Friday, January 26 2024 13:12

ArmInfo.By initiating Constitutional reforms, the Armenian leadership   gives up the fundamental foundations of the Armenian post-Soviet national-state project and the political identity of the "third republic". This is  how Russian political scientist Sergei Markedonov commented on the intention of the current authorities of Armenia to completely change the Constitution of the country.

The expert stated that the discussion about constitutional reform in  Armenia received additional impetus, while the focus was not on the  problems of internal changes, but on issues of Armenian foreign  policy identity.

"According to the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the  Republic Ararat Mirzoyan, Azerbaijan sees certain problems in the  formulations of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence  of Armenia. And although the minister further stated that "there is  no provision on the Constitution of Armenia in the draft peace  agreement," the very mention of the objections of official Baku  caused significant socio-political interest," noted Markedonov.

In this vein, he drew attention to the fact that the provisions of  the Declaration of Independence of Armenia dated August 23, 1990 and  earlier became the subject of foreign policy discussions. "Today, the  times of "football diplomacy" have already been thoroughly forgotten.  Meanwhile, after the Constitutional Court of Armenia on January 12,  2010 recognized the Armenian-Turkish protocols as complying with the  Basic Law of the country, the Turkish leadership de facto refused to  ratify the above-mentioned document. The reason for this decision  became paragraph 11 of the Declaration, which mentioned "Western  Armenia" (Ankara regarded this as a demonstration of Armenia's  territorial claims).

Years have passed, the military-political status quo has radically  changed in the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, and now Prime  Minister Nikol Pashinyan, in his congratulatory message on the  occasion of the 33rd anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration  of Independence of Armenia, especially emphasized that Ni, especially  emphasized that the document, which at one time proclaimed a new  republic based on the act of "reunification of the Armenian SSR and  Nagorno-Karabakh," laid down "confrontation with the regional  environment " and "constant conflicts with neighbors. "Soon after  this, the final destruction of the unrecognized NKR (or Artsakh, as  they preferred to call it in Armenia) and the de- Armenization of  this de facto entity took place. In such conditions, Azerbaijan  received additional trump cards to establish such a peace that will  ensure its exclusive interests both in the Caucasus region and in the  international arena," the Russian political scientist noted.

At the same time, he drew attention to the fact that the significance  of the issue of the Declaration and the Basic Law of Armenia should  not be limited only to the geopolitical format and, first of all,  concerns the fundamental foundations of the Armenian post-Soviet  national-state project and the political identity of the "third  republic."

"The struggle for the self-determination of the Armenians of  Nagorno-Karabakh has been the basis of Armenia's national  state-building since the end of the 1980s and for a long time. At one  time, it was the "miatsum", that is, the struggle for "their own  Artsakh" that broke the communist-dissident dichotomy in the Armenian  SSR and Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region (NKAO), it united  representatives of the party-economic nomenklatura and "anti-Soviet"  activists. In this way, Armenia's path to independence differed from  both the Georgian and Baltic projects. It was based on the idea of  establishing a state with the formula of the Armenian SSR + NKAO to  ensure the interests and survival of the Armenian ethnic group,  rather than the struggle against the "Soviet Empire," Markedonov  added.

According to him, today the world is witnessing the ignorance of this  fundamental goal by the Armenian political elite. At the same time,  the initiatives of Nikol Pashinyan and his team both in the  international arena and within the country do not cause a powerful  protest opposition movement, which strongly contrasts with the  political culture of late and post-Soviet Armenia, which grew out of  mass protests.

"In this regard, the question arises as to what volume and scale of  "de-Karabakhization" will take place. It is naive to assume that  unprecedented foreign policy concessions will not in any way affect  internal and identitarian processes. Especially when the  ethno-political conflict was a system-shaping one for the country.

Very often the process of "de-Karabakhization" is compared with the  problem of the loss of Kosovo for Serbia. The process of  "de-kosovization" for the Serbian national project has indeed gone  too far. But there is a nuance! Belgrade still does not recognize the  independence of the former Serbian autonomous region.  Yerevan  officially recognized the sovereignty of Baku over Karabakh/Artsakh.  Devilish difference!", Markedonov summed up.