Exclusive interview with Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan: The future of Armenia, legacy of genocide and regional relations
Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan of the Armenian Apostolic Church has emerged as an increasingly prominent leader in Armenia in the last year as discontent has mounted towards the sitting government, a process which has accelerated since Azerbaijan assumed control of Artsakh.
Notably, he has led a series of protests, some attracting around 30,000 people in Yerevan, Armenia’s capital. The political turbulence in Armenia has spiraled since the outbreak of fresh conflict with Azerbaijan, which began in late 2020 and ultimately resulted in around 100,000 Armenians fleeing Artsakh in September of 2023. The protests of 2024 were triggered after Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan entered a unilateral agreement process with Azerbaijan to transfer four villages in the Qazakh District to Azerbaijan as part of ongoing peace negotiations.
Since May 2024, Archbishop Galstanyan has acclaimed a core following in the country and has been elevated to a cult-status figure, with murals appearing of him on the streets of Yerevan. Educated in Canada and the United Kingdom, the Archbishop has become a key leader of this popular street movement. Despite on-going efforts to block his candidacy, he is set to run as a candidate for Prime Minister in the up-coming parliamentary elections that are set to take place before January 2026.
I met the Archbishop in Yerevan earlier this summer, and he was generous enough to follow up with an exclusive interview for Providence.
Harry Bennett: What was your motivation to become politically active and what is your vision for the coming months and years, both for you personally and for Armenia?
Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan: There is no political motivation, there is no politics actually, by and large, because what we have started is to protect our national identity and we have started this movement as a spiritual, moral, ethical kind of demonstration to restore our internal life which is filled with enmity and hatred; the society, in general, is degrading. As a spiritual man, a clergyman, it was my main concern and anxiety seeing all this. I mean, all this process is a degrading process, my concern was to cry out and show more forcefully and demonstrate our disagreement with the policies that the government has implemented in our life and reduce the deception and the moral stand of the government that is now in power in Armenia.
Secondly, it was to protect the rights of the people and protect the Constitution that has been violated on many occasions. Finally, it (the movement) was against the so-called delimitation and demarcation process that was done against the constitution of Armenia, and then without any international guarantors or mediators, basically it was a process that has been forcefully implemented by Azerbaijan, and the Armenian government conceded.
So, we wanted to protect [the] legal aspect of our rights, and the constitution of Armenia. So this entire movement, as I have mentioned and spoken about on many occasions, the entire movement has two layers.
First, it is the moral, ethical, and spiritual, and secondly, it is legal - that is why we came out, not as a political leader or with political motivations, but as a man who sensed that this entire environment is a threat to our national identity, to our integrity, and to our biography.
After all, we have been through many difficulties and sufferings, we have lost lots of friends, we have lost part of our motherland – Nagorno-Karabakh, Artsakh – so everything in our life has turned upside down, and that is why, I very profoundly stress and accentuate that this is not a political movement – and for the Western mind it has to be very, very clear that there is no politics in our movement. Even though the solutions at the end should be political, the movement itself is not political – its moral, spiritual, [and] national aimed at restoring our identity.
HB: What should the future of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations be, and what needs to be done to make that a reality?
ABG: First of all, we have to consider that there is no relationship or more specifically that there is no negotiation between Armenia and Azerbaijan. It is unilateral, one-sided. It is (currently) a forceful dictation of terms that is being put forward by Azerbaijan. Armenia is very humbly and very loyally accepting everything that is coming from Azerbaijan. So, there [are] no negotiations – we have to fix this – they have to very adamantly understand that there is no relationship between Armenia and Azerbaijan – it’s just the imitation of it – what we are saying is to re-establish the real negotiation process with international mediators or guarantors, we should be present in every single conversation between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Right now Armenia is not, as we have been saying, at the table - Armenia is on the table – Armenia has no say, Armenia is not a factor in all these conversations, talks, negotiations, so-called negotiations and it’s just very, very diligently performing whatever is coming from Azerbaijan or from other powers and that is why we’re saying that the real negotiation - the true sense of negotiations, has to be established, restored and also there are points that should be involved in those negotiations.
First of all, the question of the return of the Nagorno-Karabakh people back to Artsakh, back to Nagorno-Karabakh.
Second is humanitarian. There are lots of Armenians – so-called war prisoners – who were suffering in the prisons of Baku.
The third point is to talk about a real and long-lasting peace agreement – with certain conditions and with certain points that would serve the interest, not only to serve the interests of Armenia, but the interests of all sides, but what is going on right now is totally unacceptable. After all, we are living in an environment that is not very friendly towards Armenia due to Azerbaijani and Turkish demands. They’re demanding every day, single big major and minor things, requirements up to the sort of getting involved in the internal politics of the Republic of Armenia and demands such as the changing the constitution of Armenia or some points in the constitution. That won’t serve the interests of Armenia, as well as the interests of the neighboring countries and neighboring people.
What we are proposing are long-lasting peace and trustworthy relationships. The Armenian government has to be very much understanding and transparent in international relations – which is not the case right now
HB: I’m going to quote your own words from your master’s thesis at Concordia University. You wrote in your thesis – ‘’The adoption of Christianity in Armenia as a state religion was a turning point in the sphere of healthcare’’ – and therefore I’d like to ask you, how do you see the relationship between church and state?
ABG: It is a unique case in a way, the Armenian case, regarding the church and state relationship – it’s a unique case – because the adoption of Christianity in Armenia begun with the close cooperation and the mutual deep understanding and relationship between the state and the church even though the church wasn’t formed classically speaking. Well, Christianity was adopted by the involvement of the King of the state and through the cooperation with the catholicos - let’s say with the church – which wasn’t formed basically at that time, it just started as a spiritual movement and then became – as one of our 5th-century historians depicted - became the color of our skin.
We have to understand, that there is a saying that in the 4th century, Armenia became Christian and after a century Christianity in Armenia became Armenia – it has become very much an integral part of our identity and therefore the relationship between church and state in the Armenian perception is a unique perception.
It is not like in Europe specifically after the French Revolution, it is not like in Europe before the French Revolution – and it has become generally speaking, as I have mentioned very much, a very integral part of our identity, an inseparable part of our identity. The church and state relationship throughout centuries haven’t been very peaceful. There have been lots of misunderstandings, lots of controversies - but for a long period of time the church has been the leader not only in spiritual matters or religious matters, but also in political , socioeconomic matters and that’s what has taken basically the role of the state, and today, after the independence of Armenia the constitution is very much recognizing that and the constitution very significantly points out that the church has played a very important role in keeping the cultural and national identity alive and has become the beacon and protector of that cultural and national identity. It is registered in our constitution, so the state recognizes this and the important role of the church throughout centuries.
Coming to the contemporary relationship of the church and the state, what we are saying is that the church has no political interest or motivation or ambitions – but the church is speaking about the truth in mentioning all the failures that the government – not the state but the government – is performing right now which is totally against the national and cultural and spiritual as well as political and social interest of our nation of our people. The church has to speak about it because the church is the moral, ethical pillar of our nation regardless of how much there is a huge repression in the attack on the church.
The government is having difficulty understanding that without being involved in the politics or having any political ambition the church must speak about the truth and not conceal it, it is part of its nature, after all, it is the demand of our Lord Jesus Christ to recognize the truth and the truth will set you free, will liberate you. All we are doing is speaking about the truth, about unacceptable behaviors about failed politics which are totally against the interests of our state and of our people.
HB: Could you please reflect on the Western recognition of the Armenian genocide and how important this issue is to the Armenian population?
ABG: The recognition of genocide is one of the issues that Azerbaijan and Turkey have put forward – to remove it from the Armenian national agenda.
That is one of the points which is registered – which is written not only in the constitution but in the declaration of the independence of Armenia. It is very understandable that Turkey and Azerbaijan are focused on the issue because they know that after the 1915 genocidal act – of the genocide – Armenians have been trying to gather around, it has become an ideological issue for us. Not only the issue of reparations of justice and truth but it is also ideological: This should never, never be repeated again.
Basically, I am saying never, ever again. We have been through sufferings, we have been through genocide, calamities, all sorts of tragedies that could have possibly happened to any nation – we have been through it. Not only Western countries but world recognition of the Armenian genocide [is needed], it is not only for Armenians, it is in a way to restore human justice – it is against humanity – as it has been mentioned many times within the international community and last time it was spoken about by Pope Francis who mentioned that this is not only against a specific nation but it is against humanity.
Without proper recognition of the Armenian genocide, the international communities are opening up – has already opened a door – towards the violation of rights and genocides. The recognition is not only for Armenians but for the entire human race. When it is denied… having its proper consequences towards other nations, towards entering humanity and it is very important to recognize but it shouldn’t stay there and shouldn’t serve the political interest of those countries or nations or states who are recognizing the Armenian genocide for their own political second interests. We are not naïve; we understand that justice is not an absolute value in the world. We know that, but at least the double standards are not acceptable.
HB: What should Armenia’s relationship be with Russia and how can Armenia reconcile EU membership and friendship with Russia, and following on from that, how may Armenia combat Russian malign intent in the region?
ABG: First of all, Armenia has to have pro and not anti-relationship with all the international players because Armenia cannot survive in an environment of… geopolitical conflicts. Before 2018, the Armenian government put all the efforts to have a right balance in its relationship with Russia, European Union and Western powers, it was a very balanced political relationship - very much balanced – you know that Armenia was and still is an alley with Russia - on the other hand, there was an agreement to deepen the relationship with the EU even though Armenia isn’t a member – there was the CEPA package – which was related to economic development with the EU. So, it was a balanced, as we call it a ‘’complementary relationship’’.
Armenia has to return to that, on that separate relationship with the EU package of CEPA which was put forward in 2016 or 17. It was a very intensive agreement, so Armenia has to return to its traditional position.
What is very, very, very important – and I’m mentioning it three times – is it is absolutely important for Armenia to have its own Armenian agenda as the axis in these international relationships.
Look we have our neighbor Iran – very friendly – , we have good terms, a good relationship with them – but on the other hand we know that there’s sanctions by the Western countries or Western powers towards them. We know that the relationship between Iran and the West is not in good terms. Iran is a very important and friendly country, a neighboring country for us for Armenians.
So, Armenia has to have its own national agenda through all these relationships without serving the interest of this or that geopolitical interests.
HB: …and do you believe that Armenia is able to have its own interests as a member of the European Union?
ABG: Look, I don’t think that Armenia will be accepted to the European Union for a long, long time from now – there is the case of Ukraine, there is the case of Georgia and it’s not that clear – it’s foggy – it is also very dangerous and difficult to become a new Georgia or a new Ukraine. Armenia has to deepen its relationship with the European Union and with all the players, with all the powers. Armenia cannot take a one-directional, anti-political sort of orientation. Armenia has to play the role of not conflicting but complementing this understandable geopolitical conflict that is right now going on in the world.
HB: When I was in Yerevan in the summer, I drove past a billboard of President Biden with a thank you message, so I’d like to ask you Trump, Harris, Biden – friends or foes of Armenia?
ABG: I don’t know I really don’t know; I don’t have a political analytical mind so I cannot make any comment.
All I guess, is what is good for America. America is a big power; the United States has its own policies and politics as I have mentioned earlier. Our mission is to have a good relationship with the United States regardless of who is the President, because in the internal politics [of] America, the President has a very important role but the entire mechanism, the system is working, so therefore to me, in my opinion, there wouldn’t be any major change.
Maybe internally yes there would be change- economically – maybe there would be a change which is very healthy for the world because the American economy influences the world, it affects economic trends in the world. But, in the external policies – Foreign Relations – I don’t think there would be any change – any major change at least.
One very final point and also one which I think is very important, I’ve written in one of my essays that there is a core value – American messianism – saving the world – saving so-called democracy – but which democracy, what democracy, what kind of democracy - sometimes democracy is being established by force in the case of Iraq , the Middle East and so there is the core value in the system – American messianism – striving, trying to change the world according to their own perceptions and understandings.
HB: Final thoughts?
ABG: My deepest appreciation and thanks for this opportunity with Providence. I exhort and I ask all your readers, I wish to have a true justice and truth in the world where we preach our religion of Christianity or spiritual ideology or the ideas we have to follow. We have to make it very tangible in our life; as you know the world is living through double standards and sometimes, most of the time it’s not the justice or the rights of the people that are becoming decisive in the politics but the power. Not the power of rights, but the right of power. There are people in the world, that have rights and the people who do not who have rights; as in the case of Nagorno Karabakh and the people of Nagorno Karabakh that have been cleansed from their own homes and homeland and I wish for your readers to reflect on true justice and to make it reality.
