Police use stun grenades and injure dozens of “Tavush for the Fatherland” protesters

YEREVAN – At least 30 protesters were injured today when police fired stun grenades during a “Tavush for the Fatherland” demonstration in front of the Armenian National Assembly.

While Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan took part in a question-and-answer session with MPs in the parliament building, the movement’s leader, Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan, and thousands of supporters gathered on Baghramyan Avenue, right in front of the National Assembly. set up Tents on Baghramyan Avenue to demand a vote of no confidence in the current regime.

“The man who has abandoned the state must not be able to go to work unhindered and cynically ignore the suffering he has inflicted on our people,” Archbishop Galstanyan said, calling on protesters to prevent Prime Minister Pashinyan from leaving the building.

At least 86 protesters have been arrested so far in a collision with the police. Shortly after protesters and police threw bottles at each other, police fired stun grenades, injuring dozens of protesters and several journalists. One man had his hand ripped off after he picked up one of the grenades to throw it back at the police. Ambulances arrived on the scene to provide first aid.

Prime Minister Pashinyan defended the police’s actions and stated from the podium of the National Assembly that they were fulfilling “their legally assigned duties” while protests continued outside the building. “Tavush for the Fatherland” published a video representing The Prime Minister quickly left Parliament after police used stun grenades.

Late in the evening of June 11, participants of the movement also erected border markers in front of the gates of the National Assembly. These markers, bearing the words “demarcation” and “demarcation,” symbolize their opposition to the process of border demarcation and the handover of four villages in Tavush to Azerbaijan.

Archbishop Galstanyan spoke at a rally on June 9 at Republic Square. criticized Developments in the negotiation process between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Archbishop Galstanyan said that this proposed agreement does not promote peace, but represents a series of unilateral concessions to Azerbaijan’s endless demands.

Speaking to the crowd, Archbishop Galstanyan expressed the frustration of the movement’s supporters, stating: “Azerbaijan’s demands are endless and Armenia’s representatives are ready to fulfill them all as long as they can keep their seats, but we cannot tolerate this. We cannot live in constant humiliation and fear. We must change this situation and we can. We have the potential to do so.”

He called for a collective mobilization, saying: “At this moment we must make a decision together. We can solve the problem if we take to the streets starting tomorrow for just four days, 96 hours without a break, without going to work, without rest, without long sleep, to impose our will.”

Archbishop Galstanyan outlined concrete steps, including convening a parliamentary session on June 11 to demand the government’s resignation and the formation of a new one by opposition members. In addition, he called on the Council of the National Assembly to convene an extraordinary session on June 10 to approve this change of government based on popular demands.

These announcements reflect a growing sense of urgency and determination within the opposition movement to address perceived deficiencies in the negotiation process and protect Armenia’s interests in the face of increasing pressure from Azerbaijan.

The President of the National Assembly Alen Simonyan specified on June 10 that the Council of the National Assembly decided to reject the request of the opposition parliamentary factions “Armenia” and “I have honor” to convene an extraordinary session. Simonyan stressed that the resignation of the government was not on their agenda.

Meanwhile, the negotiation process for a peace treaty between Yerevan and Baku has entered a critical phase. Since the beginning of June, discussions about the treaty have once again been a major topic in the news.

Between 4 and 7 June, Armenia and Azerbaijan busy in a renewed exchange of comments and recommendations on the content of the agreement. However, the exchange revealed very different interpretations of the negotiation process from the Armenian and Azerbaijani perspectives.

In the last Testify At a TURKPA meeting on June 6, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said that Azerbaijan would not sign any agreement until Armenia revises its constitution, which he said contains “territorial claims” against Azerbaijan. The Armenian constitution refers to the unification of Armenia and Artsakh.

President Aliyev said such “territorial claims” could serve as a pretext for future conflicts. He called on Armenia to abandon all “revanchist” ideas, which he said are widespread not only in opposition groups but also in the current Armenian government.

Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan replied that Armenia has no territorial claims against its neighbors, including Azerbaijan. The Foreign Ministry stressed that all discussions on Armenia’s constitution are internal affairs and accused Azerbaijan of undermining the peace process by interfering in internal affairs.

On June 12, Prime Minister Pashinyan said that changing the Armenian constitution could not be part of the negotiation process. He said there were “tendencies to interfere in Armenia’s internal affairs” based on “disinformation.”

On June 6, Aliyev also said suggested that Armenia supports the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group, the main international body tasked with mediating the Artsakh conflict. He said Armenia’s opposition to this indicates ongoing territorial ambitions.

In response specified that the Minsk Group would only become redundant if a peace treaty were signed. Armenia does not consider the dissolution of the group a prerequisite for the treaty, but a subsequent step.

Despite these ongoing tensions announced on June 7 that they were ready to conclude a peace agreement within a month, while acknowledging that some differences of opinion still remain. This optimism contrasts with the continued confrontational rhetoric of the Azerbaijani authorities.

In a recent opinion piece, MP Arman Abovyan argued that there is a significant inequality in the starting conditions for negotiations between the parties. Armenia and Azerbaijan have profoundly different expectations regarding the goals of the negotiations.

The Armenian government appears ready to accept the post-war regional framework in 2020, including recognizing Artsakh as part of Azerbaijan and “coming to terms” with the ethnic cleansing of Armenians in the region. In addition, Armenia has signaled its readiness to open all regional ties, including those connecting the mainland of Azerbaijan with Nakhchivan, and to demarcate borders in line with the Alma-Ata Declaration. These concessions show that Armenia is ready to meet Azerbaijan’s requirements for the peace treaty.

While Armenia sees the treaty as a final step to affirm existing regional dynamics, Azerbaijan is using it as an intermediate step to realize its strategic goal of fragmenting Armenia. Abovyan argued that Azerbaijan’s demands, including a revision of the Armenian constitution, the creation of a corridor through the Syunik region without Armenian control, and the settlement of Turkish populations on Armenian territory, reveal its intention to fundamentally change Armenia’s national character and territorial integrity.

Azerbaijan seeks the dissolution of the Armenian state, which is evident in its anti-Armenian propaganda and territorial claims. Given these realities, the Armenian authorities’ optimism about a negotiated solution with Azerbaijan seems misplaced, Abovyan argues.

The negotiations, once conceived as a path to peace, have now become a forum for discussing conditions that threaten the existence of the Armenian state. It is urgent that the Armenian government reconsider its approach so that it does not inadvertently contribute to the erosion of Armenia’s sovereignty and identity, Abovyan concluded.

Hoory Minoyan was an active member of the Armenian community in Los Angeles until she moved to Armenia before the 44-day war. She earned a master’s degree in international affairs from Boston University, where she also received the William R. Keylor Traveling Fellowship. The research and interviews she conducted in Armenia later formed the basis of her master’s thesis, “Shaping Identity Through Conflict: The Armenian Experience.” Hoory continues to pursue her passion for research and writing, contributing to the Armenian Weekly.