a Member of Parliament from the ruling party, who suggested that Karabakh Armenian refugees “gave up their land” and should “act like guests” in Armenia.
Such statements do more than offend; they signal an official endorsement of distrust and resentment towards an already traumatized group, casting Karabakh Armenians as outsiders somehow unprepared or ill-fit for full social integration. The influence of these narratives is amplified when government-aligned media outlets like Civic.am further propagate the idea that Karabakh Armenians are particularly sympathetic to Russia—a nation that, amid recent events, has become deeply unpopular among the Armenian public. This kind of selective stereotyping stokes division, indirectly validating xenophobic sentiments under the guise of nationalism or state loyalty.
A former ruling party member, Tatul Asilyan, posted a social media poll asking if Artsakh refugees should leave Armenia, transforming the trauma of displacement into a public debate. Yet despite the clear inflammatory nature of these statements, there has been no legal or institutional action to counter the hate speech directed at Karabakh Armenians. The absence of consequences suggests a worrying tolerance for discriminatory rhetoric that risks normalizing prejudice against refugees.
Negative Stereotypes Not New
The negative framing of NK Armenians has deep-seated historical roots, partly shaped by Armenia’s political past. The country’s unpopular second and third presidents, both originally from Nagorno-Karabakh, left a legacy of resentment that has fueled stereotypes about NK Armenians as politically insular or beholden to foreign powers.
However, as my colleague Tigran Grigoryan has asserted, these stereotypes were previously limited to societal discourse and were not legitimized by officials or civil society figures. Today, these narratives have disturbingly moved from the fringes to the mainstream, bringing with them the weight of state endorsement.
Foreign Diplomatic Missions: Token Support and Photo-Ops
Foreign embassies in Armenia have also engaged in more subtle, but no less problematic, forms of instrumentalizing Karabakh Armenians. Despite having done little to prevent the displacement of these refugees or to alleviate their suffering, some diplomatic missions appear keen to publicize token gestures of support.
A recent example involved a foreign delegation on a working visit to Armenia, which met with numerous experts and traveled to various Armenian regions. Notably, in their public communications, the only photographs released highlighted their meeting with Karabakh Armenian representatives—a symbolic nod to the refugees without evidence of substantial action.
This selective visibility suggests a performative approach: an eagerness to show the world they’re “engaging” with Karabakh Armenians, but without a tangible policy backing it up. These diplomatic gestures, however well-intentioned they might appear, should go beyond symbolic visits and focus on providing direct assistance and advocating for policies that ensure the refugees’ long-term security and well-being.
Armenian Civil Society: Complicity and Scapegoating
Some Armenian civil society members, who could have defended Karabakh Armenians’ interests in the country, have been disappointingly complicit in its marginalization. In meetings with foreign delegations, some prominent civil society figures have echoed damaging stereotypes, labeling Karabakh Armenians as potential threats to Armenia’s democratic development. This aligns with the government’s attempts to deflect criticism by using the community as scapegoats, painting them as barriers to democratic progress rather than victims in need of protection.
Such rhetoric from civil society is doubly damaging. Not only does it reinforce negative stereotypes, but it also undermines the very principles of inclusivity and empathy that should be guiding civil society organizations.
The Moral and Ethical Imperative to Defend Karabakh Armenians
Instrumentalizing any vulnerable population is corrosive to democracy, but to target refugees—a group already stripped of stability and agency—is morally indefensible. For Karabakh Armenians, this instrumentalization adds insult to injury, reducing them to political tools, scapegoats, and photo-ops for a range of actors. Far from helping Karabakh Armenians integrate and find security in Armenia, this dynamic leaves them alienated and distrusted.
A more compassionate and just approach would involve rejecting divisive narratives, fostering genuine integration, and providing Karabakh Armenians with both the material support and social acceptance they need to rebuild their lives.
Democracy Watch is a joint initiative by CivilNet and the Regional Center for Democracy and Security, a Yerevan-based think tank.
This material has been funded by UK International Development from the UK government; however, the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies.