The Armenian Weekly. In a recent interview with the Public Television of Armenia, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan shared his views on the ongoing negotiations with Azerbaijan and the future direction of Armenian foreign policy.
Pashinyan stated that Armenia’s government “does not want to be guided by the logic that Azerbaijan is intentionally pushing the process into a deadlock.” “So, what are we doing? We are consistently using arguments to try to dispel this concern,” Pashinyan said.
During the one-and-a-half hour long interview on November 22, Pashinyan highlighted the importance of not only reaching a peace agreement with Azerbaijan but also establishing a strategic deal that defines how both countries will coexist peacefully in the long term. He proposed that Armenia and Azerbaijan should officially recognize each other’s territorial integrity, with Armenia’s sovereignty defined by the borders of the former Soviet republics. The strategic deal would focus on mutual non-interference and the gradual development of communications and economic ties between the two nations.
The prime minister also addressed the broader challenges facing Armenia. He referred to the Declaration of Independence, stating that it contains a logic that could perpetuate conflict with neighboring Azerbaijan and Turkey. Pashinyan argued that if Armenia’s founding document is based on a framework of conflict, it would be difficult for the country to build a stable, independent state.
Read also
Azerbaijan’s government has frequently claimed that the Declaration of Independence, cited in Armenia’s Constitution, includes territorial claims. The Declaration of Independence includes a joint decision to reunify Soviet Armenia and the Mountainous Region of Karabakh.
On the topic of constitutional changes, Pashinyan stated that discussions on removing references to the Declaration of Independence from Armenia’s Constitution should not be conflated with other political issues. He pointed out that the Constitutional Court has already ruled that the Declaration of Independence only holds legal force in its sections explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, and the parts he has referred to are not verbatim in the text.
Pashinyan also acknowledged that terms like “Western Azerbaijan” and “Western Armenia” can be sensitive and provocative. He stressed that, as prime minister, he is obligated to communicate the complex realities and consequences of these issues to the Armenian people, even if it involves addressing uncomfortable topics. “If I do not explain these cause-and-effect relationships, I will be leading Armenia toward the loss of statehood,” Pashinyan stated.
These remarks come in response to recent developments involving the term “Western Azerbaijan,” which has been prominently featured in Azerbaijani media and showcased in exhibitions during the United Nations climate summit COP29 hosted in Baku. Azerbaijani outlets have also circulated materials referring to sovereign Armenian territory as “Western Azerbaijan,” further fueling tensions.
“We get so upset by…the fact that some people in some places use the term ‘Western Azerbaijan.’ But when we say Western Armenia, don’t we think that it irritates some people? Just like they irritate us by saying ‘Western Azerbaijan,’ we irritate others by saying Western Armenia,” Pashinyan said.
Western Armenia refers to the region that was historically part of Armenia, located in the eastern part of Anatolia (modern day Turkey), which includes Sassoun, Van, Bitlis, Erzurum and parts of the Kurdish-majority regions. This region was home to a large ethnic Armenian population before World War I and the Armenian Genocide of 1915, during which much of the Armenian population was either killed, deported or forced to flee.
Western Azerbaijan is an irredentist concept used by Azerbaijan to claim that modern day Armenia was historically part of Azerbaijan. The term targets regions including Yerevan, Lake Sevan and Syunik. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has referred to these regions as “historically Azerbaijani lands” and called for their return. This narrative supports Azerbaijan’s broader strategy to promote pan-Turkic territorial unity. Since the 2020 war in Artsakh, Azerbaijan has intensified its claims, particularly in Syunik.
Regarding the ongoing demarcation and delimitation of the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, Pashinyan confirmed that both countries’ state commissions will meet to select new sections for demarcation. He also noted Armenia’s proposal to remove European observers from border areas that have been delimited. “There is objectively no need to have observers on the border which is delimited,” Pashinyan said.
In response to Pashinyan’s interview, an initiative group in the Azerbaijani Milli Majlis rejected his attempt to draw a parallel between “Western Azerbaijan” and Western Armenia. The group stated that the issue of “Western Azerbaijan” pertains to the human rights of Azerbaijanis who were “subjected to ethnic cleansing and their right to return to Armenia peacefully and with dignity.”
The Azerbaijani parliament stated that the term Western Armenia is a territorial claim, reflected in Armenia’s Constitution. They argued that Pashinyan’s remarks questioning the legitimacy of Western Armenia cast doubt on its historical significance and imply a shift from “historical” to “real” Armenia.
In an interview with the Weekly, Artur Khachatryan, a member of the “Armenia” faction in the National Assembly, responded sharply to Pashinyan’s remarks comparing Western Armenia to Western Azerbaijan. Khachatryan expressed his frustration, stating that he “wished he didn’t have to respond to such delirium.”
“I believe that only someone of Turkish nationality would make such comments, attempting to erase the deep, historical roots of Armenianness,” Khachatryan said, rejecting Pashinyan’s comparison. “Armenia, the Armenian character, and our national identity were born and formed in Western Armenia, particularly in Van. This is not something up for debate.”
Khachatryan went on to question whether the same line of questioning would be posed to Aliyev. “If these questions were asked to Aliyev, I’m not sure we would hear anything different. The reality is that Pashinyan is increasingly aligning with Azeri rhetoric,” he added, accusing the prime minister of echoing Azerbaijani narratives.
Notably, the French Ambassador to Armenia also responded to Pashinyan’s comments by sharing an image on X of West Azerbaijan, an Iranian province, referring to it as the “one and only” Western Azerbaijan.
MP of the “Armenia” faction Levon Kocharyan also responded to Pashinyan’s controversial remarks. In a post on his Telegram channel, Kocharyan criticized the prime minister’s comments, particularly his suggestion that using these terms might provoke tensions with neighboring countries.
Kocharyan reminded his followers that 1.5 million Armenians were victims of genocide, with many forcibly displaced from their homes, leaving behind their properties and cultural heritage. Nearly 30 countries have officially recognized this as genocide, condemning the actions of the Ottoman Empire.
Meanwhile, the Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has reiterated that Armenia does not have territorial claims against neighboring states. In a statement to Sputnik Armenia, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Ani Badalyan emphasized that Armenia categorically rejects such claims.
“As stated in our previous official positions, Armenia strongly denies any false narratives that imply territorial ambitions towards a neighboring state,” Badalyan said.
Earlier this year, during his remarks marking the 109th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, Pashinyan notably refrained from using the term “genocide,” instead emphasizing the term “Medz Yeghern” and the profound trauma it caused the Armenian people. This choice of language sparked attention, as “Medz Yeghern” is a term commonly used within Armenia to describe the Genocide, but its use in place of the internationally recognized term “genocide” is often seen as a more cautious or symbolic approach in diplomatic contexts.