Demarcation of the Armenian future

“Internationally recognized borders” and the Alma-Ata Protocols have become one of the clichés of our days, je ne sais quoi ultimate truths. Meanwhile, in reality there are only mutually recognized borders of the two states, which, like any borders in principle, are not documented in the Alma-Ata Protocols.

The word “reciprocal” has disappeared from the lexicon of the Armenian authorities, and some perceive this as something natural for the losing side because we are “not in a position to occupy other people’s territories” and even demand our own back in return. The notorious enclaves are a consequence of Soviet-era colonial delineations which have changed significantly over time, owing in part to the visionary policies of Aliyev Sr. and then to the actual exchange of populations in the early years of independence and the Karabakh war.

There is no one to put Azerbaijan before a choice: to swap enclaves or to leave things as they are, because the prime minister delivers ultimatums only to his own compatriots, unilaterally. Otherwise, Aliyev would have opted for the latter, because swapping territories implies solving new infrastructural issues, particularly water supply. Instead, the border and disputed territory is not only preserved, but also relegated to the rear forever. Forever – because Pashinyan legitimizes the unilateral surrender of territories with his “good neighborly gesture of good will.” Moreover, he passes it off as a diplomatic victory. Will this example become contagious for the arch-neighbor? Only for the rest of Armenia’s regions, what is more, not only those bordering Azerbaijan.

Of course, Armenian public realizes that “territorial integrity” and international law in general are binding on the weak, i.e. the proverbial demarcation will not protect it from new Azerbaijani and Turkish crimes against humanity. The bigger problem is that a sizable part of Armenians have resigned themselves to their status of losers and consider this arrangement quite acceptable. They say that the victory in Artsakh was an anomaly, and now we return to the comfortable and non-binding position of a victim and lose human lives and territories to the bitter end. And those who have not resigned theirselves and are trying to defend their homes are only creating inconveniences for the construction of the “new Armenia”, which will have no problems with its neighbors, because it will not have Armenians as a political entity.

On the other hand, it is always easier to ignore the inconvenient. To make oneself believe that everything will be limited just to one more village – so what if someone far away loses the opportunity to safely send their child to school, go to the neighboring village to visit his relatives, grow crops and feed the very city that is indifferent to their problems. After all, Turkish and Azerbaijani tomatoes will be cheaper. And there will be ample space in Yerevan for all refugees, especially if more refugees from Artsakh, unable to withstand indifference and lack of any convincing medium-term integration programs preceding repatriation, leave to develop and strengthen other countries.

Armenians had to try very hard to forget at what price they had fought off every centimeter of land to remain Armenians in their own homeland just in 30 years. Where have we demarcated for ourselves the very red line, the concession that we will never make, for we will perish as a nation? How many more Armenian hearths must be destroyed and surrendered to the enemy for us to finally realize it? Alas, then it will be too late. We will have hundreds of victoriously averted hypothetical wars and a few years of satiety predating the final slaughter though.