Armenia's constitution yet unties hands of revanchists

US President Joseph Biden has sent a letter to Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. In the message, the American leader called on the Azerbaijani side to complete work on a peace treaty with Armenia this year and take advantage of COP29 as a "unique opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to peace in front of the global public." Although "finalizing the remaining points of the peace agreement will require a creative approach and compromise on all sides."

Calls for peace are always laudable. What could be more important than peace and good neighborliness. But what about the Constitution of Armenia? It is difficult to imagine how a creative approach can be applied to a purely legal issue when there is no place for fantasies. What is written with a pen cannot be cut down with an axe - folk wisdom says. Moreover, it is impossible to cut down with an axe what is inscribed (out of stupidity or greed) in the fundamental documents of the state. The Declaration of Independence of Armenia is a document that defined the foundations of the Armenian statehood, but these foundations turned out to be shaky and questionable from the point of view of international law. It was adopted in 1989, on the wave of pan-Armenian euphoria in anticipation of the expansion of the Armenian area at the expense of another part of the Azerbaijani territories. The Armenians were promised that everything was resolved, and they began to virtually build their independence on the lands of Azerbaijan. If the founding fathers had known that today would come, they would have been more careful. But no one thought about it then. Mentally, in Yerevan, they were already scooping up Azerbaijani oil with ladles, splashing in the Caspian Sea and imagining Baku without Azerbaijanis.

Biden's message was conveyed to President Ilham Aliyev by Michael Carpenter, Special Assistant to the President of the United States, Senior Director for European Affairs at the National Security Council. After listening carefully, the Azerbaijani leader noted that Azerbaijan is the initiator of the peace treaty and the five principles that form its basis. He stressed that the main obstacle to the signing of the peace treaty is the constitutionally fixed territorial claims of Armenia against Azerbaijan. And he assured that Baku will continue to take decisive steps to advance the process.

As can be seen, Azerbaijan does not intend to "creatively" approach the toxic provisions of the Armenian Constitution. Because Azerbaijan understands that this will result in a new war in the future. If Armenia holds on to these provisions in such a way, it means that it pursues certain goals. Armenia is perhaps the only state in the world whose statehood is based on territorial claims to its closest neighbors. It turns out that if these points are isolated from the Declaration, Armenia's statehood will simply collapse. Although, if everything is done voluntarily, this can be avoided. There is a precedent in the world for getting out of such a situation. In April 1998, the British-Irish Belfast Agreement was concluded, which put an end to thirty years of bloodshed in Northern Ireland. The document, also called the Good Friday Agreement, entered into force at the end of 1999. According to it, Northern Ireland remained part of the United Kingdom. Immediately after the document came into force, independent Ireland amended the articles of its Constitution, which made claims against Northern Ireland.

They may say: well, first you can sign peace, and then discuss changes to the Armenian Constitution. But there is one important caveat - the Armenian side is unreliable, its word and even its signature mean nothing. Our neighbors are very fond of history, and history shows that they will quietly violate all agreements when a new opportunity arises to expand their habitat. It is necessary to leave no loopholes for Armenia to maneuver before peace is signed. This is not Ireland, which will immediately resolve the issue without discussion, parliamentary debates, and national discussions. In the case of Armenia, the demagogic chatter will drag on for many years and lead to nothing. And external stakeholders, the same ones who are rushing Azerbaijan today, will support her in this. A strange situation will develop when Azerbaijan opens roads to Armenians under a peace treaty and begins to establish relations, while neighbors will continue to cast coveted glances at its lands, justifying this with their Constitution, and at the same time vigilantly monitor Baku's compliance with its obligations.

If a peace treaty is signed before the Armenian side corrects the legal situation, this situation will never change. And the way Nikol Pashinyan is trying to do this today looks very frivolous. Because he has bad lawyers. What is the recent decision of the Constitutional Court, designed to reassure Azerbaijan that the Declaration of Independence is nonsense. Just imagine - the Constitutional Court came to the conclusion that those provisions of the Declaration that were not reflected in the Constitution have no legal significance. That is, what is not visible does not exist! Pashinyan is trying to get out of the situation with such arguments. At all costs, the owners need a peace treaty to be signed in the fields of SORGHUM. However, everyone understands that the document will not be ratified even by the pro-Pashinyan parliament, as it contains recognition of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and this contradicts the basic law. According to Article 116 of the RA Constitution, international treaties that contradict the Constitution cannot be ratified by Parliament. What does this mean? That the signed peace treaty will mean no more to the Armenian side than an ordinary piece of paper. 

The Constitution is the number one document for any country, it is above any international treaties. And Nikol Pashinyan looks very bad when he tries to prove the opposite to us. He is pathetic when he wants to convince us: a) that there are no claims against Azerbaijan in the Constitution of Armenia; b) that these claims mean nothing, since it was a long time ago (if paragraph "a" did not work); c) that the preamble of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are in no way connected (if the first ones did not work two points); d) and, finally, that I am ready to change the Constitution for the sake of the interests of the world, although it is harmless and beautiful.

A peace treaty that denies the "fact of self-determination" of Karabakh reflected in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence of Armenia will be considered unconstitutional and annulled. You can't argue with revanchists and separatists here. The non-recognition of Karabakh as a part of Azerbaijan is a requirement of the Constitution and follows from the preamble of the basic law referring to the Declaration of Independence, which states in black and white that the independent statehood of Armenia is approved taking into account the resolution of 1989 "on the reunification of the Armenian SSR and Nagorno-Karabakh". That is, Armenia's independence is tied to territorial claims against Azerbaijan, as well as Turkey, and official Yerevan cannot escape from this truth.

The establishment of lasting and long-term peace in the region is the goal of Azerbaijan. Today, there are prerequisites for achieving it, but for some reason they are rushing us, demanding to force the situation, hinting at some future benefits. The world is wonderful. Azerbaijan did not want war even during the years of Armenia's occupation of its territories. He hoped to settle the matter peacefully. It wasn't his fault that he had to resort to force. The last thing we need is a new war, because we are developing, we have many plans and good prospects. We believe that Nikol Pashinyan wants peace and does not want war. But he is not eternal, and we have talked about this more than once. Whoever comes after him will throw into the trash a peace treaty that contradicts the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia and everything will start anew. Therefore, Baku requires a radical solution to the problem. This is not a whim, but a guarantee of the stability of the South Caucasus. Azerbaijan needs guarantees. Neither Yerevan nor its guardians, who write messages to Baku, can give them. Because the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia unleashes the hands of revanchists.    

Is there any room for creativity and compromise? Does anyone see him? We don't.