The state border is not just a line drawn on a map. Inside that line are people’s houses, roads, memory and ideas about tomorrow. Therefore, border decisions require more than political optimism. They also require responsibility to those who have not yet been born, but will live with the consequences of those decisions.
Yesterday, on October 14, Nikol Pashinyan announced that there should not be enclaves and exclaves between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the problem should be solved by exchanging territories. According to him, the territory of Armenia should be 29,743 square kilometers. Regarding Azerbaijan’s agreement, the prime minister has a “preliminary impression” that such a solution is possible. The impression can be a basis for starting negotiations, but it is not enough to demand public trust in the territorial future of the state.
Meanwhile, the public was not presented the map of the exchange, the legal bases, the security calculation and the obligations to be undertaken by Azerbaijan. But it is already suggested to believe another promise of peace. This asymmetry has become the political signature of the government, when the expected achievement is presented with confidence, and its price remains uncertain.
The exchange of territories can be a solution in itself. However, it should be evaluated with the future vitality of the state. After the exchange, will the border be more protected, the roads safer, the settlements more reliable for living?
The equality of square kilometers is not the answer to these questions. One area holds a road, another a water source, the third a defensive position. Their surfaces can be equal, but the weight of losses and gains can be incomparably different.
It is important to understand that the state has both a surface and a living space. The first can be preserved in numbers, endangering the second in reality.
In the case of Tigranashen, the issue is also the interstate road operating in the Armenia-Iran direction. In the case of Artsvashen, territorial rights, property of displaced people, and resources of real value for negotiation. All this does not fit into the simple formula “area for area”.
If control over the road changes, its safe alternative must already be in place. If the boundary line changes, its protection must be calculated in advance. If people lose the opportunity to return or to enjoy their property, the protection of their rights cannot be left on the sidelines of a political statement.
The fate of other territories of Armenia under Azerbaijani control should be presented as clearly. Restoring control over one’s territory should not turn into a “concession” of the other party, for which they will demand a new payment from us.
We should not forget about the constitutional responsibility. Issues related to the change of the territory of Armenia are resolved by referendum. Preservation of the total area does not eliminate the issue of territorial ownership change. And the political legitimacy of the referendum presupposes an informed choice with a map, conditions and an honest presentation of the consequences.
People’s consent has value when they are given the opportunity to understand and choose.
The choice between uncertainty and fear of war is worthless and servile.
And in fact, the political value of peace is measured by how much it frees society from fear and the state from vulnerability. Declaring one’s promise a “historical achievement” without that result is political cynicism and adventure. And the real assessment of this will be given by the people with their security, and the generations with the state we left behind.
Former SRC Chairman Davit Ananyan
—