On August 23, 1990, at the first session of the Supreme Council of the Armenian SSR, a declaration on the independence of Armenia was adopted. It is the founding document of the Republic of Armenia, in which the fundamental principles and nationwide goals of Armenian statehood are established. Thirty-two years after the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, many people record that those pursued goals and aspirations have not been realized. Let’s say, the declaration states, “The Republic of Armenia, as a subject of international law, conducts an independent foreign policy.”
Arman Grigoryan, doctor of political science and professor at Lehigh University in the USA, the guest of Aravot’s “Areresum (Confrontation)” program, in response to the question, said, “We really conduct the foreign policy. We are responsible for that policy, and no one dictates it to us. Someone can tell us that with that policy you may have this or that problem, but we are the ones who make the decision.” With one example, he determined the significance of the decisions made.
“Now in Armenia, there is a very widespread myth that what happened in 2020 was the result of some kind of deal made behind our backs, a conspiracy… In Armenia, they do not want to admit that the decisions made by the RA authorities since 2018 were of the greatest importance for the failure of negotiations and for the escalation of war. The decisions they made and the policies they adopted led to the war.” He added, “We were told very clearly many times what consequences these decisions could have and the problem is that we did not take it seriously or we made dangerous decisions motivated by some internal political interests. But in the end, it was us who made the decisions. We are a sovereign country.”
Another provision of the Declaration of Independence is: “The Republic of Armenia supports the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide of 1915 in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia.” The other guest of the “Areresum” program, the former press secretary of the RA Deputy Prime Minister and analyst Nzhdeh Hovsepyan, specifically spoke about a unique “magic” in relation to this provision: the supreme goals declared within the country and the refusal of demands in the international arena.
Read also
“Within the framework of internal consumption, we constantly talked about our lands, our historical homeland… which is not a lie, but we generated sentiments with it… But every time after such statements, the RA authorities considered it necessary to emphasize in front of the international audience that they do not have any territorial or compensation demands from Turkey.”
Some analysts note that the current government of RA, not acting within the framework of the laws imposed by the Declaration of Independence, that Armenia is the guarantor of Artsakh’s security, today they are not trying to take any security problem upon themselves. In addition, we have the Supreme Council’s July 8, 1992 decision. “It is unacceptable for the Republic of Armenia to consider any international or domestic document in which the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh will be mentioned as part of Azerbaijan,” while everything seems to be going in that direction, Nzhdeh Hovsepyan disagreed with this observation. “I don’t think, I’m not sure, that it goes in that direction. What kind of state do we want to build and how do we see the real formulation of that independence, beyond the formal, is another question. In this logic, the realities and conditions recorded in the Declaration of Independence have unfortunately changed in the present. Among these is the mentioned document of the Supreme Council. On November 9, unfortunately, it was not possible for Artsakh to participate in the adopted statement.”
He also said, problematically, “Is Armenia able to be the guarantor of Artsakh in terms of security at this moment?” Arman Grigoryan summarized, “We often have a habit of fetishizing documents: treaties, declarations, constitutions, etc. They are a record of the political realities of their time. Of course, their adoption raises the price of violating these provisions and principles later and makes it difficult, and in that sense they are not unimportant. But one must not forget that life changes, and changes in the situation very often lead to the anachronism of this or that provision of the document. They become outdated and need editing.” He clarified that it is specifically about the aforementioned decision of the Supreme Council. “It was an expression of some point of view or desire, once reinforced by real ability. If you don’t have that ability, even if you have a thousand such clauses, it won’t matter.”
Anna ISRAELYAN
