It is difficult to perceive Nikol Pashinyan’s speech in the European Parliament as a responsible speech of the head of a sovereign state. It was more reminiscent of an attempt at domestic political reprisal, transferred to an international prestigious platform.
Instead of representing Armenia’s state interests, security challenges and regional realities, Pashinyan used the European podium to label his own opponents.
Pashinyan presented the representatives of the Armenian Apostolic Church and opponents of the government as a “party of war”, trying to connect them with external forces and attribute to them a willingness to sacrifice Armenia’s independence. In reality, this was not a political assessment, but a political labeling aimed at discrediting one’s opponents before the international audience.
When the head of the country presents a segment of his own society as a dangerous force or a tool of external influence from an internationally prestigious podium, he actually transfers the internal political conflict of his country to an external platform. Such a step does not strengthen the state, but shows the political weakness and mistrust of the government towards its own society.
Another goal was also evident in Pashinyan’s speech. He tried to present the political field of Armenia as a geopolitical confrontation, contrasting the government with the allegedly “pro-Russian war party”. This narrative has long been used in the internal political struggle, but when it is heard from the European podium, it acquires a completely different meaning. It is more reminiscent of a report to Western sponsors than a speech by the head of a sovereign state.
In fact, Pashinyan was trying to convince the European audience that there is a political opposition in Armenia that needs to be neutralized. In other words, the internal political struggle of Armenia is presented as a geopolitical struggle, where the opponents of the government are declared “supporters of war” or “agents of the influence of external forces”. This is a dangerous and irresponsible policy that not only deepens public polarization, but also involves foreign forces in Armenia’s internal political conflict.
When the head of the country discredits his opponents and even one of the fundamental national institutions, the church, from the international podium, it is not a sign of a strong state, but a clear manifestation of the political crisis of the government. Such behavior shows that Pashinyan is trying to get legitimacy, “green light” from Western centers to carry out repressions inside Armenia.
June 7 becomes not only another election day, but a public verdict on the policy, as a result of which Armenia is gradually losing its independence and political subjectivity in international relations. On that day, the citizens will actually decide whether Armenia will continue to move along the path of power subjected to the calculations of external centers, or whether it will choose the path of sovereign, dignified and independent state development.
Political scientist Suren Surenyants
—