In the National Assembly, in the context of the Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiation process and discussions on the peace treaty, Nikol Pashinyan referred to the idea of ”renegotiation” voiced by the opposition, presenting it as a risky and uncertain step. “Who can prove that the document will become better as a result of renegotiation?” he declared, at the same time describing the opposition forces as a “three-headed war party”.
This questioning is based on obvious manipulation. The problem is not the idea of renegotiation, but the fact that Pashinyan deliberately avoids discussing the content and risks of the process he is conducting. When “renegotiation” is presented as a threat, but the actual process is not held to the same critical standards, a one-sided agenda is formed, the goal of which is to limit public discussion.
The wording “three-headed war party” is a continuation of the same logic. This is a label that tends to present any alternative approach as dangerous and illegitimate. In this way, the government tries to close any meaningful discussion.
Against this background, it is important to clarify the position of the “Prosperous Armenia” party. PAP has repeatedly stated that Armenia will not abandon its international obligations if it comes to power. Therefore, Pashinyan’s “renegotiation = waiver of obligations” thesis is not only unfounded, but also a deliberate distortion.
The “Guaranteed Peace” model promoted by the “Offer to Armenia” program offers a qualitatively different approach. It is based on international mediation, established legal guarantees and effective control mechanisms. This approach implies that peace cannot be built on political statements alone. it should have institutional support and international guarantees.
Today there is an obvious power imbalance between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Under these conditions, the “peace” process without guarantees turns into a chain of one-sided concessions. This is where the main contradiction of the current policy is revealed. խաղաղության անվան տակ իրականացվում է գործընթաց, որը չի ապահովում այդ նույն խաղաղության կայունությունն ու անվտանգությունը։
Pashinyan tries to present “peace” as an unconditional value, ignoring its content. However, peace cannot be an end in itself if it does not guarantee the sovereignty, security and long-term stability of the state.
Therefore, the real dilemma is not the false dilemma “peace or war”. The real dilemma is:
an unsecured, vulnerable “peace”
or guaranteed, controllable and sustainable peace.
If this distinction is not placed in the center of the political agenda, the process will continue to develop according to the same logic, towards a creeping capitulation, the political responsibility of which is borne by the current government.
Political scientist Suren Surenyants
—