Armenia initialed a peace agreement with Azerbaijan and pledged to give the United States exclusive rights to a transit route through its territory in a trilateral declaration signed during the Washington-hosted meeting.
The deal drew widespread international support, including endorsements from Western and regional leaders. However, Iran and Russia expressed concern over the U.S. role in the proposed transit route, which Azerbaijan has demanded as a connection to its Nakhichevan exclave.
Three days after the Washington agreements, the largest opposition faction in the Armenian parliament, Hayastan, along with the former ruling Republic Party of Armenia, which forms the second opposition faction, issued statements criticizing the accords.
“The commitments assumed by [Prime Minister] Nikol Pashinian through the statement made at the trilateral meeting in the United States, as well as the initialed agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan – whose importance is being unjustifiably exaggerated by representatives of the Pashinian regime – have nothing to do with real peace,” Hayastan said in a statement.
The alliance, led by former President Robert Kocharian, described the Washington agreements as “an attempt to legitimize the ethnic cleansing committed by Azerbaijan against Armenians of Artsakh [Nagorno-Karabakh], the fabricated trials, the erasure of the Armenian trace from Artsakh, and, through the dissolution of the Minsk Group, the removal of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue from the international agenda, along with the occupation of Armenia’s sovereign territories.”
“These steps not only fail to eliminate the three-decade-long Turkish-Azerbaijani blockade and hostile actions against Armenia, but also provide Azerbaijan with an unimpeded corridor through Armenia’s sovereign territory, creating additional conditions for limiting Armenia’s sovereignty and continuing aggression,” the opposition alliance said.
The opposition also dismissed provisions in the newly published peace agreement regarding mutual recognition of territorial integrity and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs as superficial, arguing they lack international guarantees.
The Republican Party of Armenia, which described the trilateral declaration as a “surrender” for Armenia, expressed deep concern about the Washington agreements. The party sees them as yet another dangerous document signed by Armenian leadership “under the pressure of Azerbaijani aggression, unilateral demands, and geopolitical processes.”
“While recognizing and valuing U.S. President Donald Trump’s peace efforts, we must state that by signing this agreement, Armenia’s reckless leadership is putting the country’s sovereignty through a dangerous trial and sacrificing the rights of the people of Artsakh by legitimizing the ethnic cleansing and forced displacement carried out by the Baku regime in Artsakh,” the Republican Party of Armenia said.
Reacting to the criticism, Maria Karapetian, a lawmaker from the ruling Civil Contract party, wrote on Facebook: “In short, the opposition wants something that either doesn’t exist – namely, geopolitical justice, or something that, of course, did exist: an Armenian people in a South Caucasus declared as a ‘zone of influence’ demanding justice from the world and a perpetual conflict.”
Non-parliamentary opposition figures also weighed in. Edmon Marukian, leader of the Bright Armenia party, highlighted the lack of clarity regarding territorial recognition. He mentioned that while Yerevan and Baku reference the Alma-Ata Declaration and affirm each other’s territorial integrity in the agreement, no specific map is included to clarify what Azerbaijan recognizes as Armenia. Meanwhile, he said, Armenia has already publicly recognized Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity in square kilometers without a reciprocal public recognition from Baku.
“Azerbaijan hasn’t recognized Armenia with any specific map. This [would appear to be] the only thing in this document — with all these concessions, all that’s been given away, with all positions lost and territory handed over — but it’s, too, like a sword of Damocles, hanging over our heads, because there is no map attached to this paper,” Marukian said.
At one stage of the negotiations over the peace agreement that were conducted since March 2022 – before the border delimitation process was separated from the peace agreement – the Armenian side had proposed including a specific map, notably the latest Soviet map from 1975. Baku, however, rejected the proposal.
Later, when border delimitation was decoupled from the peace agreement and continued in a separate format, Armenia did not insist on including a map, and the rules of procedure for the delimitation commissions were ratified without one.
In Marukian’s opinion, this version of the agreement reflects Azerbaijan’s strategy to avoid constraints during future border negotiations, enabling it to continue making territorial claims against Armenia.
Meanwhile, shortly after Washington meetings, Prime Minister Pashinian declared that Armenia is at the height of its independence and sovereignty and that peace has been achieved.
“A historic event took place. We can state that peace has been established between Armenia and Azerbaijan,” Pashinian said.