At April 10 sitting, the National Assembly debated the report on the procedure of the implementation of the RA Government programme (2021-2026) for 2023 and its results.
In his main speech the RA Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan first spoke about the perceptions and of our society on historical Armenia and real Armenia and its dangers. “The Government and personally me have come to conviction that the historical Armenia and the real Armenia are not only incompatible, but are often antipodes to each other and they even create the most serious threats to each other. The Government and me, being for the long time the bearer of the psychology and tradition of the historical Armenia, only in 2022 recorded that the key factor of ensuring the security of the Republic of Armenia is despised. It has happened from the first years of the establishment of our statehood, and that factor are considered to be the internationally recognized border of the Republic of Armenia, and the internationally recognized territory of the Republic of Armenia.
Only after September 2022 war I was undoubtedly and unequivocally convinced that the recording of the internationally recognized territory of the Republic of Armenia can become an additional and decisive factor in ensuring the short-term, mid-term and long-term security of our country. From that moment, a factual, political and psychological process started, which can be called demarcation process between the real Armenia and the historical Armenia. The delimitation and demarcation process between the real Armenia and historical Armenia does not go on more easily than the demarcation process between the Republic of Armenia and Republic of Azerbaijan.
If I say sincerely, the demarcation process between the real Armenia and the historical Armenia goes on much more painful also because the demarcation takes place inside each of us and brings forth unexpected layers and nuances. Accordingly, the historical Armenia does not recognize the territorial integrity of the real Armenia, because the territorial integrity of the real Armenia is a restricting factor for the historical Armenia and does not give an opportunity to be displayed. In this respect, willingly or unwillingly, the historical Armenia sounds with a number of countries that have ambitions towards the sovereignty. Independence, territories of the real Armenia, because the territorial integrity of the real Armenia is a factor restricting the internationally recognized border in the same way for the appetite of those countries. The historical Armenia, by the way, is of key importance for our relations with a number of countries. It is a lasting guarantee of our animosity with a group of countries and is a guarantee that those countries will have a reason and explanation of pursuing aggressive policy against us. The historical Armenia is also a guarantee that we won’t have ability and knowledge of living without side help, and therefore, we’ll need a permanent sponsor, senior friend. This is also a guarantee that we won’t have a real state, a real independence, because our vision of Armenia will always lead us to the trap of the genocide, and appearing there, we’ll have need of a savior and a sponsor, without which we cannot survive, we cannot exist, and the fear of the genocide will keep us in the status of outpost, and the outpost has no need for border, sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity: It will need only a sponsor,” the RA Prime Minister said.
Read also
Speaking about challenges and the ways of overcoming them, Nikol Pashinyan added: “As RA Prime Minister, I consider myself obliged to record and voice out loud that we should concentrate on serving the interests of the real Armenia, moreover recording the vital impossibility of ever returning to the workstyle and way of thinking of Armenia in the future. Otherwise, we will not even have a chance of addressing the external challenges, because we will have lasting source generating external threats inside us, in our daily reality without deeply and completely understanding and appreciating this fact.”
In the context of the abovementioned issue the RA Prime Minister sounded a question – and which is the real Armenia and recorded: “The real Armenia is the one that has an internationally recognized territory and internationally recognized borders, and with the conscience of this fact a self-conscience of a full and respected member of the international community. This means certain behaviour, certain etiquette and certain work procedure, which corresponds to the internationally accepted and recognized standards.” According to the Prime Minister, the real Armenia is the country with 29.743 km2 internationally recognized territory – the Republic of Armenia.
“The time has come that we recognize ourselves the territorial integrity of the Republic of Armenia. In this context, the following question – how does the concept of the real Armenia guarantees the security of the Republic of Armenia? – is of special importance. I will insist that in the modern world, if there exist guarantees, they are negative guarantees, that is with some guarantees, somewhat provide only the negative expectations. Guarantees of the implementation of positive expectations, simply, do not exist, and therefore, in similar conditions the management and neutralization of the negative guarantees is considered to be the consistent work in this direction, which can become a positive guarantee. There is simply no other way. The neutralization of negative guarantees is only possible based on legitimate steps, legitimate expectations, legitimate arguments and anti-arguments, moreover, in case of functioning on the legitimate territory,” the RA Prime Minister documented.
Nikol Pashinyan touched upon in detail the demarcation process between Armenia and Azerbaijan, its challenges, the problems of the settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh issue and underscored: “My conclusion is that the Nagorno Karabakh issue has not existed after the OSCE Lisbon Summit of 1996. The issue of the Republic of Armenia has existed in a sense that the international architecture predetermining de jure the content of the Nagorno Karabakh issue has been ready and unchangeable with a record that Nagorno Karabakh cannot but be in Azerbaijan. Giving indefinite and vain hopes for avoiding this record, some states used the Nagorno Karabakh issue for putting on a tie to the Republic of Armenia and to constrain its actions as an independent state. The negotiation opportunities which existed from 2016, were not about solving the Nagorno Karabakh issue, but shortening the tie put on to the Republic of Armenia in order simply to exclude the efforts of being independent and sovereign state.”
The RA Prime Minister spoke in detail about the 44-day war, the actions following it, the dangers threatening the sovereignty and independence of the Republic of Armenia and in this context the steps taken by the authorities, referred to the implemented foreign policy, what happened in Nagorno Karabakh, the support programmes to our compatriots displaced from Nagorno Karabakh, the vision of the establishment peace in the region, the cooperation with the US and the EU, the Armenia-Russia inter-state relations, as well as the interaction with the countries of the region and a number of other problems.
National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s speech at the National Assembly during the discussion of the implementation of the Government Action Plan (2021-26) for the year of 2023
Honorable President of the National Assembly,
Dear MPs,
Dear Cabinet members,
Dear attendees,
Dear people,
We are discussing the 2023 report on the progress and results of the Government Action Plan 2021-2026. The main meaning of this annual format is to clarify what has happened to us and where we have reached or where we are.
What helped me to finally formulate the answer to this simple, yet equally complex question, was the question and answer session that took place in the National Assembly recently, the thoughts around which made it clear to me that since 2021, the debates taking place in this hall, even if they may seem uncivilized, apolitical or contentless at times in the eyes of the public, in fact, have great conceptual, structural and strategic depth, because, by and large, two viewpoints, two conceptual and strategic visions, collide in those discussions, one of which can be placed under the concept of Historical Armenia, the other under the Real Armenia.
Moreover, this debate began after the 44-day war, because until the 44-day war, there was by and large a public-political consensus in Armenia that Historical Armenia and Real Armenia cannot only coexist, but can also strengthen each other: This perception used to be understood, accepted and even loved by the ruling majority, for me personally, and this has been expressed in a number of documents, statements, positions.
The psychological, political and practical transformation of the Government and myself, which has taken place in front of all of you, but has not been formalized as such, is based on this understanding: the government and I personally have come to the conviction that Historical Armenia and Real Armenia are not only not compatible, but are often in conflict with each other and even pose grave threats to each other and now I will try to explain why.
I and the Government, having long been bearers of the psychology and tradition of Historical Armenia, recorded only in 2022 that the key factor for ensuring the security of the Republic of Armenia is ignored, and this has been the case since the first years of the foundation of our statehood, and that factor is the internationally recognized borders of the Republic of Armenia, the internationally recognized territory of the Republic of Armenia. Iy was only after the September war of 2022 that I became unequivocally and unambiguously convinced that fixing the internationally recognized territory of the Republic of Armenia can become an additional and decisive factor in ensuring the short-term, medium-term and long-term security of our country.
And from that moment, an actual, political and psychological process started, which can be called a demarcation process between Real Armenia and Historical Armenia.
By the way, the process of delimitation and demarcation between Real and Historical Armenia is no easier than the process of demarcation between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan.
To be honest, the demarcation process between Real Armenia and Historical Armenia is much more painful, also because this demarcation takes place within each of us and reveals unexpected layers and nuances.
Accordingly, Historical Armenia does not recognize the territorial integrity of Real Armenia, because the territorial integrity of Real Armenia is a limiting factor for Historical Armenia and does not give it the opportunity to manifest itself.
In this sense, willy-nilly, Historical Armenia walks with a number of countries that have ambitions against the sovereignty, independence, and territories of Real Armenia, because the territorial integrity of Real Armenia, the internationally recognized border, is a limiting factor for the appetite of those countries.
By the way, Historical Armenia has key impact on our relations with a number of countries. It is a permanent guarantee of our enmity with a group of countries, and a guarantee that those countries will have a reason and an explanation for pursuing an aggressive policy towards us.
Historical Armenia is also a guarantee that we will not have the ability and knowledge to live in our environment without outside help and, therefore, we will always need a sponsor, an elder friend. This is also a guarantee that we will not have a real state, real independence, because our vision of Historical Armenia will always lead us to the trap of genocide, and we will need a savior and a sponsor when we find ourselves in that trap, without whom we cannot survive, we cannot exist. And the fear of genocide will keep us in the status of outpost. And the outpost needs no border, no sovereignty, no independence, no territorial integrity. All it needs is sponsorship.
Note that since independence, we have taken a stand of resistance every time we have heard about the international principle of territorial integrity and inviolability of borders. We acted this way because, as I described above, it was necessary for Historical Armenia. But we didn’t even notice that with that approach, sometimes secretly and openly encouraged by some of our friends, we have adopted practices that make the violation of the territorial integrity and borders of Real Armenia inevitable.
Honorable President of the National Assembly,
Dear MPs,
Dear Cabinet members,
Dear attendees,
Dear people,
As the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia, I consider myself obliged to note and speak out. we should focus on serving the interests of Real Armenia. Moreover, recording the impossibility of ever returning to the practices and thinking of Historical Armenia in the future. Otherwise, we will not even have a chance to address the external security challenges because we will have a permanent source of generating external threats within ourselves, in our daily reality, without a deep and complete understanding and assessment of this fact.
And even more so in this case, the following question needs a clear answer. and what is Real Armenia? The Real Armenia is the one that has an internationally recognized territory and internationally recognized borders, and, with the acknowledgement of this fact, the self-awareness of a full and respectable member of the international community. This presumes a certain behavior, a certain etiquette and a certain procedure that is in accordance with internationally accepted and recognized standards. Moreover, this is important for all cases and even the inappropriate behavior of others, your neighbors or other players cannot justify your inappropriate behavior. And it is especially in your interest to choose whether to live with rules or without rules. If there are no rules, you can be treated in the same way. Of course, you can be treated like that even if you have adopted rele-based behavior. But if in the first case the rule is not there to protect you, in the second case you have the rule as an instrument of protection.
And thus, the Real Armenia is the internationally recognized country with an area of 29 thousand 743 square kilometers, the Republic of Armenia. Moreover, the internationally recognized territory of the Republic of Armenia is nothing new for the international community, the international community has recognized and accepted it for a long time. As ridiculous as it may sound, we are the ones who have not recognized, recorded, or realized this fact for a long time, at least at the social and psychological level, and the time has come to do so, as the only guarantee for the lasting existence of the Republic of Armenia. The time has come for us to recognize the territorial integrity of the Republic of Armenia.
In this context, the following question is of particular importance. and to what extent does the concept of Real Armenia guarantee the security of the Republic of Armenia? I will argue that in the modern world, if there are guarantees, they are negative guarantees, that is, with some guarantees, only negative expectations are secured to some extent, and there are simply no guarantees for the fulfillment of positive expectations.
And therefore, in such conditions, it is the consistent work in the direction of the management and neutralization of negative guarantees that can become a positive guarantee. There is simply no other way.
And the neutralization of negative guarantees is possible only on the basis of legitimate steps, legitimate expectations, legitimate arguments and counter-arguments, and moreover, in case of acting in a legitimate teritory. These are extremely important nuances, which individually may not mean much, but in the system as a whole they will create a new security environment and new conditions for Armenia. This, once again, is not a positive guarantee, but it can become such under conditions of consistent management and neutralization of negative guarantees.
It is from this starting point that we approach a number of current challenges. This is also the reason why we are not against starting the border demarcation process with Azerbaijan from the sections of the four villages of the Tavush region of the Republic of Armenia and the Kazakh region of the Republic of Azerbaijan. In this context, questions with the following logic are often asked.
And does the demarcation in those areas and the implementation of its results guarantee security? It does not guarantee security, but the refusal to address the issue guarantees a continuous increase in security threats, and this negative guarantee must be neutralized in the first place.
The next question. and does this guarantee that there will be no new attacks on the territory of Armenia? It does not guarantee, but the opposite course of action guarantees a new attack on the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia, and we must first neutralize this negative guarantee.
The next question. and does the demarcation in the specified part of the Tavush border and the implementation of its results guarantee that Azerbaijan will remain committed to the logic of continuing the demarcation and return the areas of vital importance of more than three dozen of our villages? It does not guarantee, but the refusal to carry out demarcation in the mentioned area guarantees that Azerbaijan will not return the vital areas of our villages, and we must first neutralize this negative guarantee.
Honorable President of the National Assembly,
Dear MPs,
Dear Cabinet members,
Dear attendees,
Dear people,
The narrative I offer is not easy, it is even difficult and full of suffering. At the beginning of my speech, I said that the demarcation between Real Armenia and Historical Armenia takes place inside each of us and is painful, extremely painful. How could I know that? Understandably only by own example. The most pressing of those pain points is the following question. if what I said is the truth and that’s the way to the future, then what were our thousands of victims for, what did our soldiers die for? I have asked this question many times, including publicly, and I consider it important to give a very concrete and meaningful answer. And the answer is as follows. our soldiers died for the sake of Armenia’s statehood, independence and sovereignty.
What justification does this explanation have? I have had occasion to say that my conclusion is that after the 1996 OSCE Lisbon summit, the Nagorno Karabakh issue ceased to exist, the issue of the Republic of Armenia existed, in the sense that the international architecture de jure predetermining the content of the Nagorno Karabakh issue was ready and unchangeable, noting that Nagorno-Karabakh cannot but be part of Azerbaijan.
And here, giving vague and vain hopes of avoiding this record, some countries used the Nagorno Karabakh issue to put a collar on the Republic of Armenia and constrain its actions as an independent state. The negotiation opportunities that had been available since 2016 were not about any solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, but about shortening the collar that the Republic of Armenia was wearing, so that Armenia’s already constrained actions and attempts to act as an independent and sovereign state are simply ruled out. Note, not to be further constrained, but to be ruled out, because constraining had taken place long before, in 1996-1998.
We did not take that path and in the geopolitical centers you know, a decision was made to resolve the issue militarily and the 44-day war started. When I say the issue, I mean the issue of the Republic of Armenia, because as I said, the issue of Nagorno Karabakh had been solved long ago and solving the issue of the Republic of Armenia still remained, in particular, through civil conflicts and a military coup within the country.
By the way, this scenario was also operated before the 44-day war and was attempted at the end of the 44-day war and after. But the people’s understanding of the messages of the Government of the Republic of Armenia, the popular vigilance based on these messages and the consciousness of statehood stopped the conspiratorial steps. And our soldiers saved and preserved the sovereignty and statehood of the Republic of Armenia at the cost of their lives.
It is thanks to the lives of our soldiers, as well as the initially intuitive and later on clearly realized conceptual transition from Historical Armenia to Real Armenia, that we maintain our statehood, independence and sovereignty, because after the 44-day war, attempts to eliminate the Republic of Armenia as an independent state continued.
The first of them was the events of the night of November 10, 2020, which were accompanied by an assassination attempt against the President of the National Assembly, attacks against the parliament, the government and other state institutions. And months later, in February 2021, a failed military coup attempt took place.
We have learned lessons from what happened and must adopt additional mechanisms to rule out all further attempts to politicize the Armed Forces.
The next attempt to nullify and eliminate the statehood of Armenia took place on May 12, 2021, just two days after the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia was dissolved, the government resigned in order to hold early elections in the country, and the armed forces of Azerbaijan invaded the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia in the Sotk-Khoznavar sector.
At that time, there were forces that demanded us to start military operations so that, as they said, the CSTO would come to our aid. According to their logic, the CSTO could not do such a thing without military operations, although the CSTO’s de jure obligations indicated something completely different. As it turned out later, the CSTO did not want to come to the Republic of Armenia as an ally, but as a peacekeeper, in fact excluding the Republic of Armenia from its system of security guarantees.
Anyway, if the government then acted on emotions and such emphasis, the events could have gone in the following scenario. military operations in the depths of the sovereign territories of the Republic of Armenia, the failure of holding National Assembly elections obviously for this reason, the absence of an elected government, deployment of the CSTO not as allies, but peacekeepers, then the formation of a puppet government and the actual dissolution of the statehood of the Republic of Armenia.
But the people of Armenia again showed exceptional state-centeredness and responded to the calls of the government and the ruling majority. In those difficult conditions, we managed to have an election that was internationally assessed as free and democratic, and besides, against all odds, the people gave a vote of confidence to the political force that led the People’s Non-Violent Velvet Revolution of 2018. With this, in fact, Real Armenia received a mandate of trust, maybe unconsciously, maybe intuitively, but the people of the Republic of Armenia adopted this very strategy.
The de jure re-establishment of Real Armenia took place as a result of the September 2022 war, when it became clear that we are being dragged to the execution site with the collar around our necks put in 1996-1998 to decapitate our statehood and independence.
It was at that time that extremely important decisions were made during the quadrilateral meeting in Prague. That is, Armenia and Azerbaijan recognize each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty on the basis of the Alma-Ata Declaration of 1991, which means that the de jure existing administrative border between Soviet Armenia and Soviet Azerbaijan at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, i.e., recorded by USSR legislation and acts of legal significance, become state borders.
The next most important agreement of Prague is that Armenia and Azerbaijan agree to demarcate the border between the two countries on the basis of the Alma-Ata Declaration, which means that a new border line between Armenia and Azerbaijan will not be formed, but it is necessary to reproduce the existing border line on the ground.
It is extremely important that the president of Azerbaijan recently reaffirmed his commitment to the Prague agreements and the Alma-Ata Declaration. This can really become the basis of long-term peace and stability and we are ready to go that way.
The next major outcome of the quadrilateral meeting in Prague on October 6, 2022 was the deployment of an EU observer mission along the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, a civilian mission that first assumed a short-term mission, then was extended for another two years. Now we are discussing extending the mission for another two years.
As you can see, the Prague quadrilateral meeting is of key importance for having a stable and peaceful South Caucasus and is a realistic and, importantly, a strong legal-political plan for establishing peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan. So far, I haven’t had the opportunity to say this, but now I have to record that the role of French President Emmanuel Macron in reaching these agreements is simply enormous.
Moreover, against this background, the targeting of President Macron and France is surprising, incomprehensible and unacceptable for me and the government of the Republic of Armenia.
If Macron is targeted for the long-term mandate of the EU civilian mission, that decision, like the rest, was made by consensus in the EU, and I want to thank the leaders of all EU countries for the said decision, which took place at the request of the Republic of Armenia.
I believe that during this period, the EU civilian mission in Armenia has become a source of objective information for the international community, more specifically for the EU and its partners, about the situation along the Armenia-Azerbaijan state border and the contact line, which is extremely important for us.
Why is it important? It is important that the EU and its partners receive objective information about the situation along the Armenia-Azerbaijan state border and the contact line for a simple reason. that information will make it clear that the Republic of Armenia is sincerely committed to the peace agenda and the Prague agreements, and is in no way the aggressive side of this story.
Also, in this sense, I attach importance to the high-level meeting in the EU-USA-Armenia trilateral format on April 5. Of course, the meeting never had a security context and agenda, but you should agree and it is obvious that the EU and the United States of America would never have agreed to provide economic and political support to Armenia if they considered our policy to be aggressive. The political context of the April 5 Brussels meeting is as follows. All efforts to present the Republic of Armenia in the West as a state pursuing an aggressive policy are vanished.
And the Brussels meeting itself, which was socio-economic and political in its agenda and nature, was unprecedented both in format and significance. According to the results of the high-level meeting, the EU and the USA express their political support for Armenia’s sovereignty, democracy, territorial integrity, and a stable, peaceful, safe, democratic and prosperous future for Armenia and the region.
The European Union and the United States commended the Armenian government’s reforms in the areas of democracy and justice since 2018, as well as Armenia’s significant progress in the fight against corruption, and expressed their commitment to continued partnership and support for Armenia as we continue to strengthen democracy and the rule of law in line with shared values and principles.
The EU and the United States expressed readiness to expand cooperation with Armenia in the following areas: political reforms, economic development, mobility, effective governance, effective law enforcement, trade, communications, agriculture, energy, including nuclear energy, technology, aviation safety. They emphasized that they intend to provide additional support to help Armenia mitigate risks, diversify trade and strengthen economic and institutional resilience.
The EU and the US also announce that they will support strategic investments in Armenia, particularly in the areas of transport infrastructure, digital transformation and energy, as well as investments will be made in business development to promote job creation and economic growth.
I also consider it no less important that the European Union and the United States welcomed and supported our Crossroads for Peace initiative, which will promote shared prosperity and regional economic and trade diversification.
The EU and the USA also undertook to provide support to the Republic of Armenia in terms of socio-psychological inclusion of our brothers and sisters forcibly displaced from Nagorno Karabakh, addressing their long-term housing needs, and professional training.
This list only shows the political scale and significance of what happened in Brussels on April 5. It marked a new level of relations between Armenia and the US, Armenia and the EU, and this marking is about that both the EU and the US are ready to support the Republic of Armenia in the above-mentioned areas. It is also important to emphasize what the high-level trilateral meeting in Brussels on April 5 is not about. It’s not about the EU and the US coming and solving our problems.
I consider it important to voice this, because sometimes artificial, but sometimes not artificial, expectations are formed among us that some friends or allies should come and solve our problems.
The solution of our problems should probably start from here, the following change should be made in the methodology of solving our problems: make it clear and reinforce the understanding that it is we who must solve our problems, all our problems, for the simple reason that those are our problems. This, by the way, is the psychological formula of sovereignty, because sovereignty means acknowledgement of one’s own problems and willingness to solve them.
The opposite has nothing to do with sovereignty, statehood, independence, the opposite fits in the logic of a vassal, outpost, and in order to have an independent state, we must first of all get out of this logic. We have to solve our problems for a very simple, trivial reason: they are our problems.
In this sense, we do not oppose the deepening and development of relations with the USA and the European Union to our regional relations in any way, on the contrary, the attractiveness of the USA and the European Union for us is also in that they bear a completely different culture and political realities of relations with their neighbors. I remember another question-and-answer session held in this hall, when a representative of the opposition responded to some of my ideas about regional processes, saying “you talk as if we were surrounded by European countries”. My reaction was the following: “Are you sure you know the history of Europe well? Many countries of the European Union have gone through bloody wars, massacres, enmity with each other, until they realized that with war and enmity they are losing their sovereignty, not to mention security, well-being and future”.
Today I am talking about the same thing. our Historical motherland is just a tool in the hands of others to prevent our sovereignty, accomplishment and development of statehood, and our Historical motherland should be left alone, if we don’t want to lose our Real motherland, with the understanding that the motherland is the state, namely the Republic of Armenia.
Because if the motherland is not the state, the national sovereign state, then why for example, Lebanon, California, France or Australia are not the motherland?
Therefore, the further guarantee of the development of our sovereignty and statehood is the normalization and deepening of our relations with our neighbors on the basis of the interests and acknowledgement of Real Armenia, not Historical Armenia. And the government has adopted this course, although we understand that this policy contains both internal and external challenges. The most important of these challenges is, of course, Azerbaijan’s continued aggressive policy, which is expressed in rhetoric, border provocations, continuous occupation of Armenia’s sovereign territories, arms acquisitions worth tens of billions, etc.
Azerbaijan’s statements about the reforms of the Armenian army, the formation of new defense structures, and the acquisition of weapons are also an inseparable part of that aggressive policy.
In other words, what is Azerbaijan’s assumption, that the Republic of Armenia should not have an army capable of defending its own country? I have said and I want to emphasize again. It is the sovereign right of every country to have a capable military. On the other hand, we also believe that provoking an arms race in the region will not lead to a good place, but the reality is that we do not want to enter into an arms race with Azerbaijan.
And if Azerbaijan does not think so, we have a proposal for this case and we have spoken about that proposal: to create a mechanism of mutual control of weapons, to carry out a simultaneous withdrawal of troops from the border line, which, by the way, will also solve the issues of the 4 villages raised by Azerbaijan and our 31 villages, to carry out demilitarization of the border areas and transfer the protection of the entire border to the Border Guard troops, moving the units of the Ministry of Defense back to their permanent locations. This can also be done in case of a simultaneous withdrawal of troops.
All these proposals remain unresponded by Azerbaijan.
We hope to receive a positive response to our 8th edition of the Peace Treaty, which was delivered to Azerbaijan on March 14 of this year.
I also hope that we will come to an agreement, if not completely, at least partially, on the issue of border demarcation in the section of Armenian Baghanis, Azerbaijani Baghanis Ayrum, Armenian Voskepar, Azerbaijani Ashagh Askipara, Armenian Kirants, Azerbaijani Khairemli, Armenian Berkaber, Azerbaijani Kizilhajali villages, which will significantly change the atmosphere in our region.
Returning to the topic of aggressive rhetoric, I would also like to emphasize that both in Armenia and in Azerbaijan people often do not notice the interconnectedness of this phenomenon, when in many cases Azerbaijani rhetoric predetermines our rhetoric, our rhetoric predetermines Azerbaijani rhetoric. Of course, there is also the chicken or the egg dilemma here, whether who came first, why, how, and with what logic. But it is obvious that stopping this whirl is in the interests of our countries and the region, and we are ready to make efforts in this direction.
In terms of regional policy, I want to emphasize the special importance we attach to our relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Our relations with this neighbor of ours with ancient traditions of statehood are based on natural interests, which makes these relations special. Moreover, we have not put the development of our relations with the West, do not put and will not put in contradiction with our relations with Iran, and our relations with Iran have not contradicted, do not contradict and will not contradict our relations with the West.
By and large, this formula refers to our strategic perceptions of regional relations in general, and we have adopted that political line. This is a rather complicated but solvable task, we just need to build the foreign policy on the logic of sovereignty and some nuances may be more noticeable. For example, two of our four neighbors are candidates for EU membership. Georgia received this status months ago and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate our friendly Georgia again on this occasion. I am also glad to note that the Declaration signed in Tbilisi this year, which brought Armenia-Georgia relations to a new level of strategic partnership, expresses these new realities.
In our relations with Turkey, if we can say so, we are in the waiting mode and are waiting for the implementation of the officially recorded agreements. that is, opening of the Armenia-Turkey land border for citizens of third countries and holders of diplomatic passports. And in general, the opening of the Armenia-Turkey border will be an epoch-making event for our region, and we must continue our efforts in this direction as well. But here I can’t help but touch on a socio-psychological nuance. It is very important to note that I am now talking about Armenia-Turkey and not Armenian-Turkish relations. These two formulations, of course, have commonalities, but still they are not the same, this is an essential moment that we do not notice very often or mostly.
Summarizing the topic of regionalization, I would like to note with regret that some foreign actors, based on their own political or military-political goals, are trying to distort Armenia’s foreign policy, bringing to the stage the false narrative of creating “divisive lines” in the region. I think it is worth specially emphasizing that Armenia has adopted the policy of diversifying its foreign relations and partnerships in all directions, where consistent development of relations with not only France, the EU, all EU member states, the USA is an important component, but also with India, China, South Korea, Japan, Middle Eastern countries, which is not about “divisive lines”, but about establishing friendly relations and cooperation with as many countries as possible, which I reiterate, we have not opposed, do not oppose and will not oppose to our region and regional relations. One historical event that took place in 2023 concludes this topic. diplomatic relations were established between Armenia and Saudi Arabia. During the whole period of our independence, we had no relations with Saudi Arabia, and it is within the scope of this diversification policy that diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia were established.
Honorable President of the National Assembly,
Dear MPs,
Dear Cabinet members,
Dear attendees,
Dear people,
The turning point of 2023 and our recent history in general was the ethnic cleansing and depopulation of Nagorno Karabakh. In dozens of my speeches from December 2022 and throughout 2023, I referred to the illegal blocking of the Lachin Corridor, the impending ethnic cleansing, and the impending depopulation of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Today, I want to look at what happened from a different perspective, noting that exaggerated hopes towards the international community or de jure allies continuously lead us to disastrous consequences. Unfortunately, in some circles of Nagorno-Karabakh, the realization that the elected representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh should go for some solutions, otherwise no one can help, did not mature. The international community, international actors can do 10, 20 or maybe 30 percent of the work. The remaining 70 percent is up to the subject to whom the problem relates, if, of course, that subject wants to be a subject.
But I must emphasize again that what happened in Nagorno Karabakh was not really about Nagorno Karabakh, but another conspiracy to bring Armenia’s statehood to its knees. It was an attempt to bring to end the plan that still remained incomplete after November 2020, February 2021, May 2021, September 2022, the goals of which were very specific: dragging Armenia into war, creating internal political chaos in Yerevan, overthrowing the legitimate government and establishing a puppet government, essentially a liquidation commission of the Republic of Armenia.
But this time it didn’t work out again and it didn’t work out for several reasons.
The first of the reasons is the state thinking of the people of the Republic of Armenia, which was once again demonstrated, when people trusted the assessments of the government and the ruling majority, read them, discovered for themselves the scenarios that were at the basis of the ongoing processes and hidden in their depth. And again, I want to thank the people of Armenia for this and for the fact that they showed exceptional solidarity in hosting our brothers and sisters forcibly displaced from Nagorno Karabakh.
The fact that our brothers and sisters who were forcibly displaced from Nagorno Karabakh were not involved in the implementation of foreign agendas is also the reason for the repeated non-implementation of the failed scenario directed against the statehood of Armenia. In recent years, by the way, they were being prepared for this purpose, until the last second, even using hybrid and direct means to instill hatred towards the Armenian government and statehood. But it is necessary to pay respect and appreciation to our brothers and sisters forcibly displaced from Nagorno Karabakh, who showed exceptional state thinking even at the height of the tragedy.
Unfortunately, we cannot say the same about some representatives of the former elite of Nagorno-Karabakh, who do not seem to want to give up their role as beacons of hostile strikes against Armenia. But I have nothing new to say on this topic either. I’ve said it, I’ll say it again: there cannot be a second government in the Republic of Armenia. There is one government in Armenia and that government is sitting in this hall, there is one National Assembly in Armenia and that National Assembly is sitting in this hall.
Another reason contributing to the failure of the anti-state scenarios was the exceptional efficiency that the Armenian government showed in accepting the forcibly displaced people from Nagorno Karabakh and addressing their short-term vital needs. This was an important episode that showed the effectiveness and justification of the reforms implemented by the governing team, the government and the parliamentary majority in recent years. It is thanks to these reforms of 2021, 2022, 2023 that the state structures and statehood of Armenia showed such resilience that pleasantly or unpleasantly surprised many.
Obviously, addressing the long-term needs of our brothers and sisters forcibly displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh is on our agenda and we must find solutions, including with the support of our international partners. But I want to say here again. the thinking that our international partners should come and solve the housing needs of our brothers and sisters forcibly displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh is not sovereign and state-centric. We have to do the basic work and the more work we do, the more international support we will get. Deputy Prime Minister Tigran Khachatryan will report in more detail about our programs to address the long-term housing needs of our brothers and sisters forcibly displaced from Nagorno Karabakh.
But also in this context, I want to emphasize and thank the people who work in Armenia, create results and pay the taxes, be it citizens of Armenia or non-citizens. They are the strongest pillar and/or supporter of the concept of Real Armenia, primary nurturers and promoters of the idea of sovereignty and statehood. I must also express my joy on the occasion of the fact that as of today, 13 thousand 400 people forcibly displaced from Nagorno Karabakh have already found a job in the Republic of Armenia, and I want to ask our brothers and sisters forcibly displaced from Nagorno Karabakh to step by step get involved in the strengthening of the economy and statehood of Armenia.
Honorable President of the National Assembly,
Dear MPs,
Dear Cabinet members,
Dear attendees,
Dear people,
I want to make a special reference to the interstate relations between Armenia and Russia, which are obviously not experiencing their best times, but whose importance for our statehood, sovereignty, security, and economy is hard to overestimate. In recent years, I have often spoken about various issues on the agenda of Armenia-Russia relations. Today I want to emphasize that we really have not made any wrong step in our relations with the Russian Federation, there is no place where our partners can accuse us of not fulfilling our obligations. Unfortunately, the opposite cases are numerous. But I also want to emphasize that we do not want to wrangle with the Russian Federation, not only because we do not have the opportunity and strength to do so, but also because we appreciate the enormous positive aspects that have been and are in our relations.
But it’s also important to understand what and why happens in our relationships, in a deep and conceptual sense. In my opinion, the same thing is happening: the Historical Armenia-Russian Federation relations are changing to the Real Armenia-Russian Federation relations. It is sometimes as painful as our internal transformation from Historical Armenia to Real Armenia. But this is happening, and everything should be done to fill this transformation with positive stories, and we are ready for such work with the Russian Federation. The agreement reached during my first meeting with the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin in May 2018 was that our relations will be based on respect for each other’s sovereignty, statehood, interests. And I am ready for a dialogue in this nature.
Honorable President of the National Assembly,
Dear MPs,
Dear Cabinet members,
Dear attendees,
Dear people,
In 2023, like in 2020, 2021, 2022, we walked along a very fine and fragile edge, with the sometimes unrealized but very tangible risk of losing our statehood and independence. But I want to emphasize my belief again that today we would not have this beloved and dear statehood, sovereignty, independence, if we had not first intuitively, then more and more consciously built all our actions on the concept of Real Armenia. A very important part of the road has been overcome, but all the risks are still present today with all intensity. Strange as it may sound, but our way of conduct of recent years should not change and we should align all our policies, decisions, steps with the concept of Real Armenia. What does not correspond to that concept should be reviewed, re-evaluated, this is an imperative arising from the interests of our state.
In 2018, when we took over the leadership of Armenia, it was important for me to formulate our key and strategic mission. And that mission was formulated in the following way: to change the historical cycle of Armenia’s fate, which is defined as follows: acquisition of statehood in the process of the collapse of empires, and the loss of statehood in the process of the restoration of empires.
This is a cycle of the fate of Historical Armenia repeated at least 5 times, and it is this fate that we must change and, I believe, that is our historical mission. And my most important message today is that change, again, has to happen in our minds first. Because if we do not change ourselves, we cannot change the historical fate of Historical Armenia. But we must fulfill that mission, and that mission is the transition from Historical Armenia to Real Armenia. And it’s happening today, right now.
Glory to the martyrs and long live the Republic of Armenia. Long live the Republic of Armenia! Thank you.
INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA