Read the full article

The post An Armenian-vampire connection running through our veins appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

Read the full article

The post Armenia’s twin education crises: Learning deficits, historical amnesia appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

The anniversary program was emceed by Yeghpayr Raffi Rachdouni and opened with the Scouts marching in, followed by the anthems sung by Kouyr Taleen Donoyan.

The chapter welcomed Rev. Fr. Kapriel Nazarian, Rev. Fr. Sevak Gabrielyan and Badvely Hagop Manjelikian. The clergy offered the blessing of the food, marking a meaningful start to the evening’s celebration.

The evening also welcomed several honored guests, including Y. Vahe Tanashian, member of the Homenetmen Central Executive; Y. Aram Kayserian, chairman of the Homenetmen Eastern Regional Executive; K. Galin Tashian, member of the Homenetmen Eastern Regional Executive; Y. Harout Tashian, chairman of the Providence Homenetmen Executive; and Unger Garo Tashian, a member of Eastern U.S. ARF Central Executive. Representatives of the Sts. Vartanantz Church Board of Trustees, Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) and its affiliated organizations including ARS, AYF and Hamazkayin, were also recognized for their presence and continued support.

Following the opening formalities, guests enjoyed dinner as the anniversary program continued. In the background of the stage, a slideshow of photographs highlighted the many wonderful memories created throughout the chapter’s history. From athletic achievements and scouting adventures to social events and lasting friendships, the photos served as a heartfelt reminder of the chapter’s growth and the strong sense of community that has brought generations together.

The program opened with remarks from Y. Harout Tashian, chairman of the Homenetmen Providence Executive, who conveyed the executive’s congratulations. He expressed gratitude for the dedication and sacrifices of those who have contributed to the chapter since its founding in 1981. Recognizing the many individuals whose efforts have helped sustain the organization over the decades, he emphasized that “many have worked quietly, without expecting recognition.” Tashian also thanked the chapter’s members, supporters and 45th Anniversary Committee for their continued commitment and contributions to the evening.

The next speaker was Y. Aram Kayserian, chairman of the Homenetmen Eastern Regional Executive, who congratulated the Providence chapter on reaching this important milestone. He recognized the dedication of the executive, scouting council, athletic and social committees and the many individuals who have worked tirelessly to advance the organization’s mission. Kayserian reflected on Homenetmen’s 108-year history, highlighting how the Providence chapter’s 45 years of service have become an important part of the organization’s broader legacy. He concluded by wishing the chapter continued success, strength and vigor as it carries its mission forward within the Armenian community.

Concluding the program, Y. Vahe Tanashian, a member of the Homenetmen Central Executive, traveled from Washington to deliver congratulatory remarks on behalf of Homenetmen’s chapters around the world. Extending his congratulations to Providence on behalf of the organization’s 110 chapters and more than 25,000 members, he stated, “I greet the Providence chapter and congratulate it on its 45th anniversary.” Tanashian expressed appreciation for the founders, executive, committees, members and supporters whose dedication and selfless volunteerism have contributed to the chapter’s continued growth. Looking toward the future, he encouraged everyone to renew their commitment with “a will, vigor and determination 45 times stronger.” He closed by reaffirming Homenetmen’s motto, “Elevate Yourself and Others With You,” and its enduring call to “Always Be Prepared,” while looking ahead to the chapter’s golden 50th anniversary.

Following the program, the celebration continued with an outstanding musical performance by singers Hakob Hakobian and Armen Hovhannisyan. Their incredible energy and talent immediately brought guests to the dance floor, setting the stage for a lively evening filled with music, dancing and celebration. The dance floor remained full as attendees enjoyed the entertainment and celebrated this special milestone together.

The Homenetmen Providence 45th Anniversary Dance was a tremendous success, bringing together generations to celebrate the chapter’s legacy and the community that has sustained it for nearly five decades.

As the chapter reflects on 45 years of success, the anniversary celebration served as a reminder that its greatest accomplishments extend beyond awards and milestones. They are found in the people who have dedicated their time, the friendships formed along the way and the generations who continue to carry its mission forward.

Congratulations to Homenetmen Providence on 45 incredible years!

The post Homenetmen Providence celebrates 45 years of dedication, achievement and community appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

On Oct. 27, the Armenian National Committee (ANC) Central Council published a special English-language report titled “‘Justice’ According to Azerbaijan,” challenging the legality of the trial and conviction of former Artsakh State Minister Ruben Vardanyan, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison by the Baku Military Court on Feb. 17, 2026.

Drawing on the court’s indictment, judgment and legal analysis, the report identified serious alleged procedural irregularities and contradictions in the prosecution’s case. According to its findings, the court imposed a 14-year sentence for an offense that had not appeared in the original indictment or the section establishing Vardanyan’s guilt.

The report further stated that none of the more than 2,000 forensic medical examinations cited in the judgment mentioned Vardanyan by name, while no witness testimony directly described criminal acts committed by him. It also criticized the decision to prosecute a civilian before a military court, the exclusion of an international defense lawyer and the absence of independent international observers throughout approximately 60 hearings.

ANC Central Council Chairman Hagop Der Khatchadourian called for Vardanyan’s immediate release, alongside the other 20 Armenians the organization says remain detained in Azerbaijan. The report was prepared for an international audience to draw attention to alleged violations of due process and the continuing detention of former Artsakh officials.

Meanwhile, concerns over the preservation of Armenian cultural heritage in Artsakh resurfaced following remarks by UNESCO World Heritage Centre Deputy Director Jyoti Hosagrahar during an Oct. 26 event at the Matenadaran in Yerevan. Asked about reports of Armenian churches being destroyed in Nagorno-Karabakh, Hosagrahar stated that she was unaware of the specific cases raised by journalists.

Armenia

Ani Avetisyan, the 39-year-old woman injured in an Oct. 1 incident involving an Azerbaijani serviceman in Shaki village, Syunik, continues to suffer severe pain and is awaiting another operation at Yerevan’s Surb Grigor Lusavorich Medical Center.

Speaking to 24News, Avetisyan said doctors plan to insert an implant into her damaged knee and replace metal supports in her thigh. She also described the psychological impact on her children, one of whom is recovering from surgery.

According to reports, Azerbaijani serviceman Nasimi Musayev entered the village, spent the night in a residence and subsequently shot Avetisyan in the leg. Musayev faces five criminal charges and was placed in pretrial detention for two months.

Avetisyan confirmed that the Armenian Health Ministry is covering her hospital and treatment expenses but expressed concern over her prolonged recovery and the limited follow-up she has received. Avetisyan also stated that she had been questioned only once since the incident and expressed disappointment at the lack of continued attention to her condition.

Azerbaijan

On Oct. 27, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev addressed the opening of the 7th World Forum on Intercultural Dialogue in Baku, declaring that Azerbaijan had fundamentally transformed the geopolitical situation in the South Caucasus through its military victories over Armenia.

Aliyev characterized the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war and Azerbaijan’s September 2023 military offensive as the restoration of the country’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, asserting that decades of international negotiations had failed to resolve the conflict. He accused major international powers of deliberately maintaining the status quo and claimed that Azerbaijan had ultimately implemented the 1993 UN Security Council resolutions through military action.

Aliyev further stated that Azerbaijan had initiated the peace agreement with Armenia because it did not seek an endless conflict or further revenge. Referring to the military outcome of the conflict, he declared that Azerbaijan had already taken its revenge on the battlefield and should not pursue further retaliation. He presented the initialing of the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace agreement in August 2025 as an example of Baku’s willingness to move toward normalization, despite the document remaining unsigned. His remarks came as Azerbaijan continued to insist on amendments to Armenia’s constitution as a condition for formally concluding the peace agreement.

Aliyev also accused Armenia of responsibility for the displacement of Azerbaijanis and the destruction of religious and cultural sites during the conflict, while criticizing what he described as double standards in international responses to Azerbaijan’s actions.

Iran

On Oct. 26, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian reaffirmed that Tehran would continue developing its nuclear program under international law while denying any intention to acquire nuclear weapons. Speaking with senior representatives from Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan, Pezeshkian emphasized Iran’s rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He criticized the use of military strikes and sanctions as pressure tactics, arguing that such measures have undermined trust and complicated diplomatic negotiations.

On Oct. 27, Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei stated that ending the conflict with the United States and the current state of “neither war nor peace” depended on fulfilling Iran’s conditions. Meeting with Supreme National Security Council Secretary Mohsen Rezaei, Khamenei emphasized maintaining control over the Strait of Hormuz and protecting Iranian security interests. Tehran’s principal demands include ending the American blockade of Iranian ports and lifting sanctions on Iranian oil exports.

Meanwhile, diplomatic efforts to prevent renewed military escalation have intensified, with senior officials from Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan visiting Tehran on Oct. 26. Gulf states are reportedly developing a broader settlement proposal addressing the Strait of Hormuz, the conflict involving Yemen’s Houthis, and regional security guarantees. Iran has reportedly offered to reopen the strait within four days of sanctions relief, while Washington continues to seek nuclear concessions and renewed international inspections. No final agreement has been reached.

Russia

On Oct. 26, the Russian Embassy in Armenia criticized Shirak Governor Davit Arushanyan over remarks directed at representatives of the opposition Strong Armenia party.

In an Oct. 17 social media post, Arushanyan stated that Gyumri was not their “Nizhny Tabor” and its residents were not their “Ivans.” The embassy condemned the reference, comparing its language to terminology used by Nazi Germany during World War II and warning that such statements could incite hostility toward Russians. It also emphasized the presence of Russia’s 102nd military base and Russian border guards in Shirak, describing the governor’s remarks as inconsistent with the longstanding relationship between the two countries.

Meanwhile, former Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) Secretary-General Nikolay Bordyuzha called for Armenia’s expulsion from the Russian-led military alliance on Oct. 28, arguing that Yerevan’s suspension of participation while retaining formal membership creates institutional contradictions. Bordyuzha noted that CSTO decisions require consensus and therefore must still account for Armenia’s position, despite its refusal to participate in the organization’s activities or pay membership contributions.

His remarks followed statements by current CSTO Secretary-General Taalatbek Masadykov, who suggested that Armenia’s membership could be discussed at the organization’s Nov. 11 summit in Moscow. Masadykov also stated that Armenia had effectively withdrawn from the alliance, although no formal decision on its membership has been made.

Responding on Oct. 28, Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan reiterated that Yerevan has no intention of resuming participation in the CSTO. He maintained that Armenia would not reconsider its position regardless of statements from the organization’s leadership. Armenia froze its participation in 2024, citing the alliance’s failure to fulfill its security obligations during confrontations with Azerbaijan.

Turkey

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan expressed opposition to further escalation of the conflict involving Iran, warning against developments that could draw the region into another cycle of violence. Erdogan called for continued diplomatic efforts to preserve regional peace and stability.

Meanwhile, Erdogan dismissed his chief presidential adviser, Oktay Saral, following a diplomatic dispute with Azerbaijan over restrictions on wearing hijabs in Azerbaijani schools. Saral had publicly criticized the measures, prompting a strong reaction from Azerbaijani political circles. According to Turkish media reports, Baku demanded his removal, although the existence of a direct request from President Ilham Aliyev’s administration has not been officially confirmed. Saral acknowledged that he had left his position on Erdogan’s instructions and indicated that his departure was connected to his criticism of Azerbaijan. The incident highlighted tensions between Ankara and Baku despite their close strategic partnership.

In developments concerning Armenia-Turkey normalization, Turkish Minister of Transport and Infrastructure Abdulkadir Uraloglu announced the completion of the tender process for reconstructing the historic Ani Bridge on the Armenian-Turkish border. The reconstruction contract was signed on Sept. 28, following a bilateral protocol agreed in Yerevan in May. Restoration of the 10th-century Silk Road bridge will be coordinated by a joint Armenian-Turkish commission. Although the initiative represents a practical step in bilateral cooperation, no timetable has been announced for completing the reconstruction or reopening the border crossing.

The post The Region in Brief appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

The National Assembly began plenary consideration of the Armenian-American TRIPP framework agreement on Oct. 27, following its approval by the parliamentary Foreign Relations Committee the previous week. The agreement establishes the framework for developing a transport connection through Armenia’s southern Syunik province, linking mainland Azerbaijan with Nakhichevan, while providing for additional railway, road, energy and communications infrastructure.

Under the proposed arrangement, a joint Armenian-American development company would oversee implementation, with the United States holding a 74% stake and Armenia retaining 26% during an initial 49-year period. The agreement also provides for a possible 50-year extension, under which Armenia’s ownership stake would increase to 49%.

Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan has repeatedly maintained that all infrastructure operating on Armenian territory will remain subject to Armenia’s sovereignty and jurisdiction, including border security, customs administration and law enforcement.

Beyond its stated economic objectives, the government considers TRIPP an important component of its broader peace strategy. During parliamentary discussions, Mirzoyan argued that the establishment of interconnected transport networks would reinforce stability by creating economic interests shared by Armenia, Azerbaijan and other regional actors.

While the proposed route through Syunik is intended to provide Azerbaijan with access to Nakhichevan, the technical arrangements governing Armenian transportation through Azerbaijani territory have yet to be agreed upon in comparable detail.

ARF member and secretary of the opposition Armenia Alliance Artur Khachatryan raised concerns regarding the agreement’s lack of clearly defined reciprocal obligations. He argued that while Armenia commits to providing Azerbaijan with unobstructed connectivity between its mainland territory and Nakhichevan, the corresponding benefits promised to Armenia remain vaguely formulated and are not supported by equivalent legally binding arrangements. According to Khachatryan, neither the Washington declaration nor the subsequent Armenian-American framework specifies which routes Armenia would be permitted to use through Azerbaijan, whether Armenian domestic transportation could utilize TRIPP infrastructure or whether Armenia would enjoy comparable access to the project’s energy and communications components.

Khachatryan also questioned the legal and economic foundations of the arrangement, noting that no comprehensive economic impact assessment had been presented and that the rationale behind the proposed 74% American and 26% Armenian ownership structure remained insufficiently explained. He further warned that Armenia would be undertaking long-term, legally binding commitments without securing equivalent obligations from Azerbaijan, potentially limiting its ability to reconsider the arrangement should the promised reciprocal benefits fail to materialize.

Similar concerns were raised by ARF Bureau member and chair of the Armenian National Assembly Committee on Human Rights and Public Affairs Lilit Galstyan, who argued that TRIPP should be understood primarily as a geopolitical initiative rather than an ordinary transportation project. Galstyan criticized the government’s decision to advance the agreement independently of a comprehensive peace settlement, particularly while Armenian prisoners remain in Azerbaijani custody, territorial disputes remain unresolved and Baku continues to introduce new political demands.

Galstyan also questioned whether the agreement adequately protects Armenia’s sovereign authority over the infrastructure and territory involved. She pointed to the absence of clearly defined geographical boundaries for the project, the possibility of future legislative exceptions and the lack of detailed provisions distinguishing the authority of private operators from the sovereign functions of Armenian state institutions. In her assessment, the repeated recognition of Armenian sovereignty in the agreement does not, by itself, establish sufficient guarantees of effective state control.

The lawmaker further criticized the proposed 49-year arrangement, arguing that the agreement lacks sufficiently developed mechanisms for revising its terms or resolving disputes. She warned that future Armenian governments could consequently find themselves bound by long-term commitments without adequate means of adapting the arrangement to changing national interests or security circumstances.

Criticism of the initiative has also extended beyond parliament. Republican Party of Armenia deputy chairman and political prisoner Armen Ashotyan identified five major projects competing for east-west transit flows: TRIPP, Georgia’s Anaklia deepwater port, the operational Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway, the Aras corridor connecting Azerbaijan with Nakhichevan through Iran and the Turkmenistan-Iran-Turkey railway.

Ashotyan questioned the commercial viability of constructing new transportation infrastructure through Syunik when alternative routes are already operational or undergoing expansion. Citing estimates placing the cost of TRIPP’s railway, highway, energy and pipeline infrastructure at more than $2.4 billion, he argued that the project would face considerable competition for existing freight volumes. 

Ashotyan argued that the proposed route would primarily strengthen connectivity between Azerbaijan and Turkey, while potentially altering the regional balance involving Iran and Russia. In his assessment, the expansion of foreign involvement in strategically sensitive infrastructure could create additional vulnerabilities for Armenia, particularly if tensions between the United States and Iran intensify. 

Anna Grigoryan, parliamentary leader of the opposition Armenia Alliance, argued that although the agreement is formally concluded between Yerevan and Washington, Azerbaijan’s strategic interests are more clearly reflected in its provisions than Armenia’s own. 

The discussion also exposed the limits of parliamentary scrutiny. Of the 27 lawmakers registered to question the foreign minister during the Oct. 27 debate, only three were able to do so before the allotted time expired. The National Assembly had limited consideration of the agreement to two hours, a restriction that drew objections from deputies seeking further clarification.

In response, Mirzoyan argued that the economic interdependence created by TRIPP would itself encourage reciprocal access. He maintained that Azerbaijan could not meaningfully benefit from transit through Armenia without the broader reopening of transportation connections. 

Nevertheless, he acknowledged that the technical details of Armenian transit through Azerbaijan remained subject to future bilateral negotiations.

Parliament Speaker Ruben Rubinyan rejected the opposition’s argument that TRIPP should be contingent on the peace agreement. He maintained that progress on infrastructure and border delimitation should continue independently of Azerbaijan’s refusal to sign the treaty, presenting these developments as separate components of a wider normalization process.

The debate has unfolded against the backdrop of additional statements from Azerbaijan that have further complicated the political environment surrounding the peace process. On Oct. 26, Hikmet Hajiyev, a senior foreign policy adviser to Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, stated that Armenian society should apologize to Azerbaijanis displaced during the decades-long conflict.

He also expressed concern about what he described as revanchist tendencies within Armenian society, while reiterating Azerbaijan’s expectation that Armenia define its future within its internationally recognized borders.

The remarks drew criticism in Armenia, where questions were raised about whether Baku was introducing additional political expectations into a peace process already complicated by unresolved conditions. 

During the Oct. 27 parliamentary session, opposition lawmaker Tigran Abrahamyan questioned Foreign Minister Mirzoyan about the absence of an immediate official response to Hajiyev’s remarks. Mirzoyan acknowledged that such statements were not conducive to strengthening peace but cautioned against an exchange of inflammatory rhetoric. He also expressed the view that the demand for an apology could not constitute another precondition for signing the peace agreement.

The exchange was particularly significant given Azerbaijan’s continuing insistence that Armenia amend its Constitution before the bilateral peace treaty can be signed.

Despite the government’s rejection of Azerbaijan’s constitutional precondition, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has continued to pursue the adoption of a new Constitution, a process that increasingly intersects with the country’s broader normalization agenda. 

On Oct. 22, Pashinyan publicly acknowledged that he could seek another round of snap parliamentary elections if the government fails to secure sufficient support for its proposed constitutional changes. He stated that the draft Constitution would soon be published and submitted for parliamentary consideration, adding that the government would first attempt to persuade opposition lawmakers before exploring alternative scenarios.

The possibility of snap elections reflects the parliamentary arithmetic facing the government following the June 2026 elections. Civil Contract does not hold the two-thirds majority required to approve the constitutional draft for submission to a referendum. Both opposition blocs represented in the National Assembly have indicated that they will not support constitutional changes they regard as being imposed under pressure from Azerbaijan.

The issue consequently places the government’s peace agenda at the center of a domestic constitutional dispute. 

This week’s developments illustrate the increasingly complex relationship between Armenia’s foreign policy commitments and its domestic political constraints. The central challenge for Yerevan concerns whether the ongoing implementation of agreements can produce reciprocal political commitments, particularly when the formal peace treaty remains unsigned.

The post Yerevan ratifies TRIPP, lacks two-thirds for constitutional changes appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

Read the full article

The post AMAA honors Rev. Dr. Vahan H. Tootikian and Dr. Nurhan Helvacian appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

Read the full article

The post We speak Armenian to babies after four generations in the diaspora appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

Read the full article

The post Finding renewed purpose in the Armenian Museum of America appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

Born in Brighton and raised in Cambridge, Walter was the son of Armenian immigrants whose experiences helped shape his appreciation for education, perseverance, and opportunity. He graduated from Boston University and earned his law degree from Boston University School of Law in 1959, where he served on the Law Review.

Among the early immigration attorneys practicing in Boston, Walter devoted more than 55 years to representing individuals, families and businesses navigating the American immigration system. As the son of immigrants, he brought both professional expertise and a personal understanding of the challenges faced by those seeking to establish their lives in the United States. His work on the 1990 landmark case Matter of Delitizer changed how employment-based immigrant petitions are adjudicated and led to the nickname “Delitizer” by his peers.

In 1960, Walter established the Law Firm of Walter G. Vartanian. Forty years later, it became Vartanian & Vartanian with the addition of his son Gregory, with whom he practiced alongside for another 20 years. He served as president of the New England chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the Cambridge-Arlington-Belmont Bar Association. He was a member of the Massachusetts Bar Association and admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Deeply connected to his Armenian heritage, Walter was active in numerous community organizations. He served as vice president and secretary of the Parish Council of Holy Trinity Armenian Church of Greater Boston, as a board member of the National Association for Armenian Studies and Research, and as chairman of the Council of Armenian Executives. He was also a member of the Knights of Vartan and the Masons.

Beyond his professional life, Walter possessed a keen intellect, an extraordinary memory, and a lifelong interest in history, politics, sports and world affairs. He enjoyed lively conversation, spirited debate and sharing stories, often accompanied by his quick wit and distinctive sense of humor. His generosity and willingness to help others were equally characteristic of the man he was.

In 1962, Walter married his beloved wife, Anne Rose Ghougasian, of New York, at Holy Trinity Armenian Church in Cambridge. Together they raised three children and shared a life rich in family, friendship, travel and Armenian traditions.

Above all, Walter cherished his family. He took great pride in his children and grandchildren, valuing the time they spent together and the traditions passed from one generation to the next. Although he experienced the profound losses of his wife Anne and daughter Regina, his devotion to family remained a constant throughout his life.

In his later years, Walter recorded memories of his childhood, family history, career, and travels. Reflecting on his life, he expressed gratitude for his parents, sister, wife, children, grandchildren, and friends. He summarized his remarkable journey with characteristic simplicity: “Quite a trip.”

Walter was the beloved husband of the late Anne Rose (Ghougasian) Vartanian; devoted father of Gregory Vartanian and his wife Sonia, Carol Khalarian and her husband Alex, and the late Regina Najarian and her husband Berj; loving grandfather of Sebu, Avi, Nora, Armen, Eva and Natalie; and brother of the late Araxie Vartanian. He is also survived by many loving relatives and friends in Boston, New York, and beyond.

Funeral arrangements

Visiting hours were held Monday, Oct. 26, 2026, from 5 to 8 p.m. at Aram Bedrosian Funeral Home, 558 Mount Auburn St., Watertown, Massachusetts. 

Funeral services were held Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2026, at 11 a.m. at Holy Trinity Armenian Church, 145 Brattle St., Cambridge, Massachusetts. Interment followed at Mount Auburn Cemetery, Cambridge. 

In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions may be made to Holy Trinity Armenian Church or Camp Haiastan, P.O. Box C, Franklin, MA 02038.

The post In memory of Walter Vartanian appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

Dear compatriots,

It is simplistic and dangerous to approach TRIPP as merely a transportation project and to build optimism around the economic benefits of transit or the prospect of future prosperity.

TRIPP is, first and foremost, a geopolitical project, and the fundamental question is how Armenia protects its interests, sovereignty, and future.

No matter how much we attempt to avoid the security dimension, I find it unacceptable to separate TRIPP from a comprehensive framework for genuine peace, particularly when Armenian territories remain under occupation, Armenian prisoners continue to be held in Baku, and Azerbaijan imposes new demands on Armenia almost daily.

1. Transit does not automatically translate into economic benefit.

At least at this stage, no calculations have been presented regarding Armenia’s expected economic gains or the principle of reciprocity.

Beyond the economic considerations, the benefits for Azerbaijan and the Turkic world are enormous and evident. Nakhijevan would gain an unhindered connection to Azerbaijan, a development of historic strategic and geopolitical significance.

Meanwhile, the agreement contains no comparable mechanism defining the nature, scope, or enforceability of the “mutual benefits” promised to Armenia.

2. Armenia is granting development rights, as Pashinyan himself has acknowledged.

Yet a fundamental question remains unanswered: What specific territories will this development encompass?

Exclusive land-use and development rights are being granted for 49 years without clearly identifying the territories concerned.

3. We are being asked to vote on a document that, among its many shortcomings, uses language of assurances and aspirations rather than the binding legal terminology typically found in international agreements.

It relies on a “highly likely” approach.

It is evident that the legal ambiguities contained in the agreement pose serious risks to Armenia’s sovereignty and its ability to exercise effective control.

The Constitutional Court’s favorable opinion fails to address several important legal and constitutional questions.

Sovereignty is not measured by how many times it is reaffirmed on paper, but by the guaranteed existence of mechanisms ensuring effective control over one’s own territory.

The agreement provides for legislative exceptions whose content will be determined through commercial and contractual documents, including provisions concerning the acquisition of privately owned land and other related rights.

You are being asked to vote in favor of and ratify future legislative exceptions without knowing their content, and even before the charter and shareholders’ agreement have been signed or made public.

This raises a fundamental question: If these exceptions concern border protection, customs control, or certain aspects of law enforcement, will Armenia be able to exercise its sovereign authority fully?

In essence, the agreement fails to establish a clear distinction between the powers of the private operator and the functions of the state. Nor does it provide guarantees that Armenia will retain full sovereignty over the relevant territory and infrastructure.

4. The agreement contains no mechanisms for reversibility or dispute resolution.

It establishes a 49-year arrangement without guaranteeing future governments any mechanism for reviewing its terms should Armenia’s strategic priorities change.

5. If the TRIPP project fails to guarantee effective state control, clearly defined economic benefits, constitutional safeguards and the ability to revise its terms, it cannot simply be regarded as an opportunity for development.

Without these guarantees, the project could become a strategic threat whose consequences Armenia would be forced to bear for decades.

Naturally, Armenia needs new transportation routes and economic opportunities, but not at the expense of restricting its sovereignty or its freedom to make independent decisions.

I believe our concerns are justified: TRIPP appears to be more of a political arrangement than an agreement providing sustainable legal guarantees.

The post Galstyan warns TRIPP agreement carries sovereignty risks appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.