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 formal placement that signing a peace agreement with Armenia is extremely hard as very long as the current Structure of Armenia stays unchanged. President Aliyev’s remarks arrived suitable following Armenian International Minister Ararat Mirzoyan, speaking at an Armenian parliament session, falsely attempted to equate the overtly irredentist promises that are enshrined in the Armenian Structure with Azerbaijan’s Constitution where no such promises exist. Mirzoyan claimed that equally Armenia and Azerbaijan see every other’s constitution as an obstacle to a durable 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 Foreign Ministry turned down building constitutional amendments to take away the irredentist promises in opposition to Azerbaijan, alleging that Armenia does not have territorial claims versus its neighbours, and that the draft version of the peace settlement envisages the sides not working with domestic laws in get to fulfill their obligations.
The ongoing peace talks involving Armenia and Azerbaijan have manufactured some critical breakthroughs considering the fact that December 2023 when the two international locations jointly issued a assertion on achieving a peace settlement dependent on the ideas of sovereignty and territorial integrity. Immediate negotiations amongst the two sides devoid of the unfavorable interference of third functions paved the way to reaching the arrangement on the delimitation and demarcation of 12.seven kilometres of the border with the return of 4 Azerbaijani villages – Baghanis Ayrım, Ashaghi Askipara, Kheyrimli and Ghizilhajili – to Azerbaijan which have been occupied by Armenia in the nineteen nineties.
This coincided with the emergence of the radical extremist priest Bagrat Galstanyan who is a revanchist extremist regarded for praising terrorism and irredentism and currently the chief of opposition to the Armenia-Azerbaijan normalisation and border delimitation arrangement. Bagrat’s anti peace stance been given help from both professional-Russia and pro-West revanchist circles, these types of as the pro-Russia previous presidents Kocharyan and Sargsyan, the Armenian Church and the professional-Western extremist Jirayr Sefilyan.
Pashinyan’s Look for for a New Constitution
On Jan 18, Armenia’s PM Nikol Pashinyan argued that Armenia demands a new constitution not just amendments. Pashinyan’s statement is significant as it advocates the modification of the point out ideology enshrined at existing in Armenia’s Structure. He argues that the new realities in the area as well as the ongoing transition in the worldwide process involve Armenia to stop irredentist statements against neighbours and target on Armenia as a point out in its territorial borders as element of making certain what he phone calls legitimacy. In other text, Pashinyan’s check out is that in purchase to be certain its safety Armenia have to abandon the territorial claims in its Constitution and adopt a new one particular. Pashinyan’s quest for a new constitution is typically about the domestic politics and concerns of Armenia, nevertheless, the irredentist promises that the Armenian Constitution is made up of are the major hurdle to attaining durable peace in the South Caucasus region. In an interview to community media in February, Pashinyan touched on the want to remedy the problem of the Armenian Declaration of Independence and argued that if state procedures continue to be guided by the Declaration’s concept about the reunification of the Nationwide Council of the former Nagorno Karabakh and the Supreme Council of Armenia there “will not be peace”. The Armenian PM even made use of a metaphor comparing the Armenian Declaration of Independence which consists of open up claims on neighbours to a red costume that attracts bulls.
Irredentist Claims in Armenia’s Constitution
When Azerbaijan details out the need to have for alterations in the present-day Armenian Structure, it is referring to the removing of the territorial claims enshrined in the Armenian Declaration of Independence to start with and foremost. The preamble to the Declaration states, ‘Based on the December one, 1989, joint conclusion of the Armenian SSR Supreme Council and the Artsakh National Council on the “Reunification of the Armenian SSR and the Mountainous Region of Karabakh”.’ This usually means that Armenia’s point out coverage is dependent on the annexation of aspect of the internationally recognised territory of Azerbaijan.
In other phrases, Armenia’s irredentist claims in opposition to Azerbaijan are rooted in the Armenian Declaration of Independence and made a portion of national policy. These statements began in 1988 as portion of the Miatsum (Unification) movement with the intention of annexing component of Azerbaijan’s Karabakh location to Armenia and turned into a whole-blown conflict with the subsequent Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani lands and irredentist maps hanging on the walls of Armenian officers. The Declaration also consists of indirect territorial claims in opposition to Turkey in the preamble where it will make “the realization of the aspirations of all Armenians and the restoration of historic justice” a precedence for Armenia, and in clause eleven which states that “The Republic of Armenia stands in help of the endeavor of accomplishing global recognition of the 1915 Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia.” In Armenian political discourse the phrase “Western Armenia” means the Jap parts of the Republic of Turkey, so restoring historical justice refers to territorial statements on Eastern Turkey.
Having said that, the Armenian Declaration of Independence is not the only obstacle in the peace course of action: the termination of the Armenian Parliament’s thirteen July 1992 choice prohibiting the Armenian authorities from recognising Karabakh as aspect of Azerbaijan should be resolved also. In simple fact, this legislative choice prohibits Armenian PM Pashinyan from signing a peace deal and recognising Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. Looking at that the ruling Civil Contract Get together of Armenia retains a significant parliamentary bulk, they could nullify this legislative conclusion easily without the need of holding a referendum. The Armenian Constitution adopted in 1995 necessitates presidential candidates to have been resident in the region for ten years and to have been a citizen during that time. When Robert Kocharyan became Armenian president he did not fulfill people specifications. In its place he argued that his candidacy was “legal” centered on the Armenian Declaration of Independence. The Armenian Constitutional Courtroom and the Central Election Commission qualified and registered him. In addition, Armenia’s official and diplomatic documents have contained territorial statements from Azerbaijan in the sort of references to the lawfully non-existent entity Nagorno Karabakh all these years.
To sum up, Armenia’s argument that a peace treaty with a clause about neither side using domestic laws presently contradicts the present irredentist claims enshrined in Armenia’s Structure as nicely as the legislative determination of July 1992. Taking into consideration that the Armenian parliament and Constitutional Courtroom have to approve a possible peace agreement this presently creates uncertainty. In addition, Azerbaijan wants to obtain a lasting peace with Armenia as a country and the Armenian folks, not just with the ruling Civil Contract Party. It is the territorial promises enshrined in the Armenian Structure that are a make any difference of problem for Azerbaijan, not Armenia’s interior political system which Pashinyan wants to change. To seek out the removal of the claims to Azerbaijani territory enshrined in Armenia’s Declaration of Independence and other official paperwork can barely be regarded interference in purely inside affairs, as claimed by Armenia’s MFA. Previously revanchists are saying that they will nullify Pashinyan’s selections. Azerbaijan’s stance on the removing of the present territorial claims from Armenia’s Constitution is rational, as future Armenian governments should really not be capable to walk away from a peace offer or revive territorial promises from Azerbaijan by employing the present Declaration of Independence and the parliamentary final decision. Taking into account Pashinyan’s hesitation to keep a referendum, what he can do to establish his government’s sincerity about the peace approach is terminate the July 1992 parliamentary final decision.
At the stop of the day, Armenia must pick out amongst peace, normalisation, and prosperity on the just one hand, and territorial statements from its neighbours on the other, as PM Pashinyan talks about genuine Armenia and historic Armenia. The United States which regularly refers to a “just and resilient peace” should also motivate Armenia to take out the irredentist promises from its Structure as preserving them will not convey peace to the region.
[Representational image by the Presidential Press and Information Office of Azerbaijan, via Wikimedia Commons]
Rufat Ahmadzada is a graduate of City, University of London. His research spot covers the South Caucasus and Iran. The sights expressed in this write-up are those people of the creator and do not essentially reflect TGP’s editorial stance.
