It has been almost two years since the future was restored in Armenia. Nikol Pashinyan and the thousands who peacefully took to the streets in the early spring of 2018 should forever be remembered as the restorers of hope in Armenia. It is the essential ingredient for progress. But now PM Pashinyan is the head of the government and governing is a different process. When the prior administration was replaced and free elections were held, the My Step alliance won a significant majority. In fact, one could say it was enough of a majority to control the passage of virtually all legislation. As soon as the honeymoon period was over (inevitable for all leaders regardless of the circumstances of their ascension), there were cries that Armenia still lacked a viable opposition. What did you expect in the short term from the electorate? They rewarded the alliance that gave them a reason to get up in the morning and begin dreaming again. They were honored for their courage and effectiveness as a revolutionary movement, not as a government. The formation of an “opposition” in a free and fair environment is a natural succession event once some level of dissatisfaction exists with the former revolutionaries. As more diverse views evolve, the governing alliance will have to earn continued power based on results as an administration and not as revolutionaries. It is also inevitable that additional political parties will emerge. This is a natural result of political maturation. It’s good for Armenia. This government has inherited an overwhelming number of economic, social and national security issues. We need to judge their efforts in that context. There is no question the environment has improved. But time will tell whether the rate of change meets the satisfaction level of the electorate. It is a tough job in a tough neighborhood.

Of particular interest, in the plethora of issues they are grappling with, are foreign policy and national security. Frankly, this is the area that the diaspora seems to be most interested in because of the implications on the world stage, the future of Artsakh and the unresolved issues with the Genocide. Domestic policy has the most impact on daily lives, but given the victim psyche of our people, Artsakh and the Genocide are vehicles of redemption. For the last 11 to 12 years, Armenia has been saddled on the Artsakh settlement with a defensive posture based on the tacit “agreement” of the Madrid Principles. The six principles, which have been the foundation of the OSCE Minsk Group negotiations, are unacceptable to most Armenians. The Armenians were victimized by the deceit of Stalin in 1923, oppression under Azerbaijan, futile attempts for peaceful reunification with Armenia and a vicious offensive war initiated by the Azeris. Confronted with a second genocide, the Armenians defended their land and expelled the Azeri invaders. After establishing a functioning democracy and market economy (despite blockades and being politically unrecognized), it is clear why the Armenians remain opposed and wary of the Madrid Principles. They view it as regressive and ignoring the issues they resolved with their sacrifices (refugees, referendum, political status). It understates the events of the last 30 years and attempts to “restart the clock” to 1988. It also puts the Armenians in a dangerous dependency on foreign troops for security versus border solutions.

Pashinyan, to his credit, has been clear in attempting to reverse the winds of injustice by introducing new positions. Armenia has been a negotiator in good faith by exercising constraint to the unilateral attacks of Azerbaijan on Artsakh and the internationally recognized border of Tavush. He has challenged the racist rhetoric of Azerbaijan and responded with messages of peace and coexistence. He is walking a very delicate line. Obviously the people of Artsakh and most in Armenia view the issue as resolved. The Azeris started a war, lost the war and the result is the long-denied freedom of the Armenians of historic Artsakh. Armenians don’t see the value in negotiating with a party that is duplicitous (failing to implement many agreements from Vienna, St. Petersburg and other confidence-building measures), racist and doesn’t even value the right of Armenia to exist (“Yerevan is Azeri”—Aliyev). As a politician, the prime minister is eventually accountable to the electorate and must be firm, but also willing to engage. It is a very challenging dynamic.

Pashinyan has slowly introduced positions that will strengthen the Armenian side. Artsakh was a direct party in the early negotiations. This forced Azerbaijan to deal with Artsakh as a legitimate party in the process. Over 10 years ago with Artsakh natives serving as the leaders of Armenia (Kocharyan and Sarkisian), the decision was made to have Armenia represent Artsakh’s interests. This has proven to be a tactical error as the people of Artsakh have no direct voice in the process. Pashinyan over a year ago introduced the position that Artsakh must have a seat at the negotiating table, and that it is a key to lasting peace. Of course Azerbaijan has rejected this proposal, but it has altered the negotiating dynamics as it advances Artsakh as a functioning reality and not a “breakaway” part of Azerbaijan. Recently, at a public debate in Munich, Pashinyan articulated the concept when considering “territorial integrity” (the main Azeri argument against self-determination), one must consider whose territorial integrity we are speaking of. This expands the argument into the domain of the injustice of the Stalin “award” of 1923. This is a shrewd move by Pashinyan since “self determination” is an eternal right of all people, while in all practicality, “territorial integrity” is a subjective view based on an advocacy for the status quo at a point in time. The prime minister is under no illusions that he will convince Aliyev, but he is hoping that his “cooperative” approach combined with his new arguments will level the diplomatic playing field.

At the same conference in Germany, Pashinyan introduced what he is referring to as the “Munich Principles,” an obvious response and alternative to the “Madrid Principles” from 2008, a proposal disdained by most Armenians as ignoring the reality of the last 30 years. Pashinyan’s six points advocate standard positions such as breakthrough thinking by both parties, reject a military solution and insist on agreement by all parties. What I find particularly unique is that he advances the notion that Artsakh’s independence is as valid as Azerbaijan’s after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He responds to the notion of “returning territories” by defining the issue as one of borders and security. This is a wise move. It could encourage a legal discussion to countermand the validity of the “territorial integrity” basis of Azerbaijan. The security statement addresses the issue of the liberated territories that were not part of the Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous region, but a part of historic Artsakh. Many years ago the Artsakh Republic stated, “There are no territories, but only borders.” Pashinyan has revised this statement in a more direct manner. The liberated territories are a vital part of the security of Artsakh. In the west, the Kashatagh/Shahumyan areas provide a contiguous border with Armenia, and with Martuni expand the natural border with Iran which is critical to economic security. The eastern areas are where the high ground is held for national security. Of course, the security discussion could enable negotiating the un-liberated areas of northern Shahumyan. Focusing on security also legitimizes Artsakh as a viable entity with the right to protect itself from aggression with defensible borders. It moves the discussion out of the Azeri past and into the Armenian present and future. We should also applaud the assertive diplomatic work of Armenia after years of defensive postures. The facts have always supported the Armenians, but negotiating is less about moral correctness and more about political expediency.

Prime Minister Pashinyan should be applauded for skillfully maneuvering Armenia into a more balanced foreign policy. It is no small deed to maintain the relationship with Russia while expanding economic and military cooperation with the US, EU and NATO. He has been criticized over the last two years for the inexperience of his administration and its negative impact. Certainly there has been a learning curve, but his policies of global economic expansion and foreign policy balance have been refreshing and rewarding for Armenia. Relationships are being established with all major powers which is essential for a small landlocked nation in a hostile neighborhood. At the same time, Armenia is creating a stronger perception of independent but collaborative thinking as it truly joins the world stage.

With the citizens of Armenia and the diaspora, the most significant concern is whether Pashinyan will return any land liberated from Azerbaijan. This is a highly emotional issue sealed with the sacrifices and lives lost to establish freedom. It is a difficult issue for the government since the continued treachery and racism of the Azeris has put most Armenians in no mood to compromise. Despite the solidarity of the “nation,” any leader from Armenia is under significant pressure to return some territory. It is one of the “core principles” of the Madrid document; however many of the proposals in the Madrid document remain increasingly impractical. Returning refugees and referendums carry increasing complexities to implement after 30 years. Azerbaijan surely understands that Artsakh will never be a part of their country in any settlement. Aliyev is a dictator who uses political rhetoric to quell the masses. As such, his fear is coming home empty handed which usually does not end well in dictatorships. His insistence on returning “the occupied territories” is the most practical way for him to save face. Every day, Artsakh populates and invests in these liberated areas. This defines the thin line that Pashinyan walks between peace with a volatile neighbor and justice for our long-suffering people. The liberation of Artsakh is the first territorial recovery of Armenians since the losses from the Genocide. Most of the third parties would be happy for this long conflict to just go away and for the Armenians to capitulate. It is in this context that the positions advanced are important. Armenia is gaining valuable diplomatic experience. Remember, the era of genocide reparations is just beginning.