Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan gave an interview to Public Television on March 21. Below is the full transcript of the interview with Tatev Danielyan.
Public TV – Good evening. Today, my interlocutor is the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia, Nikol Pashinyan. Good evening, Mr. Pashinyan. Thank you for this opportunity. Mr. Prime Minister, Armenia and Azerbaijan declared that the negotiations on the peace treaty have ended, but after that, Aliyev announced that there is zero trust in Armenia and now Azerbaijan is constantly spreading fake information that we are creating border tension. Firstly, how do you explain this behavior of Azerbaijan? Is new escalation possible?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – If there were no trust issues, then there would be two options. Either the peace treaty would have long ago been signed or there would be no need for a peace treaty. Trust issues are among the reasons why in the agreed text of the peace treaty there is a provision among others on confidence building measures. I mean the lack or absence of trust. I don’t think it should be a surprise in the environment in which…
Public TV – Well, at least Armenia does not make such destructive statements.
Read also
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – The problem is that the parties have their own ideas about what statements they should be governed by. And our idea is that the peace agenda should be promoted and implemented, which means facing all the difficulties and trying to solve and address these difficulties. And in that regard, of course, a very important event has occurred. The negotiation on the text of the peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan has ended with agreement on the text of the peace treaty. In essence, we have a document that is acceptable to both the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan. And therefore, the next stage logically should be the signing of that document. As for dissemination of news with the escalation logic, I think one of its goals is to disguise the real news under the flow of such news, and the real news is that the text of the peace treaty has been agreed upon and is waiting for being signed and therefore it must be signed.
I have clearly stated that I am ready to put my signature under that text. As for escalation, we must generally note that especially now there is no basis or justification for escalation, because Armenia and Azerbaijan have recognized each other’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and political independence, essentially with the borders of the Soviet republics. And I have to note that this is a reference not only to the agreed text of the peace treaty, but also to a document that now has de-jure legal force in the two countries, namely the regulations of the border demarcation commissions of the two countries, where the Alma-Ata Declaration, in which the principles mentioned by me are contained, those principles in the form of the Alma-Ata declaration have become the basic principle for border demarcation between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
There may be forces that are in favor of escalation, there may be forces that are opposed to escalation, but escalation needs to have justification. Escalation in our region has no justification. Therefore, the next step from this point on should be the signing of the peace treaty and its implementation.
Public TV – Regarding signing, look, there’s a perspective that Azerbaijan was preparing for escalation and knowing this, Armenia prevented it by agreeing to the two points that we’re not agreed upon. And the other perspective is that Azerbaijan was not expecting Armenia to agree to these points and then, caught by surprise, it is now trying to simply torpedo the process with fake news about the shooting, so that not to sign the agreement. In your opinion, does Azerbaijan intend to sign this agreement or will it do everything, will it resort to new methods to delay it as much as possible?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – I think it is not right for me to talk about what Azerbaijan will do or what Azerbaijan is doing in this context, because I can describe our motivations in the steps we have taken to finalize the text of the peace treaty. We have declared to our citizens and to the international community the peace agenda and our commitment to the peace agenda and our actions are continuously and consistently dedicated to moving forward with the peace agenda.
In fact, we must be very attentive. We are operating in an environment of pessimism. We are operating in an environment, and I do not mean only in the Republic of Armenia, where not many people believe that this is a feasible agenda. But If we look back now, over the past two years, we have achieved very significant results in this sense. The first of these results, as I already mentioned, is the regulation on the joint activities of the Armenian and Azerbaijani border demarcation commissions, which is the first legally binding interstate document signed between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The second action is that we have the agreed text of the peace treaty. And our actions will continue to be aimed at signing that text, signing that treaty.
I wish to reiterate that if we now go back step by step, we will see for instance in the section of Kirants-Voskepar, there was a lot of pessimism before the demarcation, before the process. That demarcation took place and it had a result which we are not trying to conceal from the public. On the contrary, upon my instruction the office of the Security Council is organizing tours for various groups of the public, scientists, students, intellectuals, experts to the Kirants-Voskepar section so that we can show what result has brought the thing that had caused such great pessimism.
Public TV – Mr. Prime Minister, in this case, pessimism exists also within your team members. They say that Azerbaijan will not sign this treaty even after those concessions. And the opponents are saying, what is the value of this paper if even after the concessions Azerbaijan will not sign it?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – What concessions are we talking about?
Public TV – According to the opposition, the two points that we agreed to are concessions. The first is to withdraw the claims from international bodies because they know Armenia is in a stronger position in international bodies. And the second, you know, that was not agreed upon was about not to deploy third forces on the border. Now, this is agreed upon, and they say that Azerbaijan did not deploy third forces anyway. And here we have the European Union observers, and here a question arises. What is the border depth? Can EU observers operate in Armenia again without being a force conducting border monitoring or should they leave Armenia?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – First of all, let us note that in the agreed text of the peace treaty, there is no unilateral obligation neither for us, nor for Azerbaijan. As for the impression that there were no third forces from the side of Azerbaijan along the border with Armenia. At least we have seen and observed representatives of a third force, flags, etc. from time to time. Thirdly, the European Union observation mission was invited to Armenia by our government, by myself. And I am grateful to them for responding to our invitation.
But on the other hand, we must start with the goal. What is the goal with which we invited European Union observers to Armenia to be deployed and to work along the Armenian-Azerbaijani border? As a means of and a factor for stability and in some sense also of peace. And now I want to draw attention to the fact that the provision on the presence of representatives of third parties will enter into force after the signing and ratification of the peace treaty. In other words, up to that point, at least in this context, there are no obstacles to the work of the EU observers.
Public TV – What about after that?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – Let me turn to that and let us not forget the purpose with which we invited the European Union observers: as a factor of peace and stability. And if as a result of the signing of that agreement, we get a stronger and more reliable factor of peace and stability on our borders, it would be very illogical if we did not prefer long-term institutional peace and rather preferred an intermediate factor, which is a very important one. In other words, our goal is to have peace and stability along our border and once the peace treaty is signed, we will have institutional peace and stability. And under those conditions we can stop bothering or bother less our esteemed EU observers.
Public TV – I understand stop bothering that they should leave. What do you mean by bothering less?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – Where would they be leaving?
Public TV – You said stop bothering the EU observers. Does that mean they would leave the country?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – Not bothering the EU observers means that there is essentially no need to bother them. And secondly, it means that Armenia and the European Union will agree on the future of the observation mission and the forms and methods of its activity.
Public TV – So there’s no decision yet?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – Of course, there is no decision yet, but I also think that our relations with diplomatic missions or third parties or third countries in the territory of the Republic of Armenia are a sovereign matter of ours and they will be discussed and resolved on the bilateral level.
As for the issue of withdrawing claims from international instances, this concerns interstate claims. And the question is the following, again, what are those claims for? Those claims by and large are for establishing peace and stability or for addressing and resolving problems on the path to establishing peace and stability. If there is peace, then we must rely on the logic of peace. In other words, I mean that sometimes we confuse the goals and the means. It would be very strange to abandon the goal and to prefer the means.
Public TV – You also wrote a post that you are ready to sign the document. That gave rise to comments that you are ready to sign the document unilaterally. Is that so?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – I saw these comments to be honest. It had never occurred to me that it is possible to sign a peace treaty unilaterally. I don’t even know if such a thing has ever happened in the history of diplomacy, but I must say that it never occurred to us that such a thing could be done and it still needs to be checked whether such a thing is possible or not.
Public TV – So you simply expressed your readiness that Armenia is ready to sign it right now.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – The peace treaty has two parties. I repeat, it is so surprising to me that I instructed to check whether such practice ever occurred in the history of humanity. There are two parties to this document. By the way, the question of why the Armenian government does not publish that paper is also discussed a lot.
Public TV – I was going to ask you, at least the opposition members of parliament should get acquainted, who in the past had that opportunity.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – For a very simple reason. Because the paper has two owners. One owner is the government of Armenia and the other is the government of Azerbaijan. There is at least this dimension here. And if we suppose that there are forces that need excuses for the paper not to be signed, unilateral publication of that paper could add some weight to the scale of those excuses. As for the opposition MPs, I think there are opposition MPs who are familiar with the text, but I can also say the following. Let’s imagine a situation that we have already faced before, that opposition MPs, by the way, demonstrating our openness, we create opportunities for people to get acquainted with that documents, and then after reading it, they go out and start giving press conferences, they make statements about the content which does not correspond to the essence of the document. So there’s a question of trust. We would spend double, triple, quadruple the energy to prove that either they did not understand correctly or they are not conveying what they read. This is also a very important question of trust.
Previously, back then when we were not yet announcing that I was ready to put my signature under that draft, imagine this was a working situation where documents in that state would most likely never have come into force. And here in that working situation, we demonstrated transparency as much as it was possible. Knowing the opposition’s rhetoric and attitude, we provided, we created an opportunity for them to get acquainted with the document. And after that, statements are made which have absolutely no connection with reality or with the government’s intentions, and thus trust is undermined. In other words, why would we create a situation where forces whose main goal is to distort the peace process and its essence would get another opportunity to do so.
Public TV – Are you not discussing with Azerbaijan the possibility of making the document public?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – You know, there are so many issues to discuss with Azerbaijan that I don’t think it’s right to start with the publicizing of the document. In fact, we are discussing the possibility of making the document public with Azerbaijan because we are proposing that we sign it, because as soon as we sign it, it will be made public. And imagine how much we have no fear in that regard that we are expressing our willingness to sign and publish it.
In other words, we are in favor of institutional publication, once it is signed, it is published, but on the other hand I want us to have the correct understanding of the concept of a peace treaty. It has two sides, two parties and it is assumed that both parties should sign it. In our reality, in the past, we were constantly focusing on victory or defeat, diplomatic victory or diplomatic defeat, victory or capitulation. The attempts to receive the text of the peace treaty with this terminology are futile because if now both Armenia and Azerbaijan have concluded the negotiations with an agreed text, it means that both Armenia and Azerbaijan have considered it a document that is beneficial to them. In other words, they have agreed on the pillars of peace, noting that they agree to establish peace on the basis of these pillars.
Public TV – You are right, Mr. Prime Minister, but this is followed by that rhetoric of Azerbaijan which does not give up on preconditions. It says, ”We will sign if…” and many ifs are followed, for example, if we change the constitution or adopt a new one, dissolve the Minsk Group to which Armenia in essence said we are not opposed to as soon as we sign the treaty. But don’t you think that after fulfilling these conditions, Azerbaijan will put forward new preconditions For instance, it will say Azerbaijanis should return to the east of Armenia, which they call Western Azerbaijan, or they will demand Zangazur corridor.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – We have said that there are issues that can be discussed, and there are issues that cannot be discussed. Which are the issues that can be discussed? The issue of dissolving the OSCE Mink Group co-chairmanship is clearly one to be discussed because we are moving towards peace. And as we’re moving towards peace, this format is losing its relevance. Here too, we must show some flexibility so as not to confuse the goal with the means.
Here’s what we’re saying. In essence, the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmanship, if we were to formulate it very directly without any corrections or without any fine tuning, is about the conflict in the territory of Azerbaijan. And we say since we have recognized the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan has recognized our territorial integrity, we are ready to put on the paper and we agree that there is no conflict situation. But we want additionally to make sure that Azerbaijan’s goal is not to create a conflict situation in the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia after finishing to address the conflict situation in its territory. This is an important detail, but dissolving the OSCE Minsk Group is a question for discussion. It is in the agenda and we will initiate discussion of this issue in the near future ourselves. The deadline, when, how, I repeat the deadline is not a goal.
Public TV – Excuse me, do you mean you already agree to dissolving it before signing the treaty?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – I reiterate, our goal is not the deadline, our goal is the content. So when the content is addressed, we are ready, or the mechanism for addressing the content would seem reliable and trustworthy, then of course we are ready also to engage in certain solutions.
Now, what is not up for discussion? As I said in the past, under this Western Azerbaijan discourse, anything under that discourse is not up for discussion for us. Because when they call 60% of our country’s territory Western Azerbaijan, it is a direct violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of our country, and I do not think that any country could offer any other country to discuss its sovereignty or political independence or territorial integrity, especially since with the document that has entered into force and with the agreed text of the peace treaty, that issue of the territorial integrity, sovereignty, absence of territorial claims or obligations to not advance territorial claims in the future, all of these issues have been resolved.
As to the question of the constitution. I have repeatedly had the opportunity to say that the agreed text of the peace treaty contains very significant answers to this question. But what is the question? We, for example, see and our assessment is that the Constitution of Azerbaijan contains territorial claims, it contains aspirations towards the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia.
Public TV – But the agreement states that the agreement is going to prevail over all other domestic documents.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – The agreement first states that the parties recognize each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty within the borders of the Soviet Union period, and in essence have no territorial claims against each other and undertake not to make such territorial claims in the future either. Besides, the parties may not cite their domestic legislation to justify their failure to honor the obligations in the treaty. This is the first point.
The second point, the decision of our Constitutional Court of 26th September 2024, I believe, states that our Constitution does not contain territorial claims against any neighbor. If it did, the Constitutional Court could not have concluded that the regulations on the joint activities of the demarcation commissions of the two countries, which refer to the Alma-Ata Declaration, the meaning of which is that countries acquire independence within the territory of the Soviet republics, the Constitutional Court could not have considered that provision to be in accordance with the Constitution.
But here too, there is some confusion because in our political agenda since 2018, since 2020, there has been an agenda, there has been talk of adopting a new constitution and we will proceed with that agenda. We will propose to our people to have a new constitution. We plan to hold that referendum for the adoption of the new constitution in 2027. Although I must say even within the political team, there are opinions that we should not postpone this, perhaps it should be done together with the regular parliamentary election in 2026, which would make the agenda more specifically political. I want to emphasize that this is an issue that pertains exclusively to our domestic agenda. Although on the other hand, one must admit that this cannot but have a regional and international impact. Therefore, turning to the question of whether Azerbaijan can put forward new demands, returning to the peace agenda, yes, Azerbaijan can bring new issues and questions to the agenda, but it does not mean that all these issues are questions of discussion for us.
It is very important, I reiterate, we should not confuse the goal and the means. By and large, even the OSCE Minsk Group was formed as a tool for peace with its own logic, a tool for achieving peace. If we have peace, why should we put this means of peace on the same level as the real call, the call of peace?
Public TV – No, if we have peace, there is no problem, but if one of the parties does not want peace, one of the parties constantly puts forward new preconditions, and putting these preconditions forward is already a sign that it does not want peace. What is Armenia’s vision for the future? How far should we concede? If we do not concede, but Azerbaijan continues…
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – What have we conceded? Tell me.
Public TV – If Azerbaijan puts forward new preconditions, if we start fulfilling some of those preconditions, this is a concession, right?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – Wait a minute, excuse me. What have we conceded from what I just described? This is also a very important conversation. We need to take this topic of concessions very seriously and starting from 2020 and the period preceding it, because what have we conceded? What have we conceded? Because starting from Nagorno-Karabakh, we must in the end reflect on this issue and give an assessment. When the entire international community had recognized Nagorno-Karabakh in a documented manner, it had recognized it as part of Azerbaijan.
Should we give an assessment to this situation? This is a very important and fundamental conversation and the ideology of Real Armenia is about this fundamental conversation. Because what have we conceded in the Kirants-Voskepar section? Have we conceded anything? If we have conceded, what have we conceded? This is a very important issue. I do not think that we will be able to address it today, but I am ready to sit down with this topic one day finally and talk openly. And I’m also ready to have this discussion with the public. Because we need to understand what we mean by saying concede, concede, concede, what have we conceded? I think for the first time in Gyumri, I considered that I had analyzed the situation sufficiently and received answers and in that regard I reserved myself the right to voice that sentence. Yes, we have gone through. many, many losses, but we must also see what we have achieved and what we are on the way to achieving.
I say unequivocally, I have been the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia for 7 years now, and today I say that in my opinion and I am confident about it, the Republic of Armenia is today a much more independent and sovereign state. During all those periods of what people call periods of non-concessions, including during my term as Prime Minister, during that whole period we had conceded the most important thing we have, our sovereignty, our independence, and our statehood.
We need to understand after all, we need to talk to ourselves about all this. Therefore, tell us what we have conceded. I am ready to discuss it line by line. And when I say losses, yes, we have had losses. First of all, I mean our martyrs who were deprived of their lives. But we also need to understand and the following is very important. I asked myself the question: Why did those boys die? And I found for myself, well, not found, I did not create, I did not invent, but I came to the answer to that question. For independence, for sovereignty, for having a state, for having a chance to have a state, for peace.
In the times when we did not concede, we did not have peace, moreover, we had no chance to have peace. We did not have the prospect of having a state and the negotiation proposals that were on the table as of 2018, in fact, as I have said in some way and I will repeat now, they were not about Nagorno-Karabakh. They were about reducing Armenia’s sovereignty and independence by another degree. The rope that I spoke about from the National Assembly, that rope and how tightly it is tied around the neck. And taking that rope, tying that rope more narrowly, cutting the length of the rope even shorter.
Public TV – If I may, I would like to ask a short question about concessions and turn to the final question, Mr. Prime Minister. Concessions or compromises. I’m not saying whether they are good or bad, but if Armenia agrees to the two points that Azerbaijan proposes, it makes concessions.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – I do not agree with that.
Public TV – I apologize. When we do not discuss the issue of prisoners, it is a concession, it is a concession when we do not force Azerbaijan to leave our occupied territories, saying we will leave it to the demarcation process, but Azerbaijan does not make any concessions, continuing the same narrative of demands, do this, do that, after that we will think to sign it or not.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – From a certain moment, we must stop perceiving the world with Azerbaijan’s vocabulary, narrative, and formula. This is the most important statement. In fact, I understand that unfortunately, some of our political forces are doing everything to make Armenian society perceive the region, the world, and our reality with the formulas proposed by Azerbaijan. What we were just talking about is about the perspective on the issue.
Secondly, it is not true that we are not discussing the issue of the prisoners. It is simply not reality. I invite all of us back to that day in December 2023 when our 32 brothers were returned to the Republic of Armenia from captivity. If we imagine that a day or 5 hours before their return, if I had to answer that question for some reason, I would give an answer that would not be considered satisfactory at all. Because also in the past, in December 2020, during a meeting with the relatives of the prisoners in the whole next door here, I said, I mentioned a specific date. I said these people will return on this day and it did not happen. And it was the first and last time when I promised anything on that topic, because I understood that if something is not within our power to decide, it is very wrong to create specific expectations.
It is better to remain under criticism for uncertainty than to create expectations and to cause disappointment. But the third component to your question, what did we say in the agreed text of the peace treaty and in the regulations? We’ve said that our border is the borders of the Soviet Republics and we have said that the Alma-Ata Declaration is the basic principle and we must carry out demarcation along this border.
To say that in all the places we are standing precisely on that border, and that Azerbaijan is not precisely standing on that border line is not quite correct. Look, Azerbaijan says that Armenia is preparing for a scenario of force campaign and we say that which issue in our agenda should we try to resolve with a force scenario? One needs to have in their agenda an issue that requires resolution with a force scenario, but if we have recognized the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan on the basis of the Alma-Ata Declaration and along the border of the Soviet Socialist Republics, what issue would we try to resolve by force?
The issue that could theoretically be considered as a scenario subject to a force solution is the liberation of our more than 200 square kilometers of occupied territories, but we say that we have no such issue in our agenda and we will not have it because the two documents I mentioned have created the opportunities and tools so that in all those places where we are not standing exactly on this line where we should stand, and where Azerbaijan is not standing exactly where they should stand, Azerbaijan will retreat from that line and we will retreat too. Therefore, discussing any force scenario here is simply absurd.
Public TV – Mr. Prime Minister very briefly, if Azerbaijan agrees to sign, do we need a guarantor for this process?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – What happened in September 2022 in Armenia? Do we still continue to take seriously that institution called a guarantor? Dear people, we had a guarantor. Then what happened?
We say learning lessons from our history, but as soon as we say we must learn lessons from our history, we go back to the fourth century, the third century. We don’t need to go back to the fourth century, to the third century. We must go back to the year 2022, 2021, 2020. In other words, I’m saying that there is one guarantee of Armenia’s security and it is the Republic of Armenia itself, which is capable to live in the environment of its neighbors without external help, without external interference.
Peace is the guarantee, do you understand me? There is no more effective tool to guarantee security than peace. There simply is no such tool. Therefore, these concepts, you understand, they change, time changes. We also have the peace treaty… By the way, let’s remember that we have an agreed text, called agreement. We already have an agreed text. There were different versions even of the title back then. Let’s remember the document, which has already been agreed, is on the table and is awaiting signature. It is called the agreement on the establishment of peace and interstate relations. We kept discussing and discussing and discussing and there were some things happening in the world. We were discussing and at one point we said, “Wait a minute. Let’s see if our ideas should also change as the world changes before our eyes”. Then 2022 happened. Then what happened was that we gradually froze our membership in the CSTO. The CSTO was the de-jure garantor of the security of the Republic of Armenia.
Do we want to go through the same history, the same story again? No, I don’t agree with that. Peace, institutional peace, long-term peace, the skill and ability to live in an environment of neighbors, and of course an army capable of defending the country, reforms of the the army are currently taking place at a rapid pace. By the way, this is very interesting. It’s one of those cases that nobody notices in Armenia. The formulas which I described, are formulas imported from abroad, but in this case, we do not notice the information coming from abroad.
The Armenian government is silent in general about what is happening in the field of the army reforms, silent, completely silent. We are not like we used to be before, doing something and… and you know, we have learned from our mistakes. But here, in Armenia, nobody is noticing the information that comes from third countries. No one is seeing it, no one is hearing it. There is no such thing. The information is only about Armenia conceding and the Armenian government giving this or that.
But I take this opportunity to repeat that this conversation must take place and the ideology of Real Armenia is also about that. Come dear people and let’s sit down and understand what this conversation is out. What have we conceded? And this is a very important conversation. And I tell you directly my position regarding the garantor, peace is the garantor. But I want to reiterate that the process of transforming the Armenian army cannot in any way jeopardize peace, because I have clearly stated that the army of the Republic of Armenia has no tasks to address outside the internationally recognized territory of the Republic of Armenia, no tasks to address, including in connection with the more than 200 square kilometers of occupied territories of Armenia, because as I said already, the process of demarcation has created all the opportunities for this problem to be solved in the sidelines of the demarcation process. And this is the last factor and circumstance that gives me grounds to say that all the talks, assessments, allegations about the escalation or the possibility of escalation in the region are artificial and fabricated.
Public TV – Thank you Mr. Prime Minister.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – Thank you.