How can one agree with Nikol Pashinyan?
We must call things by their proper names. By declaring that the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide is not part of his government’s agenda, Nikol Pashinyan is yielding to pressure from Ankara and abandoning the defense of historical truth on the international stage.
He had already called the reality of the Armenian Genocide into question during a meeting with representatives of the Armenian community in Switzerland, asking whether the number of victims could be proven by identifying their names.
Pashinyan’s government has chosen to remove the recognition of the Armenian Genocide from its political agenda. He had made this declaration in the National Assembly and subsequently reaffirmed the same position during the Global Armenian Summit.
This decision directly serves Erdoğan’s political strategy. Turkey continues to deny the Armenian Genocide and seeks to ensure that the issue no longer constitutes an obstacle to the normalization of relations with Armenia. By removing the pursuit of international recognition of the Genocide from his government’s agenda, Pashinyan is fulfilling Ankara’s desire to silence demands for recognition in the name of normalization.
Thus, the Armenian government’s decision aligns with the objectives of the Turkish authorities. The demand for justice is transformed into a diplomatic obstacle, while the memory of the victims becomes an object of political bargaining.
However, concessions do not guarantee peace. There is no basis for assuming that this concession will satisfy Ankara and Baku in the long term. On the contrary, every retreat may reinforce the perception that pressure produces results and may open the door to further demands.
Today, Armenia is being asked to abandon the pursuit of international recognition of the Genocide. What will Armenia be asked to surrender tomorrow in the name of normalization, security or peace? And in that case, what new concession will Pashinyan’s government present as inevitable?
A precedent already exists. Ilham Aliyev demands that Armenia amend its Constitution before the final signing of a peace agreement. Ankara is pushing Armenia to remove the issue of genocide recognition from its agenda, while Baku is making the establishment of peace conditional upon changes to fundamental provisions of Armenia’s Constitution.
In the face of these demands, the Armenian government gives the impression that it is retreating and then asking its people to accept that retreat as the price of realism.
This logic is dangerous. When pressure secures a concession, it does not teach the other side to stop. On the contrary, it teaches them that they can demand more. When a government abandons the defense of a principled position in the expectation of earning its neighbors’ goodwill, it does not halt their pressure but encourages its continuation.
This position further deepens the existing divide between the Armenian government and the diaspora. That divide had already widened when Nikol Pashinyan declared that Artsakh had never belonged to Armenians but rather to Azerbaijan. Today, by abandoning the pursuit of international recognition of the Armenian Genocide, he is widening that divide even further.
The diaspora will continue, with all its strength, the struggle for international recognition of the Armenian Genocide and, in particular, its acknowledgment by Turkey. No government can demand that the diaspora abandon this struggle. No decision made in Ankara or Yerevan can erase the memory of the victims or silence the individuals and organizations demanding justice.
The questions, therefore, must be asked directly: Is there an Armenian who agrees with Nikol Pashinyan on abandoning the struggle for recognition of the Armenian Genocide? Is there an Armenian who agrees with his assertion that Artsakh belongs to Azerbaijan?
The Armenian Genocide is not a matter subject to political bargaining. Thirty-three countries have recognized it, while international institutions and organizations have likewise expressed their positions on the issue. That recognition depends neither on Ankara’s approval nor on the temporary political calculations of any Armenian government.
The problem is not that Armenians continue to remember the genocide. The problem is that Turkey denies it and attempts to obstruct its international recognition. Portraying the memory of the victims as a threat to peace means shifting responsibility onto them, when the real responsibility lies with those who continue to pursue a policy of denial.
Peace is necessary. However, genuine peace cannot be built upon the erasure of historical truth, silence and submission to successive demands. If every concession opens the door to another demand, then Pashinyan’s government is not bringing Armenia closer to peace but is drawing it into an endless cycle of pressure and retreat.
Armenia’s prime minister has a duty to defend the state and its citizens. He also has a duty to defend the dignity and history of his people. Abandoning the pursuit of international recognition of the genocide will not erase historical truth. Nor will such a step change the policies of Erdoğan or Aliyev. On the contrary, it may only demonstrate to them that the Armenian government remains prepared to yield.
And when a concession is made without securing long-term guarantees, the next demand is never far behind.
