Author: Talar Tumanian

Avetik Chalabyan

First of a multi-part series, this article was originally published in Armenian by Mediamax on May 24, 2022.

Avetik Chalabyan’s legal representatives have published his article penned at the Armavir Penitentiary Institution, where the co-founder of ARAR Foundation is currently being held under trumped up charges.

The resistance movement in Armenia is evolving and gradually gaining momentum, as it is entering its second month. This movement has made it abundantly clear that Nikol Pashinyan’s public support is eroding day by day, and his removal from power is only a matter of time and format.

As I am composing this letter, Pashinyan is in Brussels facing a difficult dilemma. Externally, he is faced with an overt campaign of coercion by foreign powers, and internally he is subjected to a campaign of peaceful disobedience that will negate his dubious anti-Armenian plans. 

He will try to maneuver between these two poles and spin each according to his plans; however, the end of his game is near and clear, where a decisive reversal of fortune is possible at any given moment.

The real choice is not whether Pashinyan will stay or leave. Rather, it is the path that Armenia will choose to follow after his removal from office.

Although the public discourse is revolving around who will replace Pashinyan, it must be focused on what will happen after his removal from office, and what are the radical changes that we must introduce into our lives to end this historical, vicious cycle of misfortunes, and ultimately build a lasting and viable state.

We must be honest with ourselves and accept the fact that, while Pashinyan is the living embodiment of our failures, he certainly is not the reason. For that, we must look at our 600 or so years of stateless history, during which time we have lost a significant portion of our national heritage; withered our merits in other pursuits; replaced our unity and resolve with unprincipled adaptability; and embraced laziness, pettiness, ignorance and arrogance. 

We owe our national revivals in the 19th and 20th centuries to the superhuman efforts of a small minority of educated and creative individuals, who faced the deeply rooted materialism, xenomania and unprincipled adaptability of the majority, that eventually led to our loss of statehood in 1921, and a repeat of the exact same scenario 101 years later, at the moment. Yet again, a weakened and confused Armenia is trapped between a ferocious and anti-Armenian campaign of pressure waged by the Azeri-Turkish tandem, a Russia unsure of its abilities and ready to make concessions on our behalf, and a profoundly indifferent West filled with false and far promises, where it is forced to choose between bad and worse again. However, while there are similarities between the dismantling of the Armenian state now and 101 years ago, there are essential differences as well.

These challenges notwithstanding, the fighting spirit of Armenians is far from exhausted. Armenians in Armenia, Artsakh and Armenia-centric segments of the Diaspora are capable of fighting against the current efforts to dismantle the Armenian state and start the process of undertaking vital changes for a new Armenia.

What is the essence of these changes? It is no secret that Armenia and Artsakh have lost a significant part of their geopolitical importance and have ended up with a diminished role in regional politics. In order to restore this role and the balance of regional power, three radical changes must take place simultaneously in the next 20 years or so.

First, Armenia’s population must grow following a 30-year period of decline. Population growth in Armenia and Artsakh must exceed those of the neighboring Turkish states.

Second, Armenia’s economy must be radically rebuilt, forging a growth rate capable of doubling the size of the economy every 10 years. Qualitatively, the economy must also be more technologically developed than its neighboring countries.

Finally, the Armenian Army and the remaining armed forces and security structures must become the best in the region. At the very least, they have to have equal capabilities and quality with those of the neighboring countries.

Upon completion of these three steps, Armenia will restore its standing, engage its archenemies from a position of confidence, and pursue its national interests consistently and unapologetically.

However, we have yet to reach this point. And as of now, the path to this point is foggy and appears unattainable. I will discuss the path and the means to get there in subsequent articles. At the moment, the decision is between an Armenia replete with unprincipled adaptability and laziness, descending to its demise and an Armenia that brings its full resolve and creativity over the next few decades to ensure its viability and prosperity. Today, the Armenian population on the streets must take this decisive step and not only remove this weak and feeble government, but also be ready to roll up its sleeves over the next few years to build the strong, viable and unified Armenia of our dreams through individual and collective effort and sacrifice, guided by capable leadership.

European Council President Charles Michel, and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan meet in Brussels, May 23 (Photo: Office of the Prime Minister of Armenia)

European Council President Charles Michel has called for a “sustainable normalization of relations” following a week of renewed military hostilities and mutual accusations of derailing negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

“All core issues that had led to the first Nagorno-Karabakh war as well as to the renewed hostilities in 2020 will need to be addressed by all stakeholders to create conditions for lasting and equitable peace,” the May 31 statement by Michel’s spokesperson reads. 

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev agreed to launch negotiations on border demarcation during a trilateral meeting in Brussels on May 23. In a statement released after the summit, Michel said that he had “stressed to both leaders that it was necessary that the rights and security of the ethnic Armenian population in Karabakh be addressed.” 

Armenian political figures criticized Michel for his usage of “Karabakh” as opposed to “Nagorno-Karabakh,” stating that the former emphasizes the absence of Nagorno-Karabakh as a territorial and political unit. 

Artsakh President Arayik Harutyunyan called the statement “highly unacceptable,” stating that it “does not reflect the demands and aspirations of the Armenians of Artsakh, based on the right to self-determination.” 

Four of the five political parties in the Artsakh parliament released a statement condemning the use of the phrase “ethnic Armenian population in Karabakh,” stating that it “testifies to the retreat of the current authorities of Armenia from the foreign policy vector.”

“The authorities of the Republic of Armenia are obliged to be guided exclusively by the position of promoting and protecting the right of the people of Artsakh to self-determination in international instances,” the statement reads. 

Michel noted in his May 31 statement that “terminology is particularly sensitive” in conflict settings and that his comments after the trilateral summit should “not be interpreted as favoring a predetermined outcome of discussions either way.”

“What ultimately matters most is that all issues are comprehensively addressed; this includes rights and security of all populations,” the statement reads. 

Michel’s statement follows a week in which Armenian and Azerbaijani authorities have accused each other on nearly a daily basis of obstructing the peace process. 

On May 28, the Armenian Defense Ministry (MoD) reported that an Armenian soldier was killed by Azerbaijani fire. 

Azerbaijani armed forces fired on Armenian military positions in the southeastern part of the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, according to the MoD of Armenia. Soldier Davit Vahan Vardanyan received a gunshot wound and died in the hospital the next day. 

Azerbaijani authorities denied the report of a border attack, stating that such “false and destructive statements” are meant to “undermine the steps taken toward the normalization of relations.” Two days after the border fight, the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry reported that Armenian armed forces fired on Azerbaijani positions in the Kelbajar region, which the Armenian Defense Ministry denied as disinformation. 

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia (MoFA) said that “regular ceasefire violations,” including the May 28 attack, prove the “need for a mirror withdrawal of troops from the Armenia-Azerbaijan border and the deployment of an observation mission on the border area, which has been repeatedly raised by the Armenian side.” 

The MoFA of Armenia also recalled that the “consequences of the previous gross violation” of the ceasefire, during which the “Azerbaijani armed forces invaded the village of Parukh in Nagorno-Karabakh” have “not been eliminated yet.” 

Azeri troops advanced on the Askeran region of Artsakh and seized Parukh on March 24. While Russian peacekeeping troops took control of the village after several days of deadly fighting, Armenian authorities reported that Azerbaijani soldiers maintained fortified positions in the nearby Karaglukh height. 

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev reiterated his claim that the Artsakh conflict has been resolved during a lengthy speech the day before the May 28 border attack. 

“As for the administrative territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, this territory does not exist in the territory of Azerbaijan. Therefore, the word Nagorno-Karabakh is not in the lexicon of international organizations, and the recent meeting in Brussels showed it once again. It is true that Armenia has once again raised the issue and, as they say, they are hitting their heads on the wall, but this is the reality and they have to come to terms with it,” Aliyev said during a visit to Zangilan. 

Aliyev further said during his May 27 speech that the border demarcation process will recognize Azerbaijan’s sovereignty over Artsakh. 

“It automatically puts an end to the territorial claims made against Azerbaijan by revanchist, fascist forces in Armenia, because if we define the borders, what kind of ‘Nagorno-Karabakh’ status can we talk about?” Aliyev said. “This is the territory of Azerbaijan, and the whole world accepts it. Therefore, the first meeting of the commissions on the delimitation of the Azerbaijani-Armenian border is of great importance.” 

Aliyev also reiterated his claims that parts of the Republic of Armenia, including the capital city Yerevan and the southernmost province Syunik, are historically part of Azerbaijan. 

The Armenian Foreign Ministry condemned Aliyev’s speech as evidence of the “continuation of aggressive and warmongering policy.” 

“The negotiations on normalization of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan should be held on the basis of proposals of both sides, which should address the whole agenda of issues, including the final settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,” the MoFA of Armenia said. 

“We call on the leadership of Azerbaijan not to disrupt the discussions conducted in the existing formats with warmongering, expansionist rhetoric,” the MoFA continued. 

In response to the Armenian Foreign Ministry, its Azerbaijani counterpart criticized the “revanchist forces in Armenia” encouraging the continuation of the “aggressive policy pursued by these forces for nearly 30 years.” 

“The Armenian side must understand that the attempt to demonstrate the behavior of decades ago is nothing but an illusion. Only a proper assessment of the new realities and new opportunities in the region can lead to the right outcomes,” the MoFA of Azerbaijan said.