BERLIN — Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s recent two-day visit to Germany signaled a major advance in bilateral relations, but grave concerns about his domestic and regional agenda dimmed the glow of this achievement. His official German hosts rolled out the red carpet for him, but as his motorcade was approaching government quarters, Pashinyan could not avoid seeing a group of 30 demonstrators protesting his domestic and regional policies. They represented German and international human rights organizations, Society for Threatened Peoples (GfbV), Working Group Recognition, Against Genocide, for International Solidarity (AGA), Christian Solidarity International (CSI), and also the Central Council of Armenians in Germany (ZAD). And they had a different message of welcome.
Arriving on December 8, Pashinyan had a packed schedule of high-level meetings, which began with a private session with Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, and was followed by a discussion and joint press conference with Chancellor Friedrich Merz. On December 9, he delivered a keynote speech at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), and a round table discussion with international experts, then spoke at the German Chamber of Commerce (DIHK) in Berlin. The third day took him to Hamburg, where Mayor Peter Tschentscher received him, followed by a session with the local Chamber of Commerce. In conclusion, he met privately with the Armenian Community in Hamburg.
A Strategic Partnership with Germany
Although the content of Pashinyan’s private meeting with President Steinmeier, followed by an extended format, has not been made public, topics covered included bilateral relations and the ongoing peace process with Azerbaijan. The centerpiece of the visit was the ceremonial signing of a joint Declaration on the Strategic Agenda for Bilateral Partnership between Armenia and Germany. As part of the introduction, the document states that the parties share a positive assessment of the Armenian-Azerbaijan peace agreement and promote normalization of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as Armenia and Turkey. As detailed in the points, the agreement covers political and diplomatic cooperation, economic and trade relations with emphasis on developing capacities in the energy, climate, and water sectors, as well as rule of law and constitutional reform. A key item relates to the cultural and educational realm, with cooperation in academic work, research and scholarship, as well as in science and technology. The last item, significantly, relates to security and defense.
After the two heads of government had signed, and exchanged the documents, Merz officially welcomed his guest. He cited Steinmeier’s recent visit to Armenia and his own planned visit next May, to attend the European Political Community Summit in Yerevan, as examples of rapidly developing bilateral relations. Merz focused in the press conference on the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace talks which he characterized as “a great achievement” and seemed to link a successful outcome to chances for EU membership, for “Armenia and Azerbaijan.” Merz also warned of Russian destabilization efforts through cyber-attacks and drones, an oblique reference to the geopolitical thrust of the matter.
His Armenian guest lauded the strategic partnership as “truly historic.” Pashinyan thanked Germany for its continuing support, also regarding the peace talks.
Like Merz, Pashinyan then moved to the issue of EU membership, referencing the National Assembly’s vote last March for launching the process, and thanking Germany for its support.
Contentious Issues
If the discussion in the opening ceremony proceeded calmly, in his subsequent encounters Pashinyan also had to address controversial aspects of issues, and his attitude ranged from euphoric to ambiguous, nervous to evasive. The points of contention included constitutional change, territorial concessions, church and state relations, and political prisoners in Azerbaijan.
At the German Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) gathering, hosted by its vice president Rolf Nikol, Pashinyan delivered a keynote detailing the terms of the peace agreement with Azerbaijan and expressing hope for normalization of relations with Turkey as well as EU membership.
His address was greeted with great favor, the peace process hailed as a “breakthrough” and “example for resolution of other conflicts.” Pashinyan was congratulated by one participant from Georgia for providing a “great example of personal leadership,” and was asked about his role and legacy. Pashinyan attributed the agreement to a change in perceptions: after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union and the independence of Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, there was a “new situation but not new perceptions.” Now, there is a new perception of regional relations.
Several participants referred to reports that the peace agreement included Armenia’s commitment to change its Constitution. Without any polemical intentions, one questioner simply asked; could this be an obstacle? Pashinyan, referring to accounts of critical public opinion in his country, said that in a democracy, leadership involves “changing public opinion.” As for the Constitution itself, he denied Azerbaijani claims that the Armenian Constitution contained territorial claims on Azerbaijan.
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.”
The post Pashinyan in Berlin Meets Leaders, Answers Questions from Public appeared first on The Armenian Mirror-Spectator.
No comments yet.