An Unflattering Charter: The Pashinyan Government Under Scrutiny

Op-ed by Vartan Oskanian, Armenia’s former foreign minister (1998-2008)

The signing of the Strategic Partnership Charter between the Republic of Armenia and the United States on January 14 might initially seem like a significant milestone. However, this document is less a celebration of bilateral progress and more an indictment of the Pashinyan government’s shortcomings.

The timing of the Charter is particularly questionable. Coming at the tail end of the Biden administration, it appears rushed and largely symbolic, lacking the weight of a genuine commitment to addressing Armenia’s challenges. Rather than presenting a robust blueprint for future cooperation, the Charter reads as a somber appraisal of Armenia’s security and sovereignty issues, as well as a sharp critique of its democracy and governance.

The Charter’s emphasis on Armenia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity starkly underscores the existential threats the country faces, especially in light of recent Azerbaijani aggression. While it acknowledges U.S. support for Armenia’s territorial integrity, the document provides no new commitments or guarantees to strengthen Armenia’s security. This omission is glaring against the backdrop of ongoing border disputes, corridor tensions, and the mass displacement from Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023. The absence of concrete measures to counterbalance Azerbaijan’s actions leaves one questioning whether the U.S. is merely offering empty assurances rather than substantive support.

The United States’ call for unblocking regional transport links and normalizing relations with neighbors is another problematic element. These aspirations are not new; their inclusion here feels like a rehash of old talking points, bereft of innovative solutions. This raises the uncomfortable question of whether the U.S. truly grasps the complexities of Armenia’s geopolitical position or is content to repeat well-worn platitudes.

The Charter’s extensive focus on democratic reforms, anti-corruption measures, and judicial independence is less a roadmap for progress and more a reflection of Armenia’s entrenched governance issues. That such topics dominate a bilateral agreement underscores the Pashinyan government’s inability to address them effectively. The language—polished with diplomatic niceties—implicitly highlights systemic corruption, a weak rule of law, and faltering democratic institutions. Key areas like judicial impartiality, media freedom, and civil society development receive significant attention in the document. These have been persistent weak points under Pashinyan’s leadership, with critics accusing his administration of consolidating power and suppressing dissent.

For Armenia’s regional allies, this Charter is likely to provoke unease. Its emphasis on U.S. partnership, coupled with hints of integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions, risks alienating key allies such as Russia. Such language could be interpreted as a pivot away from traditional partnerships, exacerbating tensions in an already fragile geopolitical landscape. The Charter’s focus on energy diversification and integration into European markets is another contentious point. While these goals align with U.S. interests, they disregard the practical challenges Armenia faces due to its dependence on Russian energy and its precarious position in a region dominated by larger powers.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the Charter is the question of implementation. The document is a litany of good intentions but offers few concrete mechanisms for accountability or support. The United States has long included similar language in agreements with Armenia, yet tangible progress remains elusive. Without robust measures to ensure follow-through, this Charter risks becoming another symbol of unfulfilled promises.

The Strategic Partnership Charter is far from the diplomatic triumph the Pashinyan government might wish to portray. Instead, it serves as a stark assessment of Armenia’s vulnerabilities, governance failures, and regional challenges. For a government that has presided over significant territorial losses, democratic backsliding, and widespread public discontent, the Charter reflects how the world—particularly the United States—views Armenia: as a nation in desperate need of robust security, meaningful democratic reform, and moral support, but with little confidence that these goals can be achieved under its current leadership.

7 Comments

  • Anyone with a pulse can see that it was Russia who betrayed Armenia and not the other way around. He acknowledges the challenges that lay ahead but fails to recognize that it was Russia who primarily caused those challenges.

    Quick to blame Pashinyan for everything especially the fact that Armenia needs to be more assertive, but when it does by diversifying its relations with other nations he’s quick to point out “DONT PISS OFF RUSSIA!”

    This is the problem of being a career politician, he has no vision or concept of how things work in the real world. No one wakes up one morning and becomes a pro athlete the very same day, it takes years of dedicated hard work. No one builds a multi-billion dollar business overnight, Rome wasn’t built in one day.

    This agreement is a seed that will take time to root, sprout and mature. This is just the beginning of what is to come.

    P.S. This is my 3rd attempt to post a comment here and the first two have been deleted by the moderator. So much for Civilnet being a champion of free speech.

  • Oskanian has always been a Russian apologist because anyone with a pulse can see that it was Russia who betrayed Armenia and not the other way around. He acknowledges the challenges that lay ahead but fails to recognize that it was Russia who primarily caused those challenges.

    Quick to blame Pashinyan for everything especially the fact that Armenia needs to be more assertive, but when it does by diversifying its relations with other nations he’s quick to point out “DONT PISS OFF RUSSIA!”

    This is the problem of being a career politician, he has no vision or concept of how things work in the real world. No one wakes up one morning and becomes a pro athlete the very same day, it takes years of dedicated hard work. No one builds a multi-billion dollar business overnight, Rome wasn’t built in one day.

    This agreement is a seed that will take time to root, sprout and mature. This is just the beginning of what is to come.

  • Oskanians cognitive dissonance is incredible. Oskanian has always been a Russian apologist because anyone with a pulse can see that it was Russia who betrayed Armenia and not the other way around. He acknowledges the challenges that lay ahead but fails to recognize that it was Russia who primarily caused those challenges.

    Quick to blame Pashinyan for everything especially the fact that Armenia needs to be more assertive, but when it does by diversifying its relations with other nations he’s quick to point out “DONT PISS OFF RUSSIA!”

    This is the problem of being a career politician, he has no vision or concept of how things work in the real world. No one wakes up one morning and becomes a pro athlete the very same day, it takes years of dedicated hard work. No one builds a multi-billion dollar business overnight, Rome wasn’t built in one day.

    This agreement is a seed that will take time to root, sprout and mature. This is just the beginning of what is to come.

  • The Great Doomfest: How to Blame Pashinyan for Everything

    They say, “Never blame the weatherman for the weather,” but Armenian analysts seem to have missed that memo. Instead, they’ve taken it upon themselves to hold Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan accountable for everything – from global warming to your favorite cafe running out of coffee. How dare he attempt to strengthen Armenia through new diplomatic, military, and economic initiatives? Don’t these analysts realize they can’t sleep at night unless they’ve turned every setback or delay into another reason to vilify Pashinyan?

    The Great Charter Disappointment

    Remember the recent U.S.-Armenia Strategic Dialogue? For some analysts, it was apparently meant to deliver instant miracles. The expectation? U.S. paratroopers descending on Armenia’s borders within minutes of the signing, ready to repel every Azerbaijani soldier. Imagine my disappointment when I ventured through Yerevan and found no stealth fighter jets parked near Republic Square. Over at the border? Not a single G.I. Joe in sight! How dare diplomacy require patience and coordination instead of an action-movie spectacle?

    Turkey Quaking in Its Boots? Not So Fast

    Some critics seem genuinely baffled that Washington hasn’t loudly threatened Erdogan from the White House lawn: “Hands off Armenia, or else!” Instead, diplomacy has unfolded through nuanced dialogue – unthinkable, right? If certain analysts had their way, F-16s would be circling Turkey and leaflets would rain down reading, “Mess with Armenia and prepare for justice!” Instead, we get incremental steps. Yawn! Where’s the Hollywood drama we were promised?
    No Doritos in the Supermarkets? Clearly, Pashinyan’s Fault. In the magical world of analyst expectations, the U.S.-Armenia charter should’ve instantly transformed Yerevan’s markets. Where are the Twinkies, cheddar cheese, and root beer? Apparently, until Armenia’s stores look like a Midwestern Costco, Pashinyan’s diplomacy is doomed to failure. Forget that trade agreements take years to bear fruit – critics demand immediate gratification or else.

    The Real Foe: Wolves Outside or Pashinyan Within?

    If you read certain analyses, you might think the real threat to Armenia isn’t Aliyev, Erdogan, or Putin but Pashinyan himself. Forget Azerbaijan’s aggressive land grabs or Turkey’s multi-billion-dollar defense budget; the real villain is apparently the prime minister trying to build alliances, buy arms from India, and expand Armenia’s diplomatic footprint. It’s much easier to rant about Pashinyan than confront the systemic challenges posed by Armenia’s enemies.

    Self-Defeating Propaganda

    Here’s the irony: While some analysts claim to champion Armenian unity, their incessant doom-mongering and criticism play right into the hands of Aliyev, Erdogan, and even Moscow. By amplifying negativity, they demoralize Armenians, weaken resolve, and sow division. Why should adversaries pay for disinformation campaigns when some analysts do the job for free?

    Nostalgia for a Nonexistent Golden Era

    There’s a tendency among critics to romanticize a past where Armenia’s bravado supposedly kept the wolves at bay. In reality, unyielding rhetoric without tangible strength to back it up has always been a recipe for disaster. The 2020 war was proof enough of the consequences of relying on bluster rather than preparing for modern threats.

    A Humorous Plea for Sanity

    To the critics: Before you blame Pashinyan for global warming, UFO sightings, or the line at Starbucks, consider this – building diplomatic, military, and economic deterrence takes time. Alliances with the U.S., France, and India won’t deliver miracles overnight. Armenia isn’t a superpower; it’s a small nation navigating a minefield of geopolitical challenges.
    If we truly care about Armenia’s future, let’s stop tearing down efforts to build resilience and cohesion. Our enemies would love nothing more than for us to keep undermining each other while they plot their next moves.

    Final Thoughts

    Armenia stands at a pivotal moment. Forging new alliances, modernizing its military, and diversifying its economy require national unity and forward-thinking leadership. Criticism is healthy, but constant negativity only sabotages the progress Armenia desperately needs. Instead of pinning every woe on Pashinyan, let’s channel our energies into confronting the real threats: authoritarian neighbors and the geopolitical games they play.

    And now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to check the border again. Maybe those U.S. paratroopers finally arrived, and I missed the memo.

  • Oskanian’s critique misses the Charter’s broader significance as a signal of U.S. commitment to Armenia’s sovereignty, democracy, and regional stability. While the challenges facing Armenia are undeniable, the Charter provides a framework for addressing them collaboratively. It is not a panacea but a starting point for deeper engagement and support. Instead of viewing the Charter as an indictment of Armenia’s leadership, it should be seen as a vote of confidence in Armenia’s potential to overcome its challenges with the support of strategic partners like the United States.

    Contrary to Oskanian’s assertion that the Charter is rushed or symbolic, its timing reflects strategic urgency rather than arbitrariness. The U.S. administration, despite nearing the end of its term, is signaling its commitment to Armenia amid escalating regional tensions. This is particularly crucial in light of Azerbaijan’s aggression and the humanitarian crisis in Nagorno-Karabakh. Symbolism matters in international diplomacy, as it reinforces solidarity and can pave the way for deeper engagement, especially in a volatile geopolitical landscape.

    Oskanian’s critique of the Strategic Partnership Charter between the Republic of Armenia and the United States lacks nuance and underestimates the significance of this bilateral agreement. The Charter represents a pivotal step toward strengthening Armenia’s sovereignty, democratic resilience, and regional stability – objectives that align with both U.S. and Armenian interests.

    While Oskanian criticizes the Charter for lacking new security commitments, this critique overlooks the broader context of U.S. support for Armenia’s sovereignty. The U.S. has already increased its engagement in the South Caucasus, as evidenced by Secretary Blinken’s mediation efforts and U.S. humanitarian aid to Armenian communities affected by displacement. The Charter’s focus on sovereignty and territorial integrity reinforces these ongoing efforts. It is unrealistic to expect a bilateral document to singlehandedly resolve complex security challenges; rather, it lays the foundation for enhanced cooperation, including potential security assistance in the future.

    Oskanian’s dismissal of the Charter’s call for unblocking regional transport links as “rehashing old talking points” undermines the importance of regional economic integration. While these goals are challenging, they are essential for Armenia’s long-term economic independence. The U.S. emphasis on these issues highlights its recognition of Armenia’s need to diversify its trade routes and reduce its economic dependence on adversarial neighbors. Far from being a superficial inclusion, this focus demonstrates the U.S.’s understanding of the strategic importance of connectivity in the region.

    The Charter’s emphasis on democratic reforms is not an indictment of Armenia’s failures but a reflection of its aspirations. Strengthening judicial independence, combating corruption, and promoting media freedom are critical for Armenia’s development and its ability to attract international support. Framing these priorities as criticisms of the Pashinyan government overlooks the progress made since the 2018 Velvet Revolution. The U.S. support for these reforms should be seen as a partnership to consolidate democracy, not as a critique of current leadership.

    Oskanian’s concern that the Charter might alienate Armenia’s regional allies like Russia overlooks Armenia’s need to diversify its partnerships. The Charter does not call for severing ties with Russia but rather seeks to create a more balanced foreign policy that reduces overreliance on a single ally. This approach enhances Armenia’s agency in navigating its geopolitical challenges. Moreover, the Charter’s focus on energy diversification aligns with Armenia’s long-term goals of reducing dependence on Russian energy and increasing economic resilience.

    Dismissing the Charter as “a litany of good intentions” disregards the mechanisms already in place to ensure follow-through. Bilateral agreements often begin with broad frameworks that evolve into more detailed programs. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and other U.S. agencies are likely to play a critical role in translating the Charter’s principles into actionable projects. Success depends on sustained commitment from both sides, which the Charter helps formalize.

  • While Mr. Oskanian is entitled to his opinions and critiques, one cannot help but question whether his relentless contempt for Prime Minister Pashinyan is truly constructive at a time when Armenia faces existential threats. Our nation’s sovereignty and security are under direct assault from neighbors who have made no secret of their intentions, and this is a time for unity, not division.

    Mr. Oskanian’s divisive rhetoric and misrepresentations, week after week, risk playing into the hands of those who seek to weaken Armenia from within. Instead of fostering solidarity among Armenians – both within the country and throughout the diaspora – his relentless negativity seems to create rifts and undermine the collective strength we so desperately need.

    It is troubling to see a former foreign minister, who once represented Armenia on the world stage, engage in discourse that could inadvertently serve the interests of Turkey and Azerbaijan by amplifying divisions among Armenians. At a time like this, we need voices that inspire cohesion, resilience, and a shared vision for the future – not ones that deepen divides and erode trust.

    Mr. Oskanian has the experience and platform to contribute meaningfully to Armenia’s survival and success. The question is, will he use them to unite and strengthen, or will he persist in sowing discord when unity is paramount?

  • Did I read correctly? this dude is calling Russia an ally, seriously dude, where have you been, you have not seen what Russia has done to Armenia? get a life buddy.

leave a reply