Pashinyan’s European Parliament speech draws criticism over Church and Artsakh policies

2026-03-12 - 16:34

YEREVAN — In an address to the European Parliament, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan outlined recent regional developments and his government’s approach to Armenia’s foreign policy, security and constitutional future. While describing the developments as historic progress toward peace with Azerbaijan, the speech included several statements and policy positions that have raised concerns about Armenia’s sovereignty, internal political processes and national priorities. The prime minister emphasized that what he described as “peace” between Armenia and Azerbaijan was effectively established through the Washington Declaration signed on Aug. 8, 2025. According to Pashinyan, the declaration and the related “Agreement on the Establishment of Peace and Interstate Relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan” laid the groundwork for normalized relations and the reopening of regional communications. A key component of this framework is the proposed “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity,” or TRIPP, which the Armenian government is developing with the United States. Pashinyan said Armenia would work with the United States and other third parties to implement the connectivity project across Armenian territory. He also said Armenia is prepared to provide an alternative land route connecting Azerbaijan to Nakhichevan through the Kornidzor-Goris-Yeghegnadzor-Yeraskh corridor using existing Armenian infrastructure. Pashinyan also noted that regional developments, instability in Iran and the broader Middle East could potentially delay progress on the initiative. He added that the current U.S. administration does not appear to be treating the project as an immediate priority, suggesting international developments may influence the pace of implementation. During the speech, Pashinyan said peace and diplomatic engagement are the primary guarantors of Armenia’s security, emphasizing political dialogue and regional cooperation rather than military deterrence. His remarks framed diplomacy and political processes as central instruments for safeguarding Armenia’s statehood and stability. The Prime Minister also addressed internal political and religious dynamics. He accused some senior members of the Armenian Apostolic Church of encouraging protests against the government’s 2024 border demarcation process with Azerbaijan. According to Pashinyan, some clergy allegedly mobilized opposition movements and spread disinformation, including claims that Armenian territory and historic churches would be ceded to Azerbaijan. He further claimed that some clergymen promoted conflict, or “war narratives,” including references to the Karabakh issue in sermons. Another significant element of the address concerned Armenia’s constitutional future. Pashinyan reiterated his position that the country’s future constitution should not contain references to the Armenian Declaration of Independence, which currently forms part of the constitutional framework and includes references to national aspirations related to Artsakh. The prime minister also outlined the government’s policy toward Armenians displaced from Nagorno‐Karabakh, saying the government’s strategy focuses on their resettlement within the Republic of Armenia and the acquisition of Armenian citizenship rather than pursuing political claims related to the region. Throughout the speech, Pashinyan presented these policies as necessary steps to ensure peace, democratic consolidation and closer integration with Europe, including the government’s recently adopted law initiating the process of Armenia’s potential accession to the European Union. Despite the prime minister’s presentation of the developments as a historic step toward peace and regional stability, several elements of the address have drawn criticism from political figures, analysts and members of the clergy. Among the main concerns raised in Armenian public discourse are the prioritization of diplomacy over military preparedness, proposals to remove references to the Armenian Declaration of Independence from a future constitution, accusations directed at members of the Armenian Apostolic Church and the discussion of potential transit arrangements through Armenian territory connecting Azerbaijan with its exclave. Priest Vrtanes Baghalyan criticized Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s characterization of statements by clergy. According to Baghalyan, the government’s accusations misrepresent references made during religious services. He said expressions such as “God bless the Republic of Artsakh” reflect spiritual solidarity with Armenians from Artsakh and should not be interpreted as calls for conflict. Baghalyan also argued that the prime minister’s speech at the European Parliament did not address several issues many consider central to Armenia’s national agenda, including the potential return of displaced Armenians from Artsakh, the situation of Armenian detainees held in Azerbaijan and concerns about the destruction of Armenian churches and cultural heritage in the region. He also questioned whether genuine peace can be claimed while figures such as Ruben Vardanyan and other former leaders of Artsakh remain detained in Baku. Former Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian also criticized the tone and content of the address. He said that instead of focusing on Armenia’s strategic challenges and foreign policy priorities, the prime minister used the international platform to accuse bishops of the Armenian Apostolic Church of being agents of influence and obstacles to the government’s peace agenda. According to Oskanian, raising internal political disputes and criticism of national institutions at an international forum risks creating a negative impression among foreign audiences and reflects broader shortcomings in diplomatic communication. Political scientist Edgar Elbakyan raised concerns about the prime minister’s statement that the “Karabakh movement” no longer exists. Elbakyan argued such a declaration effectively signals the abandonment of Armenia’s longstanding political commitments to Armenians of Artsakh. He noted that several foundational legal acts adopted during the late Soviet and early independence periods — including the Armenian Declaration of Independence and a 1992 parliamentary resolution regarding the situation in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic — established Armenia’s official position on supporting the rights and security of the region’s Armenian population and rejecting documents recognizing it as part of Azerbaijan. In his view, abandoning the framework associated with the Karabakh movement raises serious legal and constitutional questions. Criticism also came from opposition lawmakers. Armenian Revolutionary Federation member and MP Artur Khachatryan pointed to the prime minister’s statement that Armenia had approached “the brink of statehood” in March–April 2024 and that failing to begin border demarcation with Azerbaijan could have resulted in Armenia losing its independence. According to Khachatryan, that description suggests the decision to launch the demarcation process was made under the threat of force. He questioned why the government presents the process as a major achievement if, by the prime minister’s own account, it occurred under significant external pressure. Armenian Revolutionary Federation Armenia Supreme Council member and MP Gegham Manukyan said that the prime minister’s international appearances increasingly focus on internal political disputes rather than advancing Armenia’s national interests. He warned that framing domestic political opposition as part of a geopolitical struggle — while referencing a supposed “hybrid war” involving Russia — risks drawing external actors such as Turkey and Azerbaijan into Armenia’s internal political processes. According to Manukyan, that dynamic could increase the country’s geopolitical vulnerability and expose it to pressure from multiple directions.