By Manel Msalmi
A tense and wide‑ranging debate on Armenia’s internal crisis and European trajectory unfolded yesterday at Paris business school, where politicians, lawyers, academics, activists and Armenian diaspora leaders in France focused heavily on mounting criticism of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s handling of a deepening confrontation with the Armenian Apostolic Church.
The conference, examined two central questions: how to defuse the confrontation between state authorities and the Church, and what role the European Union can play as Armenia signals increasingly clear European aspirations. Professor Encel and myself jointly moderated the event.
The backdrop is one of escalating tension in Armenia: Pashinyan has publicly called for the removal of the current Catholicos of All Armenians, protests continue nationwide, and several senior and prominent religious figures remain in detention. Speaker after speaker warned that a direct clash between the state and a church that has shaped Armenian identity for more than fifteen centuries risks pushing the country into a deeper political and social crisis.
While a few participants urged a more nuanced view of the government’s strategy in light of Armenia’s fragile security and geopolitical constraints, the predominant tone of the meeting was clearly critical of Pashinyan’s current course — particularly his policy toward the Church and his broader record on human rights and the rule of law.
At the centre of the discussion was a report presented in person by international lawyer Robert Amsterdam. Known for his defense of Russian opposition figure Mikhail Khodorkovsky and other dissidents, Amsterdam delivered one of the day’s strongest interventions, accusing the Armenian authorities of serious human rights violations .
Amsterdam argued that Yerevan’s treatment of the Armenian Apostolic Church and its opponents undermines basic liberties and violates Armenia’s own democratic commitments. He framed his stance as that of a human rights advocate confronting what he regards as selective justice and politically motivated prosecutions.
Nathalie Loiseau, Member of the European Parliament from the Renew group didn’t agree with him and instead focused on the need for democratic procedures and restraint.
Leading figures of the French‑Armenian community lined up to voice their disapproval of the Armenian government’s current direction.
Murad Papazian, co‑president of the Coordinating Council of Armenian Organizations of France (CCAF), the main umbrella body for Armenians in France, backed Amsterdam’s concerns and described his own expulsion from Armenia, which he attributed to his political disagreement with Pashinyan’s policies. CCAF vice‑president Ara Toranian echoed these criticisms, expressing deep anxiety over what he described as an increasingly repressive political climate in Yerevan and raising the issue of political prisoners.
French lawyer Charles Consigny, a member of the Paris Bar known for his outspoken media presence, also added his voice to the chorus of critics. Detailing his work defending prominent figures, including Armenian‑Russian businessman Samvel Karapetyan, Consigny denounced what he called political manipulation within the Armenian judicial system. He used the Karapetyan case, among others, to argue that the government’s approach to justice is being distorted by political calculations.
Renowned international lawyer Gérard Devedjian sought to temper the discussion by injecting a broader geopolitical and historical perspective. While acknowledging the gravity of the internal tensions and the sensitivity of the Church issue, he reminded the audience that Armenia is still struggling to consolidate independence after seventy years of communist rule and faces acute external pressures. Devedjian expressed understanding for some elements of Pashinyan’s strategy, arguing that any assessment of the government must take Armenia’s perilous regional environment into account. His was one of the relatively few interventions that did not align squarely with the majority’s outright criticism of the Prime Minister.
The longest historical arc of the debate was provided by U.S.-based Armenian activist Simone Rizkallah, who revisited the trauma of the 1915 genocide. She recalled the assistance Armenians received from “people of good will” and called for recognition of the historical mission of the Armenian people. While her primary focus was on memory and reconciliation rather than current politics, her intervention implicitly underscored the central role of the Armenian Apostolic Church in the survival and continuity of Armenian identity — a point that resonated with those critical of Pashinyan’s confrontational stance toward the Church.
Former French Minister of Education Jean‑Michel Blanquer’s remarks, received with particular respect, also reflected unease with the current trajectory in Armenia. Reaffirming what he described as the enduring commitment of the French people to Armenia, rooted in the memory of the 1915 genocide, Blanquer called for Armenia’s internal conflicts — including the standoff with the Church — to be resolved peacefully, within a democratic and constitutional framework. His appeal for de‑escalation and institutional respect was widely interpreted as a cautionary message to the current authorities in Yerevan.
Throughout the event, as co-moderator, I returned repeatedly to the central questions of how to prevent further escalation, how to ensure credible legal safeguards for detained clergy and political opponents, and how the EU can support Armenia’s democratic institutions without appearing to side with any political faction.
By the close of the conference, several points of consensus had emerged despite disagreements on details:
Armenia’s national identity remains deeply and historically intertwined with the Armenian Apostolic Church, which has accompanied the Armenian people for more than fifteen centuries.
The Pashinyan government’s current policy toward the Church’s leadership was criticized in strong terms by most speakers, who warned that an open confrontation with such a central institution could further destabilize the country. A smaller number of participants, such as Gérard Devedjian, stressed Armenia’s extraordinarily complex geopolitical position and urged that this context be factored into any judgement of government actions.
On the way forward, participants across the spectrum called for a peaceful, constitutional and negotiated solution — involving de‑escalation, respect for religious freedom and human rights, and structured dialogue between the state and the Church hierarchy.
As for the EU, many argued that Brussels can play a constructive but carefully calibrated role: encouraging dialogue, supporting judicial independence and legal reforms, monitoring human rights and political freedoms, and backing Armenia’s stated European aspirations without undermining its sovereignty or further polarizing Armenian society.
If there was a single dominant thread running through the Paris meeting, it was that criticism of Pashinyan’s approach to the Church and to dissent more broadly is growing louder among segments of the Armenian diaspora and international legal community — and that Armenia’s stability will depend on finding a way to reconcile an ancient spiritual tradition with the demands of modern democratic governance.
