
Pashinyan says Armenia will not be ‘involved in any action against’ Iran
The statement came in an interview with the state-controlled Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting.
You can help us survive with a monthly membership or a single donation for as little as $5. In a world drowning in disinformation, your support means we can continue bringing you the real, fact-checked stories that matter.
Become a memberOn Wednesday, the Armenian Parliament passed a bill to alter the national anthem, focusing on establishing a unified, shorter version, as well as switching the order of the final stanzas.
The changes were passed with 64 MPs in favour and four voting against.
The anthem, ‘Our Fatherland’, was adopted following Armenia’s independence from the USSR in 1991, and based on the anthem of the First Armenian Republic (1918–1920).
The order of the final two stanzas of the anthem will be switched, which the ruling Civil Contract party argued would have a more ‘appropriate logic[al] message’.
The anthem’s current second-to-last verse praises the Armenian flag:
Look at it, tricoloured,
A valuable symbol for us.
Let it shine against the enemy.
Let Armenia be glorious forever.
The final verse is focused on sacrificing oneself ‘for the freedom of his nation’:
Death is the same everywhere,
A man dies but once,
Blessed is the one who dies
For the freedom of his nation.
Prior to the passage of the official changes, the newly structured national anthem was used in several official ceremonies, including in the inaugural session of Armenia’s parliament in September 2024.
In November 2024, the Yerevan State Chamber Choir told RFE/RL that ‘the desire [for the change] came from [Pashinyan’s] staff’, adding that it was ‘a final state decision’, and that the choir had been performing that version ‘for months’.
When lobbying for the change to be officially approved by parliament, lawmakers in favour of the move argued that different versions of the anthem have been played in public, necessitating the need for a single, unified version.
At the same time, opponents of the move have argued that countries should protect their traditions even in the case of changing times.