TODAY.AZ / World news

Armenia has a lot to learn from Ireland

11 June 2024 [17:00] - TODAY.AZ

The issue of the need for amendments to the Constitution of Armenia, raised once again by Azerbaijan, is being commented on in a peculiar way by the expert community and the media of the neighboring country. Most of them are either hysterical, accusing Baku of interfering in the internal affairs of Armenia, or they claim that this is allegedly a simple whim of the Azerbaijani side, which does not want peace with the Armenians.  
In fact, Azerbaijan's demand is not a whim at all.

Making such changes is a mandatory point of agreements that are concluded between states, one of which claims the lands of the other. There can be no peace agreement if the Armenian Constitution contains a reference to the Declaration of Independence, which states in black and white that the Azerbaijani lands are part of Armenia. At the same time, our neighbors claim that this does not mean territorial claims against Azerbaijan at all, it's just that, they wrote it down, and advise us to stop "manipulations".

According to their tradition, stupidly refuting everything and everything, Armenia does not think that attempts to reasonably throw off the burden of accusations only aggravate their situation. In recent days, this issue has come to the fore again after statements from Baku. It was as if Armenia had heard about Azerbaijan's position for the first time and was very offended. It turns out that they have already taken a pen to sign a peace treaty, and we have... Armenian propaganda claims that Baku's demand is a gross interference in the internal affairs of sovereign Armenia, that it contradicts international law and that there has never been any agreement in the world that inevitably changed the constitution.

It is obvious that the Armenian side is trying to pretend to be furniture, although every schoolboy in Armenia knows what is written in the Constitution of his country and for what purposes. We will also argue about the precedent, and on the basis of documents. But let's take it in order.

If this is not a claim to our lands, then what is it? The Declaration of Independence of Armenia states: "The Supreme Council of the Armenian SSR, expressing the united will of the people of Armenia... implementing the right of nations to free self-determination, based on the joint Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Armenian SSR and the National Council of Nagorno-Karabakh of December I, 1989 "On the reunification of the Armenian SSR and Nagorno-Karabakh"... Proclaims: The beginning of the process of establishing independent statehood."

In other words, Armenia declared its independence by virtually annexing the territories of Azerbaijan. The text of this document also contains claims to the lands of Turkey, called "Western Armenia" in the declaration.

In turn, the preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia states that "the Armenian people, based on the fundamental principles of Armenian statehood and national goals enshrined in the Declaration of Independence of Armenia, which fulfilled the sacred covenant of its freedom-loving ancestors ...", and so on. The text of the Constitution itself does not mention Karabakh, but it is based, as mentioned above, on the national goals enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. Consequently, the Basic Law of the Republic of Armenia has fixed as one of the main goals of the Armenian nation the appropriation of the territories of a neighboring state.
Now about the precedent.

In April 1998, the British-Irish Belfast Agreement was concluded, which put an end to thirty years of bloodshed in Northern Ireland. The document, also called the Good Friday Agreement, entered into force at the end of 1999. According to him, Northern Ireland remained part of the United Kingdom. Immediately after the document came into force, independent Ireland amended the articles of its Constitution, which made claims against Northern Ireland.

Initially, in the Constitution adopted in 1937, these articles read as follows:

Article 2

The territory belonging to the people consists of the entire island of Ireland, the adjacent islands and the territorial sea.

Article 3

Pending the reunification of the national territory and without limiting the rights of Parliament and the Government established under this Constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the entire Territory, the laws issued by Parliament must apply in the same areas and in relation to the same territory as the laws of the Irish Free State, and also have extraterritorial effect."

After the changes were made, the articles began to sound like this:

"Article 2

Being a part of the Irish nation is a common right and a birthright of every person born on the island of Ireland, which covers its islands and seas. It is also the right of all people who are otherwise legally entitled to be Irish citizens. In addition, the Irish nation values its special ties of kinship with people of Irish descent living abroad, who share its cultural identity and heritage.

Article 3

The Irish nation firmly intends, on the basis of harmony and friendship, to unite the entire population living on the island of Ireland, with all the diversity of its identity and traditions, while recognizing that the unification of Ireland will take place only by peaceful means with the consent of the majority of the population, expressed in a democratic form within both jurisdictions of the island. Before this happens, laws passed by the Parliament established in accordance with the Constitution shall operate within the same territory and scope of application as laws passed by Parliament that were in force immediately before the entry into force of this Constitution."
So there is no need to talk about the absence of precedents in world practice. There are precedents. The amendments introduced by referendum to the Constitution of Ireland can be considered as a precedent for the situation around the Armenian Constitution. This was not a concession on anyone's part. 

Such an adjustment of legislation is a prerequisite for the health of interstate relations. We would have looked at the Armenians if the Constitution of Azerbaijan had written by analogy that the Azerbaijani people, fulfilling the sacred covenant of their freedom-loving ancestors and based on the fundamental principles of Azerbaijani statehood and national goals, recognize Zangezur, Basarchecher and Daralagez as an integral part of Azerbaijan.

The problem of Armenia is too much attention to the very precepts of freedom-loving ancestors, as well as a serious crisis between reality and the Armenian national goals and principles of statehood, which are discussed in the Declaration of Independence. There is clearly something wrong with these precepts and principles of the Armenian people. What does Azerbaijan have to do with it?

Print version

Views: 737

Connect with us. Get latest news and updates.

Recommend news to friend

  • Your name:
  • Your e-mail:
  • Friend's name:
  • Friend's e-mail: