I have significant reservations about the phrase “historical justice.” Every person and nation understands justice differently, and it is impossible to prove anything here. I also consider it suspicious when the adverb “historical” is added to the concept of “right.” I am sure Artsakh had all the legal grounds to secede from Azerbaijan. However, the current and previous authorities of the Republic of Armenia did not want to implement them or could not make those grounds convincing. But it wasn’t a “historical right,” I suppose.
However, when Prime Minister Pashinyan says they will not allow us (Armenia) to strengthen the army to solve the “historical justice” issue, it is not subjected to any logical examination. Does the wording of “historical justice” in the Declaration of Independence prevent us from strengthening the army? And whoever said that we need an army for “historical justice”? And why did that wording not prevent us from having a combat-ready army until 2020, but it has suddenly started to prevent us? Armies are created, armed, and strengthened for other purposes. First of all, to ensure their own people’s safety, this is a case in which Pashinyan and his team have failed completely.
Suppose the subject of “allowing” or “not allowing” is Turkey and Azerbaijan. In that case, I assure you, regardless of what we write in the document or what we delete from the document, those countries will do everything to prevent our army from getting more robust. I think others are not interested in the word “historical justice” at all; they are guided by political and economic (material) calculations in this matter.
…Now, the word “Yerevan” has started to be removed from the seats in the capital. And I’m beginning to suspect that maybe Aliyev is annoyed by that name, and he won’t allow our army to become stronger until the RA capital is moved to, let’s say, “Caravanserai.”
Read also
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
