Armenian Premier’s UN Rhetoric Rules Out A Peaceful Solution To Karabakh – So What Should Come Next?

Fuad Muxtarlı Analysis 27 September 2019
Armenian Premier’s UN Rhetoric Rules Out A Peaceful Solution To Karabakh – So What Should Come Next?

During his premiership, Armenian maverick Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan addressed for the second time from the tribune of the UN General Assembly and as expected he levelled accusations against Azerbaijan, directly justifying the occupation of the neighboring state’s native lands under primitive and unpersuasive arguments.

Though hopes were high for him to denounce his predecessors’ occupying policies for turning this tiny but picturesque part of Azerbaijan into mayhem from the UNGA tribune, he failed to live up to the expectations and sent a new signal that the region is far from being tranquility and prosperity.

The first time the young skinny revolutionary leader with burning eyes appeared from a high rostrum in the guise of a historical figure who crushed old and vile dictatorships, then the second appearance was of a bureaucrat in complete fat with a belly, a settled-down renegade with Kocharyan theses on his lips.

Pashinyan could not get into shoes of former Georgian President Saakashvili and no-one hopes that this tiny political figure is ready and can conduct reforms to deliver on his empty promises. He lacks vision for the realization of his unsubstantiated political philosophy based on aggression and occupation as started by criminal leaders - his predecessors of early 1990s up to now.

Their failures and degradation of the Armenian society vested him with powers to do what his predecessors failed to, and he found himself at the right time and in the right place - on Theater Square, expressing the inspiration of the entire Armenian people, tired of the dominance of the clan of the Karabakh field commanders.

Pashinyan is not ready to solve the historical problems of the Armenian people as he is deprived of vision and is driven by tactics how to keep and strengthen his power. His initial revolutionary impulse created false illusions of the reincarnation of the second Ter-Petrosyan - a selfless politician who was ready to shoulder responsibility for the historical future of the entire region.

For some reason, both in Armenia and Azerbaijan, the historical process laid down by Ter-Petrosyan was perceived as the surrender of occupied Karabakh. And this is a misconception about the resolution of the conflict, for the Armenian-Azerbaijani war, with the current approach of the parties, is a protracted, if not eternal confrontation between the two peoples, divided by the trenches of the war.

Ter-Petrosyan suggested leaving these trenches without recognizing and declaring the losers and the winners, since there can be no winners in modern wars. Time is flying, and Armenia will surely find a Field Marshal Foch, who signed the surrender in the Forest of Compiègne.

The question is different - today Pashinyan acted as a populist, not leaving Azerbaijan the chances and opportunities for a decent peace. He does not offer new innovative models, does not look into future life together, does not recall the compromise samples of the Aland Islands, Tyrol, Schleining and dozens of other historical projects of the coexistence of nations on one piece of land.

Today, Pashinyan spoke like Kocharyan - in the language of denial and war. That is, we are not a liberal and a pacifist, inspired by the universal and universal values of peace and good, but the most earnest Nashi, resorting from a high rostrum to the language of power and Kalashnikov assault rifle.
Someone may object that the Armenian prime minister plays on the internal public, but the revolutionary should not be interested in power, but in historical changes.

Will Armenia, like Azerbaijan, be able to ensure its systemic stability, development and peace of peoples without a Karabakh settlement? Pashinyan did not realize this, just as the prisoner of the Kocharyan prison in Yerevan, who had overthrown Pashinyan’s spiritual mentor, Ter-Petrosyan, who was sincerely ready for a model of coexistence, did not understand this at one time.

Today's main declaration of Pashinyan is the complete surrender of Azerbaijan, otherwise, how to explain his messages? Think it over! Pashinyan accuses the Azerbaijani authorities of revenge, and not of the desire to resolve the conflict. What does the politician argue with his baseless claims?
Pashinyan assures that the Azerbaijani authorities are fueling anti-Armenian sentiment, spending huge resources on weapons, and turned Armeniaphobia into official politics.

But doesn’t the same thing happen in Armenia? Isn't Armenia arming its army? And is there no Azerbaijanophobia in Armenia? Pashinyan is lying, claiming that Nagorno-Karabakh separated from the USSR. After all, the official documents of recent history speak of a different thing - the NKAO decided to secede from Azerbaijan and join Armenia. The same decision was made by the Supreme Council of the Armenian SSR. And long before the collapse of the Soviet Union. And after all, the Karabakh conflict broke out during the reign of Gorbachev. On the other hand, will a planetary politician, who thinks about history, not about power, from the rostrum of the UN tell tales of the past and challenge legal norms?!

Pashinyan echoes: go and talk privately with Karabakh. But why doesn’t Armenia leave Karabakh? Azerbaijan is tired of repeating an annoying seditious truth - if Armenia rejects the interstate format of the Karabakh conflict, then why are the Armenian armed forces and even Pashinyan’s son an Armenian citizen, present on the territory of the so-called self-styled state?
Pashinyan loudly declares that this is not a conflict for the sake of territories, but in the name of the right of people to live on their lands.

So why is Pashinyan and his ilk, like his predecessors, hindering the return of other residents - Azerbaijanis to their original places of residence – to Susa, Xocali (Khojaly), Agdara and other areas of Karabakh?

Pashinyan states that the Azerbaijani authorities do not want to talk with the Karabakh Armenians. Does Pashinyan want to speak with Azerbaijanis expelled from their lands? In the Karabakh settlement, Pashinyan is more reactionary than Sargsyan and the government of the Karabakh clan. The Armenian prime minister does not allow the thought of returning the annexed Azerbaijani lands, which are called the "security belt" in Armenia.

And what did Pashinyan do to restore confidence? After all, a revolutionary politician should not act predictably and stereotypically. Could Pashinyan take the first step, meet with the Azerbaijani refugees expelled from Karabakh? Listen to people? Give his ears to their troubles and suffering? After all, the revolutionary politicians of the Saakashvili formation do just that. So, first of all, Pashinyan himself pursues the formula - territories without people... Each thesis of Kocharyan, voiced today by the UN Pashinyan, excludes the peaceful development of events. Azerbaijan is being offered an indefinite settlement formula - without hope for the return of territories.

So what should a country encountering such a challenge do? And this is no longer a rhetorical question... After all, Pashinyan must understand that in his impulse to “win” and “kneel down” again - the prime minister’s last favorite diatribe - the head of government does not speak with the prisoner Kocharyan and not even with the devoted anathema Garegin, but with good armed state.