Armenia`s premier speech at debate with Azerbaijani leader "execution  of our national dignity" - Levon Zurabyan

ArmInfo. If one follows the evolution of Armenia's leaders from Levon Ter-Petrosyan to Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan and, further, to Nikol Pashinyan, one  could hardly get rid of the thought that Armenia's next leader will  be a pithecanthropus, Levon Zurabyan, Vice-Chairman of the Armenian  National Congress (ANC), stated as he commented on Armenian Premier  Nikol Pashinyan's participation in the debate over Nagorno-Karabakh  at the 59th Munich Security Conference (MSC). 

"I was terrified by the debate between Nikol Pashinyan and  Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev at the Munich Conference," he  said. 

According to him, he had never seen a more miserable person  representing the Armenian nation before.  "Armenia, introduced to the  world as a sorry sight, with lame logic and broken English, could not  even cause pity. That sight was an execution of our national dignity  and self-respect. Aliyev was poking fun of Armenia and its premier  before the entire world. He stated Armenia signed capitulation  accepted by both the whole world and the Armenian people, as the one  that signed it was re-elected Armenia's premier after the war. And  Pashinyan had nothing to say in response. A different could have say  something in response.  By the way, it was evidence that Pashinyan's  re-election only fueled Aliyev's aggression, and I hope some of our  light-headed citizens," Mr Zurabyan said. 

Pashinyan kept silent when Aliyev accused Armenia of "occupying  Azerbaijani territories and violating the resolutions of the U.N.  Security Council." Since Nikol Pashinyan views his "glorious"  revolution as the start of Armenia's history, he is unaware of the  fact that Armenia has never violated nor could it violate U.N.  Security Council resolutions, as the demand for "deoccupying the  territories" had never been addressed to Armenia. So despite Aliyev's  claims, no sanctions can be applied against Armenia. "He is unaware  of the fact that Azerbaijan itself would not respect the resolutions  by repeatedly committing ceasefire violations and rejecting the  proposals for settlement incorporated in the resolutions. And by  remaining silent, Pashinyan, in fact, agreed with Aliyev's  accusations," Mr Zurabyan said.   

He emphasizes the fact that Aliyev claimed "there does not exist a  concept named Nagorno-Karabakh." In response, Pashinyan, "in his  inarticulate English", tried to explain the concept is contained in  the trilateral statement Aliyev signed on November 9, 2020, without  stating, however, that "Nagorno-Karabakh is incorporated in all the  fundamental international documents, particularly in the U.S.  Security Council resolutions Aliyev himself mentioned, as well as in  all the OSCE documents."

"Pashinyan remained silent when Aliyev said that he is not going to  negotiate with Nagorno-Karabakh as long as Ruben Varsanyan represents  it. But all that he should have said is that it is the Artsakh people  - not Aliyev - that to decide who should represent them at the  negotiations.  

"Pashinyan could not offer a single convincing argument to refute  Aliyev's lies about the blockade of the Lachin corridor. And  Aliyev-cited 'statistical data' should have been refuted by real  data, which would have proved that the movement of people and cargoes  has been reduced to nothing, interfering with normal life and causing  catastrophic economic consequences," Mr Zurabyan said. 

He is indignant at the fact the Armenia's premier did not say a  single word about the Azerbaijani aggression against Armenia's  sovereign territory after November 9, 2020, even as part of his right  to respond to Aliyev's false accusations about "Armenian occupation."

"And when Pashinyan tried to respond to one of Aliyev's accusations  about the destruction of 64 mosques, he would have done well if he  had not. Without refuting the information, he claimed that 1,560  mosques were destroyed in Azerbaijan in the Soviet era and, according  to his meager logic, what Armenians did was not that important.  Moreover, Pashinyan spent much of his time to say this foolish  thing," Mr Zurabyan said. 

In short, Pashinyan's speech at the Munich Security Conference  revealed the horrible reality - a miserable personification of  Armenia's capitulation was resent in Munich. According to Mr  Zurabyan, even if Armenia has something it did not lose on the  battlefield, it will lose it to its incompetent diplomacy.

"Since Pashinyan is depending the interest of Armenia and Artsakh at  his meetings with world officials, speaking the same English and  Russian and following his narrow logic, giving Armenia's consent to  decisions of crucial importance for our people. Regrettably, most of  our people will not know anything about it given Armenia's servile  and manipulative information space. I once doubted the description  Levon Ter-Petrosyan gave Nikol Pashinyan by calling him 'a  nation-destroying scourge'. I think that 'a nation- destroying  Papuan' would be a better description for him," Mr Zurabyan said.