The leader of the “Bright Armenia” party, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Edmon Marukyan thinks that his current leader Pashinyan has inherited a difficult negotiation legacy from the past and, therefore, the Prime Minister had no choice but to go to war, lose the war and now hold negotiations from the position of the loser. That, to put it mildly, is not the case, about which I have already had the opportunity to write several times.
In particular, in June 2019, Pashinyan had the opportunity to accept the proposal of the OSCE Minsk Group, which in all respects provided a much better situation than we have now, “enjoying” the fruits of military defeat. The ambassador is even against uttering the word “defeat,” as if losing 70% of Artsakh can be called something else. (This is somewhat reminiscent of the Russian authorities’ ban on using the word “war”).
In short, Marukyan repeats the Civil Contract thesis, although his party has a different name. Such cases have already happened in the history of the Third Republic. Let me remind you, for example, that Artashes Geghamyan and Khosrov Harutyunyan formally represented the National Unity and the Christian-Democratic Party, respectively, but were RPA members. When a journalist reminded the head of Bright Armenia that only a year ago, he called on the current government from the parliamentary podium not to burden everything on the former and bear their share of responsibility, Marukyan, in response, reminded that Serzh Sargsyan is accused of embezzling diesel fuel. Of course, if a person enters the role of a CC member, the logic of their arguments must be at the appropriate level. The corruption of the previous regime, of course, completely “justifies” the failures of those present.
But I want to separately address the main thesis of CC members and their alloes, which is related to the “heavy legacy.” Browse the tape with speeches and interviews with government officials and their propagandists, and you will see that they are not based on a vision of the future, but on retrospective criticism. The historical depth of the “bad heritage” is immeasurable, sometimes it starts with Tigran the Great.
Read also
Recently, a member of parliament representing the ruling party claimed that the liberation of Artsakh in the 1990s was a “bad legacy” from which they are now trying to get out with great efforts. It would be ridiculous if such an approach did not reject the foundations of the Third Republic, first of all, the Declaration of Independence adopted in 1990, which prefaces the reunification of Armenia and Artsakh, and in point 11 supports international recognition of the Genocide. Armenian politicians, based on worldly interests, actually say that the state is built on the wrong foundations. I think in that case we should be consistent and declare that the Third Republic no longer exists.
Aram Abrahamyan
