As President Joe Biden’s first term nears its conclusion, his administration has taken a notable step in its foreign policy with Armenia. Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently announced the signing of a "strategic agreement" with Armenia, a move that should signal a commitment to fostering stability in a region fraught with conflict. However, critics argue that the timing of this agreement and its perceived lack of substance raises more questions than it answers. Chief among these critics is the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), whose sharp commentary reflects the frustration of Armenian Americans and their allies.

At the heart of the critique is the belief that this agreement is "too little, too late" and fails to address the urgent realities of the region, particularly the plight of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) and its indigenous Armenian Christian population. Below, we unpack the key issues raised by ANCA, examining their logical underpinnings, geopolitical context, and implications for U.S. foreign policy.

1. Timing of the Strategic Agreement: Symbolism or Substance?

The announcement of the U.S.-Armenia strategic agreement comes just days before the potential end of Biden’s term, casting doubt on its sincerity and practicality. ANCA underscores this timing as emblematic of a broader issue: a lack of proactive U.S. engagement during critical moments for Armenia and Artsakh.

The geopolitical crisis in Artsakh reached a tipping point earlier in Biden’s term, as Azerbaijan launched aggressive actions that many described as acts of ethnic cleansing. During this period, opportunities for decisive U.S. intervention were abundant but largely unseized. Critics argue that signing an agreement at the eleventh hour does little to reverse the damage already inflicted or to rebuild trust among Armenian communities.

The Strategic Angle:

A strategic agreement of this nature should serve as a blueprint for long-term collaboration, addressing both immediate needs and future aspirations. However, the non-binding nature of this agreement, as ANCA points out, raises concerns about whether it carries any enforceable commitments. Without clear action plans, funding, or timelines, such agreements risk being perceived as performative rather than transformative.

2. The U.S. Response to the Artsakh Crisis: A Missed Opportunity

ANCA’s critique of the Biden administration focuses on its perceived failure to address Azerbaijan’s actions in Artsakh. They assert that the U.S. prioritized arms and aid to Azerbaijan, even as the nation reportedly engaged in actions that devastated Artsakh’s indigenous population. For many, this contradiction undermines the U.S.’s claim to be a global champion of human rights and democracy.

Evidence of U.S. Inaction:

While Azerbaijan imposed blockades and engaged in military actions against Artsakh, displacing tens of thousands of Armenians, the Biden administration’s response was muted. Critics argue that rather than holding Azerbaijan accountable, the U.S. provided military aid that may have emboldened its actions. This inaction, coupled with aid flows, has deeply alienated Armenian Americans and damaged U.S. credibility in the region.

The Moral and Geopolitical Stakes:

For the Armenian community, the crisis in Artsakh is not just a territorial dispute—it is a humanitarian catastrophe with profound cultural and historical significance. By failing to act decisively, the U.S. missed an opportunity to demonstrate leadership and reinforce its commitment to protecting vulnerable populations from aggression.

3. The Nature of the Agreement: A Paper-Thin Gesture?

ANCA describes the newly signed strategic agreement as a "non-binding piece of paper," signaling skepticism about its potential impact. This critique points to a larger issue: the need for actionable and enforceable commitments in U.S. foreign policy.

Non-binding agreements can serve as important diplomatic tools, but their effectiveness depends on the intent and follow-through of the parties involved. In this case, ANCA contends that the agreement offers little in the way of tangible support for Armenia, particularly in light of the immense challenges it faces from Azerbaijan.

What Could Have Been Done Differently?

  • Inclusion of Specific Commitments: A robust strategic agreement could have included provisions for economic aid, military support, or technical assistance to strengthen Armenia’s sovereignty and security.
  • Clear Accountability Measures: Establishing benchmarks for U.S. engagement would have provided a mechanism to measure progress and ensure follow-through.
  • A Stronger Stance on Human Rights: Explicitly addressing the humanitarian crisis in Artsakh and committing to actions that protect its displaced population would have demonstrated U.S. solidarity with Armenia.

4. U.S. Financing for Azerbaijan: A Contradiction in Policy?

One of the most striking points in ANCA’s critique is the allegation that the U.S. has granted over $100 million in financing to Azerbaijan, facilitating arms transfers to Baku. This claim underscores a perceived contradiction in U.S. policy: while advocating for peace and stability, the administration is accused of supporting a nation that has allegedly perpetuated aggression against Artsakh and Armenia.

The Strategic Dilemma:

This financing raises critical questions about the alignment of U.S. foreign aid with its stated values. If the U.S. aims to act as a stabilizing force in the region, how can it reconcile support for Azerbaijan with the resulting harm to Armenian populations? Critics argue that this inconsistency not only damages U.S. credibility but also exacerbates tensions in the region.

5. Cultural and Humanitarian Considerations: The Human Cost of Inaction

At the core of ANCA’s criticism is the profound human cost of the Artsakh crisis. The displacement of Artsakh’s indigenous Armenian Christian population represents not just a humanitarian failure but also a cultural tragedy. For the Armenian diaspora, this loss is deeply personal, tied to centuries of history, identity, and resilience.

A Call for U.S. Leadership:

The U.S. has long positioned itself as a defender of human rights and self-determination. Taking meaningful action in support of Armenia and Artsakh would align with this legacy and send a powerful message about America’s role as a global leader.

Conclusion: A Path Forward

The late timing and perceived lack of substance in the Biden administration’s strategic agreement with Armenia have sparked frustration among Armenian Americans and advocates like ANCA. However, this moment also represents an opportunity to reframe U.S. engagement in the region. To rebuild trust and strengthen its role as a stabilizing force, the U.S. must:

  1. Deliver Tangible Support: Transform symbolic agreements into actionable commitments with clear funding, timelines, and benchmarks.
  2. Reassess Aid Policies: Ensure that military or financial aid aligns with U.S. values and supports peace rather than exacerbating conflicts.
  3. Address Humanitarian Needs: Prioritize efforts to assist displaced populations and preserve cultural heritage in Artsakh.

The U.S. has the tools, resources, and influence to make a meaningful difference. What remains to be seen is whether it will rise to the occasion.