How America should respond to human-rights abuses in Armenia

The question of how the United States should respond to the growing accusations of human-rights abuses in Armenia has moved from the margins of policy debate to the center of international attention. This shift became especially visible this week during a wide-ranging and tense conference held at a Paris business school, where politicians, lawyers, academics, activists and Armenian diaspora leaders openly criticized Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s handling of the deepening confrontation with the Armenian Apostolic Church and the broader rule-of-law crisis.

At the heart of the discussion was the alarming claim that Armenia—once celebrated as a rare post-Soviet democratic success story—is now drifting toward selective justice and politically motivated repression. International lawyer Robert Amsterdam delivered one of the strongest interventions, accusing the Armenian authorities of grave violations of basic liberties. He described the detention of senior clergy and political opponents as a breach of Armenia’s own democratic commitments and warned that the targeting of the church risks dismantling the moral foundation of Armenian society.

For Washington, this presents a strategic and moral test. Armenia has long benefited from American support framed around democracy promotion, security assistance and regional stability. Yet continued engagement without accountability risks sending a dangerous signal: that human-rights concerns can be sidelined in the name of geopolitical convenience.

The United States has several instruments at its disposal. Diplomatic pressure remains the most immediate and symbolic tool. Clear public statements from the U.S. State Department demanding due process for detained clerics and political figures would establish that Armenia’s internal actions are not shielded from international scrutiny. Quiet diplomacy, while important, is no longer sufficient when the legitimacy of democratic institutions is openly questioned.

Targeted conditionality should follow. Military and economic assistance can no longer be treated as unconditional gestures of goodwill. Aid tied to demonstrable improvements in judicial independence, freedom of religion and political pluralism would reinforce the principle that partnership with Washington requires adherence to shared democratic values.

The Paris conference also made clear that repression in Armenia is no longer an internal matter. Prominent figures of the French-Armenian community, including Murad Papazian and Ara Toranian, spoke openly of political exile and the emergence of political prisoners. These voices represent a diaspora that is increasingly disillusioned with Pashinyan’s leadership.

The United States cannot ignore such signals from one of the most politically engaged diasporas in the world.

Washington must also carefully balance pressure with regional stability. Armenia’s fragile security environment and its vulnerability to external threats were highlighted by international lawyer Gérard Devedjian, who urged that geopolitical realities be factored into any judgment. Yet fragility cannot serve as a carte blanche for the erosion of civil liberties. On the contrary, history shows that internal repression weakens states at precisely the moments when national unity is most needed.

A credible U.S. response must therefore rest on three pillars: principled diplomacy, conditional engagement and sustained international monitoring. Silence or ambiguity at this stage would not preserve stability; it would accelerate the internal crisis now unfolding in Yerevan. America’s credibility as a global advocate for human rights is on the line—and Armenia has become one of its most delicate tests.

Ayoob Kara is an Israeli Druze politician. He has served as a member of the Knesset for Likud in four terms between 1999 and 2021, and as Israeli Minister of Communications