Today marks another anniversary of the independence of present-day Armenia celebrated in the Armenian world. The very fact that we consider this day to be the starting point of our independence already reveals a remarkably superficial attitude towards it. Let us recall that the First Republic was proclaimed on 28 May 1918, exercising the fundamental right of the Armenian people to their national state. It emerged as a product of not only the collapse of the Russian and Ottoman empires, but also due to the desire of Armenians to develop their own mechanisms of defence against physical extermination. This is of crucial importance, as the process of the rebirth of the Armenian state took place against the backdrop of mass extermination and expulsion of the Armenian population of Western Armenia. Owing to a plethora of domestic and external reasons, the Armenian elites of the day failed to retain and strengthen this independence, with the eventual loss of the western territories to Kemalist Turkey and the eastern territories to the Soviet Union.
Proceeding from the logic of history and politics, we should regard September 21 not as the day of the declaration of independence but as the date of its restoration. Regrettably, the late Soviet bureaucracy and the earlier Armenian ‘elite’ not only failed to proclaim the Republic of Armenia the legal successor of the First Republic, but also opted to consign it to political and legal oblivion. This is in contrast to neighbouring Azerbaijan, which is recognised as the successor of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in all foundational documents. This act cannot be treated as a symbolic one; on the contrary, it has a solid and genuine political substance. Firstly, Baku has signalled clearly to the international community that it regards its 70 years of belonging to the Soviet Union as an occupation. Secondly, it exhibits readiness to forge a substantial system of one’s own interests on the basis of the principle of balance of power between the key global players.
State-building always starts with the statement of fundamentals and principles that set the guidelines for both its own population and the world that surrounds it. The Declaration of Independence of Armenia should have invariably opened like this: ‘The Republic of Armenia, being the legal successor of the First Democratic Republic of Armenia, envisages its mission to protect the interests of its citizens and compatriots in the Spyurk (communities abroad) and to restore historical justice for the Armenians subjected to genocide and expulsion from their historical lands’. And the matter is not whether Armenia possessed the resources to achieve this mission, but the imperative of clearly articulating its geopolitical ambitions. The proper signal had to be sent out regarding who we are, and where our value (capability) lies. Political realism argues that independence does not refer to a moderate, peaceful and comfortable existence, but to the perpetual combat of all against all. There will always be powers willing to destroy you or establish strategic control over you at the very least. In this sense, we were twice as ‘lucky’ – two out of four neighbours of ours (Turkey and Azerbaijan) have over the centuries effectively evidenced their intention to shut down the Armenian Question once and for all.
Instead of admitting their criminal past, they elevate the murderers of the Armenian people to the rank of national heroes, they give us ceaseless ultimatums instead of compromises, and obliterate tombs and churches instead of showing mutual respect. They act coherently, cold-bloodedly and with a crystal clear sense of their genuine national interests. Drawing up his country’s foreign policy, Ilham Aliyev attends to every detail (as we know, there are no trifles in grand politics). He persists in his ultimatum-like demands for amendments to the Declaration of Independence of Armenia and the Constitution of Armenia, where mentions of Artsakh are present. Conceded lands and expelled populations do not suffice for him, for as a realist he is aware of the distinction between conquering and keeping.
A rejuvenated Armenia and a systematised Diaspora would possess the potential required not only for the return of Artsakh, but also for tackling more complex and comprehensive issues of regional and global politics. The first Artsakh war, in which at most ten per cent of this potential was showcased, is a definite testament to this. Aliev didn’t come up with anything brilliant, he just capitalised effectively on our laziness, slackness, and miscalculations.
It was not Azerbaijan that defeated us, but us that dragged ourselves to the inevitable defeat. The witness to this is the Yerablur Pantheon, where 5,000 young Armenians and officers who stood up to Turks, Azerbaijanis and their overt and covert allies for 44 days have been resting since 2020. From the standpoint of morals, honour and dignity, on the day we should not drink brandy to independent Armenia, but rather lower all flags, reveal our mistakes and remedy them, so that afterwards we won’t have to watch Turkish and Azerbaijani soldiers shattering the graves of those guys with their kicks. That is upon which our actual independence depends.
