Pashinyan in Berlin Meets Leaders, Answers Questions from Public

Regarding the view among some in Armenia, that Azerbaijan has territorial claims on Armenia, he said the issue was not raised, because it has already been addressed. He said, Article 1 of the agreement asserts mutual recognition of territorial integrity, therefore no claims exist.

He continued to explain that international agreements have precedence and that the peace document would be examined by Armenia’s Constitutional Court to determine whether it is compatible and consistent; if it is, it will be ratified; if not, he would initiate constitutional changes. He stated that there was no obstacle in the Constitution, then added that in 2018 there was an agenda for a new Constitution, which, according to a recent party congress decision, would be discussed following the 2026 elections. An “internal” issue, it was not for public discussion.

A related question dealt with the “historical narrative,” a reference to genocide recognition and how it is dealt with in the classroom. Pashinyan’s response seemed to argue that the issue is not what happened, “suffering, genocide…,” but the need to ensure history is not repeated, to create a new, optimistic history.

Another touchy question concerned the “hostility of the Church” to Pashinyan’s government. In addressing this “sensitive topic,” Pashinyan called for compliance of the Church with its own rulings, and accountability, lest the clergy become a tool of foreign influence. He questioned the origin of financing of the Church, the contrast in living standards among clergymen, and their integrity. He cited his own membership in the Armenian Apostolic Church and that of almost all his government members. “I have Jesus Christ in my heart,” he said.

It should be underlined that none of these questions were hostile; on the contrary, they were often prefaced with words of praise. One questioner told Pashinyan, “You are the only hope for democracy in Armenia and the region,” and others expressed desire to contribute positively to the 2026 elections. The Azerbaijan ambassador had warm words for Pashinyan as well. He quipped that, although his German friends have often stressed the significance of Franco-German reconciliation as a model for overcoming conflict, that process took 18 years, whereas his country and Armenia had taken only 5, within a 13 year process.

And the Political Prisoners?

The last question raised at the DGAP event was an exception and was most relevant. A young Armenian woman asked about “the prisoners being held hostage in the country you are making peace with,” and stressed that legal measures were necessary. In his response, Pashinyan referred to the “detainees” and said this very “sensitive issue would be addressed more easily in the atmosphere of cooperation and peace than in an atmosphere of conflict.”

How should Pashinyan’s visit be evaluated? By any measure, the strategic partnership with Germany is a plus, especially in its economic, trade, and scientific-cultural dimensions. One question it raises is, what are the hitches? Is it a reward for Pashinyan’s willingness to sacrifice territory, the Constitution, and the defense of illegally imprisoned Armenians – and thereby the rule of law, touted so self-righteously by Europe? Is it enticement to play the pawn in a geopolitical chess game? What might have, should have resulted from Pashinyan’s high-level visit?

The group of human rights activists whom Pashinyan passed en route to his reception, had issued an appeal to Merz, in which they outlined the issues to be addressed. They called on him to ensure that the “urgent human rights and humanitarian questions in the region not be relegated to side issues but rather be treated on the same level as bilateral cooperation and economic policy.” Furthermore, they reiterated an earlier call on the chancellor to pursue a “just and durable peace” between Azerbaijan and Armenia, for which the “immediate release of illegally held prisoners in Azerbaijan as well as the members of the former political leadership of Artsakh (Nagorno Karabakh) would be confidence-building measures.” The appeal calls for prisoner release as an “urgent precondition” — not a result, as Pashinyan would have it — for any “credible peace process.” Furthermore, the group stresses the need to address problematic and destabilizing developments inside Armenia: limitations on freedom of opinion, “politically motivated imprisonment of government critics” as well as the “arrest of four archbishops” — measures that “raise questions about the rule of law and protection of religious and civil liberties.”