YEREVAN—Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s recent comments on the Armenian Genocide have ignited a firestorm of criticism across Armenia and the global Armenian nation.
Speaking to members of the Armenian diaspora in Zurich on January 24, Pashinyan suggested that the full significance of the Armenian Genocide was not fully understood until the 1950s. He posed the questions: “How is it that there was no agenda for the Armenian Genocide in 1939, and how is it that the agenda for the Armenian Genocide appeared in 1950? How did it happen?”
“We need to revisit the history of the Armenian Genocide. We need to understand what happened, why it happened, and through whom we perceived the events,” the prime minister continued.
Pashinyan’s remarks have drawn immediate and sharp rebukes from multiple national and religious institutions, political groups and civil society organizations in Armenia and the diaspora. His comments questioning the historical and national perception of the Armenian Genocide are seen as an attempt to distance Armenia from the history that has long formed a cornerstone of its identity and foreign policy.
In response to Pashinyan’s comments, the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin reaffirmed its stance on the genocide, which it says has been an integral part of the Church’s religious and national identity for over a century. The statement highlighted that, as early as 1921, under the leadership of Catholicos Gevorg VI Surenyants, the Armenian Apostolic Church declared April 24 as the official day of remembrance for the victims of the genocide.
“The creation of the Tsitsernakaberd Memorial, constructed in 1967, and the canonization of the genocide martyrs in 2015 are the embodiment of our nation’s collective will to honor and condemn this horrific event,” the statement reads. The Church emphasized that the Armenian Genocide is not only a crime against the Armenian people but also a crime against humanity, and recognition of the genocide is a moral and historical imperative for both Armenia and the international community. The Church added that Pashinyan’s remarks are at odds with its firm position that the genocide must be universally condemned and recognized.
The Supreme Body of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) in Armenia also issued a strong condemnation of Pashinyan’s “anti-national, anti-state and anti-scientific” comments, which it said undermine the collective rights and identity of the Armenian people. The ARF accused Pashinyan of catering to the demands of Turkey and Azerbaijan by questioning the undeniable fact of the Armenian Genocide and undermining the recognition efforts of over 40 countries, as well as initiatives to prevent future crimes against humanity.
The ARF further criticized Pashinyan’s remarks for dishonoring the work of generations of Armenians who fought for international recognition and for insulting the memory of the one and a half million Armenian martyrs canonized by the Armenian Apostolic Church. Emphasizing the importance of recognition, the ARF stated that it is vital not only for Armenia’s national interests but also for international justice. The party warned that abandoning the pursuit of genocide recognition would not neutralize the threats posed by Azerbaijan’s territorial demands, but would instead embolden hostile political agendas.
The Armenian National Committee (ANC) International also sharply criticized Pashinyan’s statements for echoing “the same arguments put forth by Turkey and Azerbaijan, who continue to deny the undeniable historical fact of the genocide.” According to the ANC, these remarks “are nothing less than an insult to the memory of the innocent victims” and to “the hundreds of humanitarians and scholars who have fought for its recognition.”
The ANC also criticized Pashinyan’s suggestion that the Armenian people “received” their history from outside sources, calling this view ignorant and historically inaccurate. It claimed that Pashinyan’s actions are driven by a need to find allies among hostile forces — namely, Turkey and Azerbaijan — as he faces growing opposition domestically.
The Genesis Armenia think tank also joined the chorus of criticism, stating that the prime minister’s rhetoric marks a dangerous turn in Armenia’s foreign policy. It cautioned: “Pashinyan’s remarks undermine Armenia’s moral authority and long-established commitment to the recognition and condemnation of the genocide. They suggest a troubling openness to revising the historical narrative surrounding the Armenian Genocide, which could embolden denialist forces in both Turkey and Azerbaijan.”
Genesis Armenia noted that this shift in narrative could have long-term negative consequences for Armenia’s geopolitical position, especially in light of ongoing Azerbaijani territorial demands. “If Armenia moves away from its position on the genocide, it risks diminishing the moral foundation of its diplomacy and international standing, which has traditionally been built upon the principle of historical truth and justice for the victims of the genocide,” it said, adding that Pashinyan’s remarks not only threaten to fracture Armenia’s national unity but also embolden forces seeking to undermine Armenia’s sovereignty.
Meanwhile, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has continued to press forward with his territorial demands, particularly the establishment of a “Zangezur Corridor,” a proposed land passage that would connect Azerbaijan to its exclave Nakhichevan through Armenian territory. Aliyev has framed this as an issue of national security, stating that Azerbaijan must have free access for transportation and economic development. Aliyev told the press on Tuesday: “This is not an issue that Armenia can decide unilaterally. We will take practical steps to ensure the establishment of this corridor, with or without Armenia’s approval.”
Recent statements by Armenia’s Foreign Intelligence Service and the Secretary of the Security Council present a nuanced and somewhat contradictory view of Armenia’s security outlook. The Foreign Intelligence Service’s annual report takes a measured approach, downplaying the likelihood of a large-scale military confrontation with Azerbaijan. The analysis suggests that while “the likelihood of a large-scale attack on Armenia by the Azerbaijani side is not assessed as high,” the risks of local tensions and escalation along the border remain significant in the absence of an Armenia-Azerbaijan peace treaty. The report highlights the ongoing border demarcation and delimitation efforts as potential avenues for de-escalation.
On the other hand, Secretary of Armenia’s Security Council, Armen Grigoryan, has painted a more alarming picture, voicing concerns over Azerbaijan’s increasingly aggressive rhetoric. He specifically pointed to recent military exercises and the transfer of foreign military equipment to Baku as troubling signs. Grigoryan emphasized that Armenia is doing everything it can to foster regional stability amid these growing tensions.
Author information
The post PM Pashinyan’s comments on Armenian Genocide spark accusations of denialism appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.