YEREVAN—During the Second Armenian Global Summit on September 18, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan suggested that the model of patriotism prevalent among Armenians, including in the Diaspora, dilutes the essence of Armenian statehood.
Speaking at an event organized by the Office of the High Commissioner for Diaspora Affairs, Pashinyan criticized the prevailing model of patriotism in Armenia, describing it as a superficial concept lacking true sovereignty. He claimed that this form of patriotism exists only as rhetoric — “on the walls, in toasts and even on cakes” — yet has no real grounding in the realities of the Armenian homeland.
Pashinyan’s comments raised eyebrows, particularly as they came during a summit aimed at strengthening ties with the Diaspora. Many interpreted his comments as an attempt to undermine the Armenian Diaspora’s connection to national identity.
Artak Zakaryan, a prominent member of the Republican Party of Armenia, criticized Pashinyan’s remarks. Zakaryan questioned Pashinyan’s stance on the concept of the Armenian state, stating, “If Armenia is merely a state and not a motherland, why then has the government gathered members of the Diaspora?”
He went on to describe the current leadership as “capitulant and failed,” accusing them of disregarding the historical significance of previous Armenia-Diaspora conferences, which were held during what he termed “victorious times” of the Second Republic in 1999, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2014 and 2018. Zakaryan added that the administration misleadingly presents the 2022 summit as a novel achievement, forgetting the precedent set by these earlier conferences.
Zakaryan further criticized the alienation of the Armenian Diaspora from the Republic of Armenia since 2018, attributing this divide to the current government’s policies. He emphasized the strategic importance of Artsakh, describing it as a critical part of the Armenia-Artsakh-Diaspora trinity. He condemned its depopulation and surrender to Azerbaijan, implying that this was a major failure of Pashinyan’s administration.
Zakaryan argued that Pashinyan’s remarks risk alienating Armenians abroad by implying that their expressions of national pride are misguided or irrelevant. This critique not only questions the prime minister’s understanding of the Diaspora’s role in supporting Armenia but also suggests a troubling disconnect from a community that plays a crucial role in the country’s cultural and political landscape.
PM Pashinyan also addressed constitutional issues raised by Azerbaijan, highlighting that the Azerbaijani Constitution itself contains territorial claims against Armenia.
“Azerbaijan’s constitution references the 1991 act of independence, which in turn cites the period of 1918-1920, during which it declared that Azerbaijan is founded on the territory of southern and eastern Transcaucasia. Furthermore, in 1919, Azerbaijan presented a map to the Entente states and the League of Nations, which included Syunik and Vayots Dzor regions of Armenia, as well as parts of Ararat, Tavush, Lori and Shirak. This constitutes a clear territorial claim against Armenia,” Pashinyan said.
Pashinyan emphasized that Armenia has not demanded changes to Azerbaijan’s constitution, as the agreed provisions of the Armenia-Azerbaijan draft treaty stipulate that neither party can invoke its domestic legislation to avoid fulfilling its treaty obligations.
On September 17, Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Aykhan Hajizade said that a peace treaty with Armenia cannot be signed while only 80% of the text is agreed upon. He emphasized that any proposal from Armenia to finalize the agreement based on the currently agreed provisions is unacceptable. “The document cannot be considered conclusive until all points are resolved,” Hajizade stated.
This comes in response to Pashinyan’s comments during an international forum on September 10, during which he stated that 13 articles of the treaty, including the preamble, have already been agreed upon and should be signed to establish a fundamental framework.
Hajizade reiterated Azerbaijan’s demand for amendments to the Constitution of Armenia, asserting that “until Armenia removes its territorial ambitions toward Azerbaijan from its legislative framework, there can be no discussion of peace between the two nations.” This refers to the preamble of Armenia’s Constitution citing Armenia’s Declaration of Independence, which mentions the reunification of Armenia and Artsakh.
From occupied Karvajar, assistant to the Azerbaijani president Hikmet Hajiyev reiterated the call for Armenia to remove this reference to facilitate a lasting peace agreement. “The Armenian people must put an end to their utopian claims to annex Karabakh and enshrine their desire to live in peace with Azerbaijan through a referendum,” he said.
In a pointed criticism of Western support for Armenia, Hajiyev added that what he called a new “Marshall Plan” is being developed for Armenia, while Azerbaijan is investing in reconstruction and demining efforts in areas “previously occupied” by Armenia. “Azerbaijan endures the consequences of devastation caused by Armenia, yet funds are allocated to Armenia,” he said.
Meanwhile, PM Pashinyan has expressed Armenia’s willingness to purchase gas from Azerbaijan if a transit pipeline is established through Armenian territory, suggesting that a pipeline running from Azerbaijan to Nakhichevan or Turkey could be a viable option.
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev reaffirmed his preconditions for an agreement with Armenia during a phone call with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Monday. This conversation followed Blinken’s recent discussion with Pashinyan four days prior.
According to U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller, Blinken emphasized the importance of achieving a durable and dignified peace between the two nations. He noted recent progress, including an agreement on border delimitation, although no further details on the discussions were provided.
According to Azerbaijani news outlets, Aliyev stated that peace has already been established in the region due to “new realities” created by Azerbaijan, referring to Azerbaijan’s military assault and capture of Artsakh. He reiterated his demand for Armenia to amend its constitution and to agree to disband the OSCE Minsk Group, which has been involved in addressing the conflict since the early 1990s.
Aliyev and other Azerbaijani officials have consistently tied the signing of a peace treaty to Armenia’s constitutional changes, a condition that Aliyev stressed again during his call with Blinken.
Previously, Blinken had stated that the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan should be resolved “without delay.” However, recent negotiations between the foreign ministers of both countries, held in Washington in July, did not yield significant breakthroughs.
Meanwhile, during the Global Summit, Secretary of Armenia’s Security Council Armen Grigoryan emphasized that the country’s foreign policy is increasingly focused on diversification in both economic and military spheres. This strategic shift reflects Armenia’s efforts to distance itself from Russian influence and to end its long-standing dependence on Moscow. While the nation still relies on Russia for economic and energy needs, recent developments indicate a clear movement toward the West.
Grigoryan noted a significant decline in military-technical cooperation with Russia, which previously constituted over 96% of Armenia’s defense partnerships but has now fallen to less than 10%. Armenia is seeking three to four new key partners in the military sector and aims to achieve 25-30% of its military-technical production domestically.
“The strategic goal is to develop collaborations with four or five partners, ensuring that no single partnership exceeds 20%,” Grigoryan said. This reconfiguration of Armenia’s security framework comes in response to increased coordination between Russia and Azerbaijan, underscoring the urgency of Armenia’s transition toward a diversified foreign and security policy.
PM Pashinyan also announced at the summit that the Russian-led CSTO poses threats to Armenia’s security, statehood and sovereignty. He reaffirmed that Armenia has effectively frozen its membership in the military bloc, stating that the country will only consider reinstating its activities if its questions and concerns are addressed. This ongoing reevaluation of Armenia’s defense strategies aligns with its broader aim of diversifying its security partnerships and reducing reliance on Russian support.
Pashinyan also noted that Armenia’s military reforms are not aggressive in nature, emphasizing the need to protect its territory. As part of this diversification strategy, Armenia is expanding its military-technical cooperation with countries such as France and India, seeking to establish a more independent defense framework.
Author information
The post Pashinyan’s remarks at Global Summit question Armenian patriotism appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.