Speaking at a meeting with parliament speakers of the Parliamentary Assembly of Turkic States in Baku on June six, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev reiterated Baku’s official posture that signing a peace settlement with Armenia is extremely hard as very long as the present Constitution of Armenia stays unchanged. President Aliyev’s remarks arrived ideal soon after Armenian Overseas Minister Ararat Mirzoyan, talking at an Armenian parliament session, falsely experimented with to equate the overtly irredentist promises that are enshrined in the Armenian Structure with Azerbaijan’s Constitution wherever no these types of promises exist. Mirzoyan claimed that equally Armenia and Azerbaijan see each and every other’s constitution as an impediment to a sturdy peace, and constitutional modifications are not on the agenda of the ongoing peace talks. In an formal assertion pursuing President Aliyev’s remarks, the Armenian Overseas Ministry rejected producing constitutional amendments to eliminate the irredentist promises in opposition to Azerbaijan, alleging that Armenia does not have territorial statements versus its neighbours, and that the draft version of the peace arrangement envisages the sides not employing domestic laws in buy to meet up with their obligations.
The ongoing peace talks involving Armenia and Azerbaijan have manufactured some essential breakthroughs considering that December 2023 when the two international locations jointly issued a assertion on reaching a peace settlement based mostly on the concepts of sovereignty and territorial integrity. Direct negotiations involving the two sides without the need of the destructive interference of 3rd parties paved the way to achieving the arrangement on the delimitation and demarcation of twelve.seven kilometres of the border with the return of four Azerbaijani villages – Baghanis Ayrım, Ashaghi Askipara, Kheyrimli and Ghizilhajili – to Azerbaijan which were being occupied by Armenia in the nineteen nineties.
This coincided with the emergence of the radical extremist priest Bagrat Galstanyan who is a revanchist extremist identified for praising terrorism and irredentism and at present the chief of opposition to the Armenia-Azerbaijan normalisation and border delimitation agreement. Bagrat’s anti peace stance acquired guidance from equally pro-Russia and pro-West revanchist circles, these as the pro-Russia former presidents Kocharyan and Sargsyan, the Armenian Church and the pro-Western extremist Jirayr Sefilyan.
Pashinyan’s Search for a New Constitution
On Jan 18, Armenia’s PM Nikol Pashinyan argued that Armenia wants a new constitution not just amendments. Pashinyan’s assertion is significant as it advocates the modification of the point out ideology enshrined at present in Armenia’s Constitution. He argues that the new realities in the region as properly as the ongoing transition in the global method require Armenia to stop irredentist promises in opposition to neighbours and concentrate on Armenia as a state within its territorial borders as part of ensuring what he calls legitimacy. In other words, Pashinyan’s look at is that in buy to make certain its protection Armenia ought to abandon the territorial claims in its Structure and adopt a new one particular. Pashinyan’s quest for a new constitution is typically about the domestic politics and difficulties of Armenia, however, the irredentist promises that the Armenian Structure is made up of are the main hurdle to obtaining resilient peace in the South Caucasus region. In an job interview to regional media in February, Pashinyan touched on the have to have to solve the difficulty of the Armenian Declaration of Independence and argued that if condition policies continue to be guided by the Declaration’s message about the reunification of the National Council of the former Nagorno Karabakh and the Supreme Council of Armenia there “will not be peace”. The Armenian PM even used a metaphor evaluating the Armenian Declaration of Independence which consists of open promises on neighbours to a red costume that attracts bulls.
Irredentist Statements in Armenia’s Constitution
When Azerbaijan details out the want for modifications in the existing Armenian Constitution, it is referring to the elimination of the territorial promises enshrined in the Armenian Declaration of Independence first and foremost. The preamble to the Declaration states, ‘Based on the December 1, 1989, joint decision of the Armenian SSR Supreme Council and the Artsakh Countrywide Council on the “Reunification of the Armenian SSR and the Mountainous Location of Karabakh”.’ This suggests that Armenia’s point out policy is dependent on the annexation of section of the internationally recognised territory of Azerbaijan.
In other phrases, Armenia’s irredentist statements versus Azerbaijan are rooted in the Armenian Declaration of Independence and created a aspect of nationwide policy. These statements started out in 1988 as aspect of the Miatsum (Unification) motion with the aim of annexing portion of Azerbaijan’s Karabakh area to Armenia and turned into a entire-blown conflict with the subsequent Armenian profession of Azerbaijani lands and irredentist maps hanging on the partitions of Armenian officials. The Declaration also contains indirect territorial claims towards Turkey in the preamble wherever it makes “the realization of the aspirations of all Armenians and the restoration of historic justice” a priority for Armenia, and in clause 11 which states that “The Republic of Armenia stands in aid of the task of acquiring international recognition of the 1915 Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia.” In Armenian political discourse the expression “Western Armenia” indicates the Jap elements of the Republic of Turkey, so restoring historical justice refers to territorial claims on Japanese Turkey.
Nevertheless, the Armenian Declaration of Independence is not the only obstacle in the peace system: the termination of the Armenian Parliament’s 13 July 1992 selection prohibiting the Armenian authorities from recognising Karabakh as component of Azerbaijan ought to be tackled way too. In actuality, this legislative selection prohibits Armenian PM Pashinyan from signing a peace deal and recognising Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. Thinking about that the ruling Civil Deal Celebration of Armenia retains a sizeable parliamentary greater part, they could nullify this legislative decision effortlessly devoid of keeping a referendum. The Armenian Structure adopted in 1995 requires presidential candidates to have been resident in the nation for 10 years and to have been a citizen all through that time. When Robert Kocharyan turned Armenian president he did not meet these necessities. As a substitute he argued that his candidacy was “legal” centered on the Armenian Declaration of Independence. The Armenian Constitutional Court docket and the Central Election Fee certified and registered him. In addition, Armenia’s official and diplomatic documents have contained territorial claims towards Azerbaijan in the sort of references to the lawfully non-existent entity Nagorno Karabakh all these yrs.
To sum up, Armenia’s argument that a peace treaty with a clause about neither aspect working with domestic legislation presently contradicts the current irredentist claims enshrined in Armenia’s Structure as effectively as the legislative selection of July 1992. Taking into consideration that the Armenian parliament and Constitutional Court have to approve a achievable peace agreement this already generates uncertainty. In addition, Azerbaijan would like to accomplish a lasting peace with Armenia as a nation and the Armenian men and women, not just with the ruling Civil Deal Get together. It is the territorial claims enshrined in the Armenian Constitution that are a subject of problem for Azerbaijan, not Armenia’s interior political system which Pashinyan would like to modify. To request the removing of the statements to Azerbaijani territory enshrined in Armenia’s Declaration of Independence and other formal documents can hardly be considered interference in purely inside affairs, as claimed by Armenia’s MFA. Currently revanchists are saying that they will nullify Pashinyan’s choices. Azerbaijan’s stance on the removal of the current territorial promises from Armenia’s Structure is rational, as upcoming Armenian governments need to not be ready to walk away from a peace offer or revive territorial statements towards Azerbaijan by utilizing the present Declaration of Independence and the parliamentary decision. Having into account Pashinyan’s hesitation to maintain a referendum, what he can do to demonstrate his government’s sincerity about the peace process is terminate the July 1992 parliamentary final decision.
At the end of the day, Armenia ought to select concerning peace, normalisation, and prosperity on the just one hand, and territorial statements against its neighbours on the other, as PM Pashinyan talks about serious Armenia and historic Armenia. The United States which consistently refers to a “just and long lasting peace” must also stimulate Armenia to remove the irredentist claims from its Constitution as trying to keep them will not deliver peace to the location.
[Representational image by the Presidential Press and Information Office of Azerbaijan, via Wikimedia Commons]
Rufat Ahmadzada is a graduate of Metropolis, College of London. His study spot addresses the South Caucasus and Iran. The sights expressed in this short article are people of the author and do not essentially reflect TGP’s editorial stance.
