Zhanna Avagyan: Hello, Tigran. We’ll be discussing several topics in today’s episode. Let’s start with the fact that today the Catholicos is appearing in court as a defendant, along with six bishops and archbishops. They have been charged with obstructing the execution of a lawful court decision by abusing their official position. I think everyone is familiar with the case. What is your overall assessment of this process?

Tigran Grigoryan: This process has nothing to do with legality. It contradicts both Armenia’s domestic legislation and international law, as well as Armenia’s international obligations. Over the past year, as this confrontation between the Church and the government has unfolded, our Regional Center for Democracy and Security has published a number of articles on the issue. They clearly demonstrate that the state has no right to interfere in the Church’s internal decisions or internal procedures.

The decision concerning the removal of Archbishop Gevorg Saroyan from office, including the decision of the Supreme Spiritual Council on this matter, is exclusively an internal Church. This creates a very dangerous precedent whereby not even the state as such, but a particular political force, can enter areas where it simply has no right to intervene.

I always suggest, when trying to explain this conflict in conversations with different people, that we imagine that this was not about the Armenian Apostolic Church, but about a religious organization belonging to some religious minority. If the government tried to carry out this kind of intervention in that organization’s affairs, what kind of reaction would there be?

It should be noted that during the pre-election period, this confrontation appeared to have somewhat subsided. There were no particularly active actions by the ruling party against the Catholicos and other clergy. This was, naturally, because they were preparing for the elections.

But, as we know, the ruling party had even included a provision in its election platform concerning the removal of the Catholicos from office. And we can see that this process is continuing in the post-election period. Perhaps it is not happening with the same intensity and at the same pace as during the previous year, but it remains a focus of attention for the ruling party.

And this, of course, raises serious questions not only in terms of religious freedom and interference in the internal affairs of religious organizations, but also more broadly in terms of the rule of law and selective justice.

By and large, this process fits into the broader trends that we also discuss during our program, when the political opponents of the government are subjected to this kind of selective justice.

Right. Moving on to the next topic: Senior Advisor to the US Special Envoy for Peace Missions was in Yerevan. This seems to coincide with tomorrow, August 8, which marks the anniversary of the Washington summit. There were some statements, with most of the discussion apparently focused on TRIPP. Congratulations were also conveyed to Nikol Pashinyan on his election. What is your overall impression of this? And was the timing of the visit coincidental?

Yes. First, let’s note that Aryeh Lightstone is one of the key figures involved in this process. He had essentially begun this mediation mission for the United States. He mentioned in a CivilNet interview yesterday that he first visited Armenia in April of last year, and it was during that period that this mediation mission had begun.

If you remember, we probably were among the first in Armenia to discuss his background several months ago. During the first Trump presidency, he had been involved in the process of resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. He was one of the active participants and architects of the Abraham Accords. He later also served as the director of the Abraham Accords Foundation—I’m not sure whether he still holds that position—but, as I already mentioned, he is one of the key figures in this process.

He comes to Yerevan quite frequently, and this appears to be the first time that his visit has received this kind of coverage. I think this demonstrates, first and foremost, that visits of this type are intended to show that an active process is underway.

Incidentally, Konstantin Sokolov also arrived in Armenia with Lightstone. We discussed his appointment a few episodes ago. At the time, he had been appointed director of the TRIPP+ Enterprise Fund.

But an interesting change has taken place following that appointment, which has also not received much coverage in the press. The fund has now been renamed the Trans-Caspian Enterprise Fund.

I posted about this on Facebook a couple of days ago, and I noticed from the reactions that the renaming had raised quite a few concerns among people. But it should be noted that, by and large, no fundamental change has taken place.

Because when we talked about the TRIPP+ fund, the “plus” specifically meant that it was not only about TRIPP, but also about Central Asia and the South Caucasus. In other words, the fund’s mandate includes not only financing the TRIPP project, but also improving existing infrastructure around TRIPP or constructing new infrastructure.

Still, I think it is an interesting change. I think it would have been more appropriate to carry out the renaming before Sokolov’s appointment, because there is still a misunderstanding among people regarding the different structures. Many people do not understand what each structure does and so on.

For example, this fund is very often confused with the TRIPP Development Company, which will carry out the construction work, as well as the management and operational work related to the project. Armenia has a 26% stake in that company.

So when Sokolov was appointed, people thought that the appointment concerned the TRIPP Development Company. If the renaming had taken place a little earlier, for example days or weeks before Sokolov’s appointment, perhaps that misunderstanding would not have arisen.

We can also try to summarize how things have developed over the year since the agreement was signed in the United States.

I think the main result at this point, one year on, is that the Washington summit really did bring a period of stability to the region. For a year now, by and large, we have not been discussing possible escalations or security risks coming from Azerbaijan.

The second positive factor, I think, is that the atmosphere has changed to some extent. It has become more cooperative. If we are talking about Azerbaijan, of course, they still use certain aggressive narratives and keep those agendas active, such as the Western Azerbaijan agenda.

But there are also certain actions aimed at peace, which of course have other objectives as well.

But, as we have repeatedly noted, we will be able to assess the final results of this process not simply when TRIPP is launched, but also when we see what is launched after TRIPP and what is not launched. Our assessments over the coming years will depend on these processes.

If TRIPP is launched and, alongside TRIPP, Armenia also gains access through Azerbaijani territory to Iran and Russia, as well as access tօ its own territory if the Armenian-Turkish border is opened, then naturally this can be considered a successful process.

If all of that does not happen, or only happens partially, then different assessments may be made.

But let’s emphasize once again that this stability, which has come to the region as a result of the Washington agreements and the Washington summit, is very important for Armenia.

Because from 2020 through 2025, our lives as a state, as well as the lives of individuals dealing with these issues, were largely dominated by security threats. Improving the security situation naturally also gives us an opportunity to focus on other issues and work on other matters.

And, to wrap up the episode, the first session of the newly constituted National Assembly has taken place. What is your overall impression, both of the proceedings and of the appointments?

Yes. In reality, expectations were not very high for this new National Assembly, and some speeches and the behavior of certain MPs seem to show that those negative expectations were probably justified.

It should be emphasized that it is commendable that at least the political forces, including the ruling force, are trying to maintain some minimum standards of civility in the National Assembly.

The new Speaker of Parliament, Ruben Rubinyan, essentially began his work by calling for this, and to some extent it has been maintained, although to some extent it has not.

But at least the fact that there is a commitment among the main political forces to preserve this civility, or the rules of civilized conduct, should be considered positive.

The main question, of course, is how long this agreement will last and whether it will be maintained. We can already see that during the first discussions it has not been fully maintained. Insults and labels are already being used.

I think the problem is that there are a number of new MPs in this National Assembly who have become known precisely for this kind of provocative behavior—for making insulting remarks.

From the ruling party, we can mention Taron Chakhoyan, who moved from the Prime Minister’s Office to the National Assembly. It is interesting that during the first days he stood out even within the ruling party for this kind of inappropriate behavior.

There are similar figures among the opposition as well. Edgar Ghazaryan, for example, is known for his semi-ironic and satirical style, including statements and speeches that are sometimes insulting.

When you have actors of this kind, maintaining this agreement on civility naturally becomes more difficult.

We should also understand that, regardless of whether such agreements exist, we live under conditions of political polarization, where these political forces, by and large, do not view each other as political opponents. One could perhaps even say that they view each other as enemies—and not only as their own enemies, but also as enemies of Armenia.

This is, of course, a very serious problem that will complicate all these processes.

If we talk about the various positive developments—sorry for interrupting—but there are appointments that are encouraging. Did you notice any?

I think the appointment of Lilit Makunts as the Prime Minitser's Chief of Staff was a positive one.

Over the previous five years, the Prime Minister’s Office increasingly resembled some kind of propaganda structure, which both generated and coordinated domestic political propaganda and hate speech. Taron Chakhoyan was heavily involved in that.

It is important for this institution, the Prime Minister’s Office, to focus on its direct responsibilities.

I think Lilit Makunts performed quite well during her tenure as Armenia’s ambassador to the United States. Very important processes took place in relations between the two countries during her tenure, and she naturally also participated in all of that.

And I hope that this professionalism will also be reflected in her role as Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister, and that the Prime Minister’s Office will genuinely focus on state governance rather than petty domestic political issues and conflicts.

Thank you, Tigran.

Thank you as well.

Offri un caffè a Tigran Grigoryan

From Security to Politics: Armenia’s Security Council Under Alen Simonyan

Regional Developments and Personnel Changes in Armenia

Catholicos on Trial, One Year After Washington, and the New Parliament