The Armenian opposition has accused the country’s leadership of avoiding substantive discussion about a draft peace treaty with Azerbaijan. In remarks that reflect growing impatience among lawmakers, Artsvik Minasyan, secretary of the Hayastan faction, asserted that the authorities have either ignored the formal requests from opposition deputies or treated them as state secrets. He emphasized that this approach limits lawmakers’ ability to perform their constitutional duties and raises questions about transparency in the negotiations surrounding the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process. These comments, circulating in Armenian political discourse, are part of broader concerns about how peace talks are conducted and who is consulted before any agreement is presented to the public or parliament for review [citation].
Minasyan argued that the government’s stance appears designed to suppress public scrutiny and legitimate parliamentary oversight. He asserted that written demands put forward by many deputies, grounded in legal and constitutional provisions, have been dismissed or sidelined. The opposition contends that without a clear and open process, the chances for constructive negotiation are diminished, and the potential for agreements that satisfy broader national interests is compromised. The discussion touches on a fundamental issue in Armenia’s political culture: the balance between executive negotiation power and legislative transparency when it comes to a treaty that could reshape regional security and future diplomatic alignments [citation].
On the other side of the dispute, a deputy from the ruling party, Artur Hovhannisyan, contended that the opposition was given ample opportunities to study the evolving peace draft and to participate in the technical stages of the negotiating process. He claimed that the opposition repeatedly declined to engage when offered access to the ongoing work or to review documents that would illuminate the substance of the proposed agreement. Hovhannisyan stressed that, in his view, no barriers were placed in the path of those who wished to understand the negotiations, and that the government remains committed to a transparent process in consultation with parliament and the public [citation].
The diplomatic backdrop to these domestic exchanges includes statements from Armenian officials about active engagement in the peace process. The foreign minister, Ararat Mirzoyan, recently indicated that Yerevan has been working with a draft peace agreement it received from Azerbaijan and signaled an intention to respond in the near term. This framing places emphasis on timeliness and readiness to move from exploratory discussions to more concrete positions, with an eye toward formal responses that could shape subsequent rounds of talks and the language of any eventual settlement [citation].
Beyond regional actors, Western powers have voiced continued interest in the trajectory of Armenia-Azerbaijan diplomacy. The United States, through Secretary of State Antony Blinken, has suggested that a peace accord could be within reach if both sides remain engaged and convey a genuine willingness to compromise. He underscored Washington’s ongoing involvement in facilitating dialogue and offering support aimed at stabilizing the South Caucasus. While the tone from Washington signals optimism, it also places an implicit expectation on both Yerevan and Baku to adhere to a process that is inclusive of relevant stakeholders and attentive to regional security concerns. Observers note that U.S. engagement often elevates the stakes for domestic political actors, who must reconcile internal political calculations with international diplomatic timelines and assurances [citation].
As Armenia weighs its options, the public debate continues to hinge on questions of process as much as on the substantive content of any prospective treaty. Lawmakers and analysts alike stress that a lasting peace will likely depend on credible guarantees, transparent negotiations, and a framework that can command broad political consensus. The ongoing discourse also reflects the broader regional context, where security guarantees, economic considerations, and the voices of communities affected by potential concessions all influence how leaders frame, sell, and eventually accept a final agreement. The balance between executive agility in diplomacy and legislative scrutiny remains a live issue in Yerevan, shaping not just current negotiations but the direction of Armenia’s future foreign policy and regional strategy [citation].