Pashinyan’s UN General Assembly speech had nothing to do with the interests o

Artak Zakaryan, a member of the RPA Executive Body, wrote:

“Although the UN, as an international institution, has lost its influence, it remains important as a platform for propaganda purposes.

I follow the speeches of leaders from countries that are at the center of international events. Each leader’s remarks are structured around the logic of their state’s vital interests, a unique interpretation of existing conflicts, and a clear presentation of their positions, aspirations, and demands.

What does Armenia want from the world? This should have been evident in Nikol’s speech.

In effect, Nikol traveled all the way to New York to speak from the podium of the 81st session of the UN General Assembly about the interests of Azerbaijan and Turkey. He went there to reiterate and indirectly confirm that Armenia is currently a state dependent on Azerbaijan and Turkey, and that whatever they desire becomes Armenia’s de facto foreign policy.

He went there to assure that Armenia would ‘move away’ from its natural and genuine ally, Russia, and integrate into the West-Caucasus-Central Asia axis – that is, into the ‘Turkic world,’ which serves as a new instrument of anti-Russian sentiment.

It is particularly farcical when the head of a ‘government’ that has trampled upon Armenia’s vital interests and failed so miserably speaks of ‘strategic relations.’ I imagine those present were especially impressed by the ‘strategic relations’ between Armenia and Luxembourg, Croatia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, and Bulgaria. Even those countries are likely surprised to learn that they hold such strategic importance in the life of the Armenian people.

From the UN podium, Nikol presented yet another special gift to Azerbaijan by voicing the following sentiment: ‘…although Armenians and Azerbaijanis have centuries of experience in peaceful coexistence.’

One wonders: where exactly did Nikol see Azerbaijanis dating back centuries? Which historical source indicates that any Azerbaijani ever lived alongside Armenians in the South Caucasus? Why does he provide a new opportunity for Baku to continue advancing its aggressive policy of appropriating Armenian territories based on a false and fabricated history? Where is the Armenian interest in all of this? After all this, how can there be any talk of peace?

In summary, we can say that Nikol Pashinyan’s speech at the UN General Assembly had, by and large, nothing to do with the interests of the Republic of Armenia and the Armenian people.”