9 December 2025
Debate in Paris business school on Armenia’s direction
On Tuesday 9 December 2025, in an auditorium of a Paris business school, politicians, lawyers, academics, activists and leading figures from Armenian organisations in France gathered for an extended debate on the course Armenia is taking. At the centre of the discussion were the mounting confrontation between Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and the Armenian Apostolic Church and the question of what role the European Union can play in a fragile region. Professor Frédéric Encel chaired the meeting together with international affairs specialist Manel Msalmi, who repeatedly brought participants back to basic issues: how to prevent further escalation, how to safeguard fundamental rights and how Europe can offer support without becoming a party to the internal power struggle.
Pashinyan’s call for the removal of the current Catholicos of All Armenians, ongoing protests in the country and the detention of several senior clerics and religious figures formed the immediate backdrop. Speaker after speaker warned that an open clash between the state and a Church that has shaped Armenian identity for roughly fifteen centuries risks pushing the country into a deeper political and social crisis.
Human rights report by lawyer Robert Amsterdam
A key moment came when international lawyer Robert Amsterdam, known for his defence of Russian opposition figure Mikhail Khodorkovsky, presented his report. He levelled strong criticism at the Armenian authorities and argued that serious human rights violations are taking place. In his view, the way the government in Yerevan deals with the Armenian Apostolic Church and political opponents undermines basic freedoms and sits uneasily with Armenia’s own democratic commitments.
Amsterdam described his work as that of a human rights advocate confronting selective justice and prosecutions he considers politically motivated. In his analysis, detained clergy and opponents are not only legal targets but also symbols in a broader struggle over power, legitimacy and the country’s future direction.
European political voices and diaspora leaders
Not all participants fully endorsed Amsterdam’s reading. Nathalie Loiseau, a Member of the European Parliament from the liberal Renew group, chose a different emphasis. She focused on the need to respect democratic procedures, act with restraint and preserve institutions, without signing on to every conclusion in the report.
Prominent members of the Armenian diaspora in France were nonetheless explicit about their concern. Murad Papazian, co-president of the Coordinating Council of Armenian Organisations of France (CCAF), aligned himself with many of Amsterdam’s concerns and recalled how he was barred from entering Armenia, which he linked to his political disagreement with Pashinyan’s line. CCAF vice-president Ara Toranian went further, describing an increasingly restrictive political climate in Yerevan and raising the issue of people he considers political prisoners.
Rule of law, political pressure and regional context
French lawyer Charles Consigny, a member of the Paris Bar and a regular media commentator, also sided with the critics. Referring to his defence of several clients, including Armenian-Russian businessman Samvel Karapetyan, he argued that political pressure can be felt inside the Armenian judicial system. He used the Karapetyan case and other files to illustrate his conviction that judicial decisions are being influenced by political calculations.
International lawyer Gérard Devedjian sought to place the discussion in a wider context. He acknowledged the seriousness of the internal tensions and the sensitivity of the Church question, but stressed that Armenia is still consolidating its state structures after decades of communist rule and faces a demanding regional environment. Devedjian said he understood certain elements of Pashinyan’s strategy and argued that any assessment of the government’s actions must take Armenia’s security vulnerabilities into account. He was one of a smaller group of speakers who did not fully join the dominant critical line towards the prime minister.
History, genocide memory and the role of the Church
US-based Armenian activist Simone Rizkallah brought the longest historical perspective. She returned to the trauma of the 1915 genocide, recalled the support Armenians received at the time from people in other countries and called for recognition of what she described as a historical mission of the Armenian people, centred on memory and reconciliation.
Her contribution was less focused on day-to-day politics and more on continuity. By stressing the role of the Armenian Apostolic Church in the survival of Armenians through persecution and exile, she reinforced the argument that the current standoff between state and Church is not a narrow institutional dispute but a question that touches on identity, both in Armenia and in the diaspora.
Former French education minister Jean-Michel Blanquer, whose words were met with particular respect, also voiced concern about the direction Armenia is taking. Referring to what he called a lasting French commitment to Armenia rooted in the memory of 1915, he urged that internal conflicts, including tensions with the Church, be resolved peacefully and within a democratic and constitutional framework. His appeal for de-escalation and respect for institutions was widely interpreted as a clear warning to the authorities in Yerevan.
Calls for de-escalation and a cautious EU role
Throughout the event, co-moderator Manel Msalmi returned to practical questions: how to avoid further escalation, how to ensure credible legal safeguards for detained clergy and political opponents, and how the European Union can support Armenia’s democratic institutions without taking sides in domestic political rivalries.
By the end of the conference, several points of agreement had emerged despite clear differences of nuance. Many speakers underlined that Armenia’s national identity is closely intertwined with the Armenian Apostolic Church, which has accompanied the Armenian people for around fifteen centuries. The Pashinyan government’s current policy towards the Church leadership was strongly criticised by a majority of participants, who warned that a confrontation with such a central institution could further undermine stability. A smaller group, including Gérard Devedjian, insisted that Armenia’s regional context and security challenges should weigh heavily in any judgement of government action.
Across the spectrum, participants called for a peaceful, constitutional and negotiated way out of the crisis, with respect for religious freedom, human rights and political pluralism. For the European Union, many speakers envisaged a role as a careful partner: supporting judicial independence, monitoring human rights and political freedoms, encouraging dialogue between the state and the Church hierarchy, and backing Armenia’s European aspirations without deepening internal divisions or weakening its sovereignty.
Sources:
Conference on Armenia debate in Paris, Paris business school, pictures Ben Production
Andy Vermaut +32499357495