Pashinyan made mistake that Yerevan regret

Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan commented on the topic of the Armenian Constitution to the Turkish media.

Let's note one positive point: in Yerevan, at least, they stopped denying the fact that there are claims on the territory of Azerbaijan in the Basic Law of the country. At first, that's a good thing. At least, we can assume that the Azerbaijani side has solved one difficult task.

The negative aspect is that, realizing its guilt, Yerevan hopes that it will be able to "share" responsibility with Azerbaijan.

"In their declaration of independence, they (Azerbaijan - ed.) declare that the current Republic of Azerbaijan is the legal successor of the first Azerbaijani (Democratic) Republic, and not the Soviet one. And the first Republic of Azerbaijan, which existed before the Soviet Union, declared its sovereignty over much larger territories than today's Azerbaijan. It includes more than 60 percent of today's sovereign territories of Armenia," Mirzoyan complained to reporters.

Pashinyan, a lover of "mirroring", has for some time begun to put forward as an argument the alleged existence of claims against Armenia in the Constitution of Azerbaijan. Meanwhile, the reference to the ADR heritage has nothing to do with the territorial issue. This is a matter of political inheritance of the principles of statehood laid down by the first democratic state in the East. These provisions are absolutely not comparable with the outright attribution of the sovereign territories of Azerbaijan to Armenia in its fundamental acts.

Let's take a look. To show how unacceptable "mirroring" is in this matter, let's first quote from the Constitution of Armenia. Although all our readers probably already know them by heart, it's still not a sin to repeat yourself.

So, the preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia states that "the Armenian people, based on the fundamental principles of the Armenian statehood and national goals enshrined in the Declaration of Independence of Armenia, which fulfilled the sacred covenant of its freedom-loving ancestors ...", and so on. Why don't we like it? Because the "fundamental principles of the Armenian statehood" mean, first of all, the Azerbaijani lands. The notorious Declaration of Independence of Armenia states: "The Supreme Council of the Armenian SSR, expressing the united will of the Armenian people... implementing the right of nations to free self-determination based on the joint Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Armenian SSR and the National Council of Nagorno-Karabakh dated December 1, 1989 "On the reunification of the Armenian SSR and Nagorno-Karabakh"... proclaims the beginning of the process of establishing independent statehood."

Comments here, I think, are unnecessary. Everything is clear without any comments.

Now about our Constitution. It says: "The people of Azerbaijan, continuing the centuries-old traditions of their statehood, guided by the principles enshrined in the Constitutional Act on the State Independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan, wishing to ensure the well-being of everyone, establish justice, freedom and security, realizing their responsibility to the past, present and future generations, using their sovereign right, solemnly declares their intentions.".

What is so terrible about this Constitutional Act? We read: "The Supreme Council of the Republic of Azerbaijan, based on the Declaration of Independence adopted by the National Council of Azerbaijan on May 28, 1918, on the continuity of the democratic principles and traditions of the Republic of Azerbaijan and guided by the Declaration of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Azerbaijan dated August 30, 1991 "On the Restoration of State Independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan", adopts this Constitutional Act and establishes the foundations of the state, the political and economic structure of the independent Republic of Azerbaijan".

Let's go even further back in history and turn to the document adopted in 1918. The first paragraph of the Declaration states: "From now on, the peoples of Azerbaijan are the bearers of sovereign rights and Azerbaijan, consisting of Eastern and Southern Transcaucasia, is a full-fledged, independent state." Has anyone noticed any complaints about the neighbors here? Has anyone seen references to Western Transcaucasia? Azerbaijan declared independence within the borders in which it was located at that time. It still occupies the territory of the Eastern and Southern Transcaucasia. There is not a word in the Declaration about the square kilometers and territories of Armenia. And the Constitutional Act of 1991 says nothing about the ADR's legacy within certain borders. Meanwhile, when Armenia first declared its independence in 1991, it immediately had in mind the lands of a neighboring country, which it brazenly and openly stated in the document.

Speaking about the alleged claims against Armenia in our Constitution, the Armenians themselves do not understand what a mistake they are making. Knowing what pieces their country was made of, they are playing with fire. There are no complaints, but if this continues, they may appear.

And one more very important difference between us and them. The independence of Armenia was intended only for the Armenian people, but the independence of our country was given to the PEOPLES of Azerbaijan from the very beginning. These are two big differences.