Tag: Pashinyan

In recent months, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has exhibited frequent episodes of erratic behavior that raise serious questions about his mental stability. During parliamentary appearances, he screams at those who question him, wildly flailing his arms, and even threatens to jail his political opponents. Such conduct is both bizarre and wholly inappropriate for the head of Armenia’s government.

Whatever Pashinyan’s mental state was before the Artsakh war, it has clearly deteriorated since the catastrophic defeat Armenia suffered in 2020 under his leadership. Typically, political leaders responsible for disastrous outcomes, generals who suffer major battlefield losses and corporate heads whose mismanagement drives their companies into bankruptcy swiftly resign or are replaced by a more competent person who can take over and do damage control. Regrettably, Pashinyan’s refusal to resign only deepens Armenia’s precarious situation.

Pashinyan displayed another example of his irrational behavior during last week’s cabinet session, when he launched an unprovoked tirade against the Armenian Apostolic Church and its clergy. “I officially say our churches are storage rooms. S-t-o-r-a-g-e-r-o-o-m-s. Inside the church, there are piles of garbage, bags of cement, shoes, old clothes, old bed, leftover materials, and rusty rebar.” This statement constitutes a false and unwarranted attack on the Armenian Church, especially considering that he did not identify a single church in such a condition. The Prime Minister may have seen construction materials that are stored during church renovations.

Pashinyan’s unnecessary outburst ignited a bitter exchange between himself joined by Anna Hakobyan (his partner, since they are not married), and several clergymen.

In a series of inappropriate Facebook posts, Pashinyan asserted that “all clergymen who have violated their oath of celibacy must leave spiritual service.” This is none of the Prime Minister’s business. His statement clearly oversteps his authority and infringes upon the constitutional separation of church and state.

Pashinyan then wrote on his Facebook page: “The Republic of Armenia must have a decisive vote in the election of the Catholicos of All Armenians. Candidates for Catholicos must pass a background check.” This too represents an unwarranted intrusion into the church’s internal affairs, violating the Constitution.

The dispute worsened when Pashinyan used a shockingly vulgar remark to respond to a bishop who had called his earlier statement “disgraceful.” Incredibly, the Prime Minister posted on his Facebook page: “Srpazan [Eminence], go back to banging your uncle’s wife, what business do you have with me?” Such language is unbecoming of Armenia’s leader and more appropriate for a street thug.

17 non-governmental organizations issued a joint statement condemning Pashinyan for exploiting women as sexual objects to attack his opponents. In my opinion, what Pashinyan wrote is libelous, providing ample grounds for legal action by the bishop. I have filed a complaint with Facebook against Pashinyan for violating its Community Standards by posting this defamatory statement.

Not to be outdone, Anna Hakobyan, Pashinyan’s partner, escalated the conflict further. On her Facebook page, she proclaimed inappropriately: “The country’s main pedophiles are demonized by the word ‘storeroom.’ Of course, that’s how it should be. Aren’t storerooms the dark corners of the lives of black-vested maniacs? After all, it is in storerooms that perversions take place….” She also lambasted the World Council of Churches conference on Artsakh held last week in Switzerland, which was attended by Catholicos Karekin II and other dignitaries, by asking: “What are you doing in Switzerland?” She then ridiculed the efforts to assist Artsakh Armenians: “Whom are you sending securely to their native cradle, whom do you immediately free from captivity? Do you know what spirituality is? That’s news for you. The country’s chief spiritual mafia leader [referring to Catholicos Karekin II] is clearly indignant that a conversation has been opened about storerooms. Otherwise, why would they attack the elected leader of the state?” It appears that Anna was incensed by Catholicos’s attempts to reverse Pashinyan’s surrender of Artsakh.

Anna Hakobyan then posted a vulgar and libelous statement on Facebook about an Armenian journalist who had criticized her. She wrote: “According to reliable information, [journalist] Boris Murazi is providing sexual services to [former President] Serzh Sargsyan and some of his favorite bishops. I have been told about this for several years. I did not believe it. Now it is obvious. I think the relevant agencies already have video recordings in the drawers.” This vicious attack crosses all red lines of morality and decency. Murazi should file a lawsuit for libel. I have already reported her falsehoods to Facebook.

Had Pashinyan and Hakobyan expressed their disagreements with the Catholicos in a civilized language, it would have been somewhat understandable. However, using such vulgar language is utterly deplorable. Over the years, I have engaged in numerous disagreements with various high-ranking clergymen and former and current political leaders of Armenia, but I have never resorted to using abusive language. One can disagree without being disagreeable.

Pashinyan ascended to power in 2018 by falsely assuring the Armenian public that he would lead a movement for “love and tolerance.” Yet, seven years later, it is evident that he has done the exact opposite. He has abused his authority to spread hatred and intolerance. Azerbaijan’s media gleefully reported the Prime Minister’s attacks on the Armenian Church, aligning him with Pres. Ilham Aliyev and Allahshukur Pashazade, the Grand Mufti of Azerbaijan, in their denunciation of the Church.Ultimately, Pashinyan and his partner appear to use these vulgar statements to divert the public’s attention from the regime’s array of damaging, anti-Armenian policies. After ceding Armenian control of Artsakh and parts of the Republic of Armenia to Azerbaijan and attacking the sacred symbols of Armenia’s statehood, this couple is now intent on undermining the 1,700-year-old religious institution that is central to Armenian identity.

To get rid of this national scourge before he destroys Armenia, I suggest that Karekin II and Aram I Vehapars order all Armenian churches — in Armenia and the Diaspora — to toll their bells, urging hundreds of thousands of Armenians to gather in front of the Prime Minister’s building and remain until Pashinyan resigns.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan made yet another mistake last week by inviting 10 journalists from Turkey to Yerevan and speaking to them for one and a half hours.

Before we go into the substance of Pashinyan’s remarks, I would like to point out some of the basic problems with his statements and those of his spokesperson.

First of all, the spokesperson revealed that the Turkish journalists had been invited to Yerevan at the Armenian government’s expense. This violates journalistic ethics. Professional journalists are not offered and do not accept payment for their travel and accommodation to maintain their independence from the subject of the interview.

Secondly, the spokesperson for Pashinyan said that Armenia had invited Turkish journalists from all sides of the political spectrum, including pro-government, opposition, and independent media. Anyone who follows the Turkish media knows that there are hardly any opposition journalists left in Turkey. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has either taken over all the opposition media or shut them down and jailed the dissenting journalists. The invited journalists to Armenia were from: T24, Sozcu TV, Anadolu Agency, Hürriyet Daily News, Turkish Radio and Television, Medyascope, NTV, Agos Armenian newspaper, Ihlas News Agency, and CNN Turk. Only two out of the 10 invited Turkish news outlets, Sozcu TV and Agos, can be considered independent news outlets.

Thirdly, Pashinyan proudly told the Turkish journalists that his meeting with them was an unprecedented event. A usual, his statements are not based on facts.

The meeting with Turkish journalists in Yerevan was NOT unprecedented. There were several past meetings between Armenian officials and Turkish journalists. I remember one particular interview that took place in 2001 when prominent Turkish journalist Mehmet Ali Birand of ‘CNN Turk’ came to Yerevan and interviewed Pres. Robert Kocharyan. That interview created a lot of controversy because Birand distorted what Kocharyan had told him by mistranslating his words from Armenian into Turkish. I wrote an article in 2001 pointing out Birand’s distortions and criticized Pres. Kocharyan for agreeing to give an interview on sensitive political topics which he and his advisors should have known was going to be distorted by the Turkish journalist. Besides Birand, many other Turkish journalists have come to Armenia to interview Armenian officials in the past. In addition, a large number of Armenian and Turkish journalists visited each other’s countries as part of the “Armenia-Turkey Team Reporting Project” in 2007-08.

Turkish journalists are notorious for distorting the words of the people they interview. For that reason, over the past 40 years, I have refused all Turkish requests for an interview.

Fourthly, Pashinyan falsely claimed that during previous Armenian governments, there were no direct contacts between Armenian and Turkish officials. He cited his invitation to attend Pres. Erdogan’s inauguration in Ankara and meeting him in New York. He also mentioned the visits of Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan to Ankara. He said that previously, Armenian and Turkish officials only learned of each other’s views through third parties. Pashinyan mentioned as “a concrete example of cooperation,” Armenia’s recent extradition to Turkey of two Turks accused of committing a crime.

Pashinyan’s claims that before him there were no official contacts between Armenia and Turkey are completely false. He wants to leave the impression that nothing happened in Armenia before he assumed power in 2018. There have been dozens of contacts between the officials of the two countries long before Pashinyan became Prime Minister. Here are some of them:

1) Foreign Minister Raffi Hovannisian went to Istanbul in 1992 to participate in the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Conference.

2) Presidential Advisor Gerard Libaridian went to Ankara in 1992.

3) Pres. Levon Ter Petrossyan met with Alpaslan Turkesh, the founder of the ultra-nationalist Grey Wolves group and member of the Turkish Parliament, in Paris in 1993.

4) Pres. Ter Petrossyan, accompanied by Foreign Minister Vahan Papazyan and Presidential Advisor Gerard Libaridian, went to Ankara in 1993 to attend the funeral of Turkish Pres. Turgut Ozal. On that occasion, Ter Petrossyan met with Prime Minister Suleyman Demirel. During that visit, Ter Petrossyan also met with Azerbaijan’s Pres. Abulfaz Elchibey.

5) Turkish Pres. Abdullah Gul came to Yerevan to watch with Pres. Serzh Sargsyan the football match between Armenia and Turkey in 2008.

6) Pres. Serzh Sargsyan travelled to Bursa, Turkey, to watch the return football game between Armenia and Turkey with Turkish President Abdullah Gul in 2009.

7) Foreign Minister of Armenia Eduard Nalbandyan and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu met in Zurich in 2009 to sign the Armenia-Turkey Protocols.

8) Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu came to Yerevan in 2013.

9) Foreign Minister Nalbandyan went to Ankara in 2014 to attend the inauguration of Pres. Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Therefore, Pashinyan is not correct that in the past Armenian and Turkish officials had no direct contacts and communicated only through third parties.

In my next article, I will comment on Pashinyan’s statements to the Turkish journalists who visited Yerevan last week.

Ever since Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s disgraceful attempt to raise unnecessary questions about the facts of the Armenian Genocide to a group of Swiss-Armenians in Zurich last month, he and his blind followers have been making excuses for his deplorable remarks.

Pashinyan casually told the Swiss-Armenian group: “We need to also return to the history of the Armenian Genocide. We need to understand what happened and why?” It is shocking that 110 years after the Armenian Genocide, the Prime Minister of Armenia pretends not to know “what happened and why.” I don’t think it is because of his lack of knowledge. He knows exactly what he is saying and why.

He continued with more fabricated questions: “How is it that in 1939 there was no agenda for the Armenian Genocide? And how is it that in 1950 the Armenian Genocide agenda appeared? And how did we perceive it, through whom did we perceive it?” Pashinyan must be told that long before 1950 and 1939, all the way back in 1921, the Catholicos of All Armenians Kevork V Surenyants designated April 24 as the Day of Remembrance for the victims of ‘Meds Yeghern.”

Pashinyan has made similar questionable statements in the past. To confuse the public, he regularly denies his earlier statements and claims that he was misunderstood. One thing is sure, Azeris and Turks were elated that the Prime Minister of Armenia agrees with them on “questioning the genocide.”

Justifiably, Pashinyan was condemned by prominent Armenians and organizations all over the world. He was harshly criticized by Catholicoi Karekin II and Aram I, various historians and experts on the Armenian Genocide, the Lemkin Institute, and Armenian organizations in Switzerland, Belgium and Armenia.

Given the fact that Pashinyan has denigrated all sacred symbols of the Armenian nation from Mt. Ararat to Armenia’s coat of arms, and has repeatedly claimed that commemorations of the Armenian Genocide were prompted by external forces, meaning the Soviet Union, he has come very close to denying the facts of the Armenian Genocide which is a crime in Armenia punishable by 2-5 years of imprisonment.

Pashinyan’s statement, as to why the Armenian Genocide was not on the agenda in 1939 and that it appeared on the agenda only in 1950, has a very simple explanation. There is no need for conspiracy theories. After the demise of Stalin’s dictatorial regime, which punished manifestations of nationalism with imprisonment, exile and even execution, the repressive environment began to soften gradually which allowed the construction of the Sardarabad and Armenian Genocide Memorials in Soviet Armenia.

In the meantime, both prior to 1939 and after 1950, Armenians in the Diaspora commemorated the Armenian Genocide, asking for its recognition and the return of occupied Western Armenia from Turkey. Memoranda and petitions were presented to the United Nations and major powers in the late 1940’s. Tens of thousands of Armenians marched in various Middle Eastern, European and American cities demanding their historical rights.

On August 20, 2009, Pashinyan wrote in his “Prison Diary: the mechanics of genocide” and reposted on his Facebook page last week: “Traditional Armenian thinking equates the concept of ‘genocide’ with the hostile actions of the outside world, ‘the Turk,’ meaning, the enemy. The new Armenian thinking tries to perceive the phenomenon through self-realization, tries to perceive the internal causes of the phenomenon, which are hidden behind the genocided people’s thinking, meaning, our own thinking.” Strangely, Pashinyan shifts the blame for the genocide from the perpetrators to the victims.

There are two key documents that I would like to bring to Pashinyan’s attention:

1) The law adopted by the Supreme Council of the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic on Nov. 22, 1988: We “condemn the 1915 Genocide of the Armenians in Ottoman Turkey as a grave crime against humanity, and declare April 24 as a day of remembrance for the Armenian victims.”

2) Article 136 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia: “Public denial, justification, propaganda or belittling the danger of Genocide or Crimes against Humanity:

a) Public denial, justification, propaganda or belittling the danger of Genocide or Crimes against Humanity, where those have been committed on the basis of racial background, skin color, national or ethnic origin or religious background, for the purpose of provoking hatred, discrimination or violence against a person or a group of persons — shall be punished by a fine in the amount of twenty-fold to forty-fold, or public works for a term of one hundred fifty hours to two hundred fifty hours, or by restriction of liberty for a maximum term of three years, or by short-term imprisonment for a term of one to two months, or by imprisonment for a maximum term of four years.

b) The act provided for in part (a) of this Article, which has been committed:

i) through publicly exhibited artworks, mass media or using information or communication technologies;

ii) by use of official or service authority or influence conditioned thereby — shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two to five years.

Regrettably, Pashinyan’s statements parallel the denialist strategy of the Turkish government. Turks raise similar questions to cast doubt on the veracity of the Armenian Genocide.

Because Armenia’s judicial system is currently under Pashinyan’s control, no judge will dare to find him guilty. But when he is no longer in power, an independent judge will punish him for violating the law on genocide denial.