Written by Connie Greatrix
Despite existing beyond the borders of ‘Greater Armenia’, the Lebanese-Armenian community has become a central hub of Armenian national identity and cultural preservation. This centrality was shaped through community engagement with Lebanese civil society, particularly during and after the Lebanese Civil War (1975 –1990). The policy of ‘Positive Neutrality’ was adopted by Lebanese-Armenian political parties during the conflict, reflecting a prioritisation of community-survival over political ambition. These decisions had long-lasting implications for the community’s post-war influence and identity.
The Armenian presence in Lebanon dates to the fourteenth century, but the modern community was shaped largely by mass migration between 1890 and the end of the First World War. The escalation of violence against Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and the Armenian genocide of 1915–1916 triggered these migration patterns. By 1925, approximately fifty thousand Armenian refugees had settled in Lebanon. Despite the physical separation from the envisioned Greater Armenia, the diasporic community maintained a powerful sense of national consciousness, rooted in collective memory, cultural continuity, and political organisation.
Over the years, the Armenian diaspora carved out a space as an active and respected participant in Lebanese political and civil society. Recognised as the seventh confessional community in Lebanon, Armenians were granted political representation and protection as a minority group. This was a marked difference from the treatment the diaspora received elsewhere. This recognition also generated intra-community debate over how this political power should be exercised, and disagreements on the extent of integration that should occur.
The Lebanese Civil War was a time of immense change – something the Armenian community was not immune to. The conflict resulted in between an estimated 120,000 to 150,000 deaths, high levels of displacement, and the destruction of political and civic institutions. The war stemmed from an interplay of sectarian tensions (an imbalanced political system that disproportionately favoured Christians), the arrival of Palestinian refugees and the rise of the PLO (followed by Israeli military interventions), regional support of various militias (from Syria, Iran, Israel, and other Arab states), and the weakness of the central state. Within this volatile environment, the three major Armenian political parties arrived at a rare consensus on a policy of ‘Positive Neutrality’.
This position prioritised communal survival through avoiding alignment with any warring faction. The policy aimed to search for reconciliation and peacebuilding, even at the expense of potential political influence. Whilst this stance protected the community from fragmentation and destruction, it simultaneously exposed Armenians to hostilities from various sides that believed this neutrality was a betrayal. Community leaders defended the decision as essential to prevent intra-community division and an unnecessary loss of life. The legacy of the Genocide and displacement played a critical role in shaping the decision, as a fraught collective memory of near-destruction remained in the minds of the Armenian elites. In this way, the policy became a foundation of Lebanese-Armenian diasporic nationalism and identity-building.
The end of the Civil War and the implementation of the Ta’if Agreement had an immense effect on the community and the place it held in Lebanese society. Designed to end the conflict, restore sovereignty, and disarm militias, the agreement restructured Lebanon’s confessional system. The previous 6:5 ratio was replaced with a 1:1 balance between Christian and Muslim seats. The redistribution of parliamentary seats reduced Christian representation, which in turn, led to a decline in Armenian parliamentary representation.
Armenians had minimal involvement in the Ta’if negotiations, largely due to their neutral stance (‘Positive Neutrality’) and limited political leverage during the conflict. The agreement was negotiated by members of the pre-war parliament, where Armenians were already underrepresented, leaving little opportunity to shape the post-war settlement.
The last official Lebanese census in 1932 continues to form the foundation of the allocation of political power, despite tremendous shifts in demographic realities. Armenians, once a significant minority in the Christian bloc, now represent a smaller proportion of the population. The potential destabilising effect (amongst other reasons) means the changing demographics have not been incorporated into the system.
In the decades following the Civil War, the inter-party tensions within the Lebanese-Armenian community increased. Although the three main parties initially maintained a united front through a neutrality consensus, post-war fragmentation has eroded such unity. Party leaders have increasingly sought to mobilise the community in pursuit of alliances at the expense of solidarity. This was demonstrated in Prime Minister Rafic Hariri’s strategic outreach to Armenians in the 1990s, in which he used social services and promises of infrastructure improvements to successfully undermine the electoral monopoly of the Dashnak (ARF) party and fracture Armenian voting patterns.
Today, Armenian political participation has declined with youth disengagement, waning voter turnout, and an erosion of traditional party loyalties. This has collectively weakened the community’s influence on Lebanese politics. The fragmentation of leadership and the failure to adapt to a new social and demographic reality have left Lebanese-Armenians with diminished political power compared to their pre-war position.
The history of the Lebanese-Armenian community demonstrates a negotiation between survival, identity, and political agency. The collective memory of genocide and displacement has informed community decisions aimed at preservation. The policy of ‘Positive Neutrality’ during the Civil War demonstrates this diasporic resilience and strategic restraint, while also contributing to the marginalisation of the community within the evolving political system. The Lebanese-Armenian experience encapsulates the difficulties of diasporic nationalism, where collective identity and influence clash with the constraints of collective memory, exile, and minority politics.
Bibliography
Avsharian, Roupen. ‘The Ta’ef agreement and the Lebanese-Armenians’ in Armenians of Lebanon: From Past Princes and Refugees to Present-Day Community, ed. A. Boudjikanian. Beirut: Haigazian University Press, 2009.
Der Ghoukassian, Khatchik. ‘Lebanon in my mind. The Civil War and the centrality of the Lebanese-Armenian community in the making of the Armenian Diaspora nationalism’ in Armenians of Lebanon: From Past Princes and Refugees to Present-Day Community, ed. A. Boudjikanian. Beirut: Haigazian University Press, 2009.
Geukjian, Ohannes. The Policy of Positive Neutrality of the Armenian Political Parties in Lebanon during the Civil War, 1975-90: A Critical Analysis. Middle Eastern Studies 43 (1), 2006.
Geukjian, Ohannes. From Positive Neutrality to Partisanship: How and Why the Armenian Political Parties Took Sides in Lebanese Politics in the Post-Taif Period (1989-Present). Middle Eastern Studies 45 (5), 2009.
Kasbarian, Sossie. Diasporic Voices from the Peripheries – Armenian Experiences on the Edges of Community in Cyprus and Lebanon. Cyprus Review 25 (1), 2013.
Migliorino, Nicola. (Re)Constructing Armenia in Lebanon and Syria : Ethno-Cultural Diversity and the State in the Aftermath of a Refugee Crisis. Berghahn Books, 2008.
Nucho, Joanne. Becoming Armenian in Lebanon. Middle East Report 43 (267), 2013.
Migliorino, Nicola. ‘The Lebanese system and Armenian cultural diversity between yesterday, today, and tomorrow: opportunities and limits’. In Armenians of Lebanon: From Past Princes and Refugees to Present-Day Community, ed. A. Boudjikanian. Beirut: Haigazian University Press, 2009.
Sanjian, Ara. Armenians and the 2000 Parliamentary Elections in Lebanon (in English). 2001
Featured Image Credit: “American University of Armenia (flag of Armenia) July 2023” by Benoît Prieur is marked with CC0 1.0.
Retrospect Journal 