Pashinyan faces tough choice amid lack of facts on Karabakh "ethnic cleansing"
"Genocide" trump card unhelpful

ANALYTICS  02 February 2024 - 11:33

Armenia continues to debate the recent remarks made by the Russian Foreign Ministry's spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova. In particular, Zakharova's words on the Armenian side's claims of alleged "ethnic cleansing" of Karabakh Armenians caused a storm of emotions. "If there is a document of an international organisation that Yerevan considers authoritative, I would like to be provided with some facts. For example, from the UN or any other organisation. If there are any papers or statements that prove that such 'ethnic cleansing' has occurred, please give me links to them," Zakharova said.

The statement triggered a harsh reaction from official Yerevan. The deputy speaker of Armenia's National Assembly, Ruben Rubinian, said: "Considering that we are a nation that survived the 'genocide' (inverted commas - ed.) and is also facing its denial, the reaction of the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry is painful. I think it could have been more sensitive in commenting on the tragedy that happened to the allied nation."

Well, first of all, let's talk about "genocide" again. Even if we imagine for a moment that the events of 1915 can be classified as genocide, who gave the Armenians the right to project these events onto everything that has happened and will happen to them in history? Obvious manipulation. However, Rubinian's appeal to "genocide" is also evidence of the helplessness of the Armenian position on the "ethnic cleansing" of Karabakh Armenians. There would be no need for the purely manipulative tool of "Armenian genocide" if it could be proven. Moreover, the same idea is reinforced by Rubinian himself, who does not provide any facts proving the use of force against the peaceful population of Karabakh and only appeals to the mythical "genocide".

Against this backdrop, the Armenians' demand for assistance in these manipulations looks particularly silly. The only thing Moscow could objectively "give" to Yerevan after the 44-day war was the issue of Karabakh's deferred status. Faced with Azerbaijan's resolute policy of fully restoring its sovereignty and territorial integrity, the Kremlin had no choice but to accept the given and forget the issue. At the same time, Moscow used the Prague 2022 statements to portray Pashinyan as solely "guilty" of not wanting to pick a fight with Baku. The essence of subsequent statements by President Putin, Foreign Minister Lavrov and Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zakharova was that after Pashinyan's statement that "Karabakh is Azerbaijan", Moscow could do no more. There are several reasons for this manoeuvre. Firstly, the Kremlin is trying to lower Pashinyan's rating and make him look like a traitor in the eyes of Armenians. And secondly, as the political scientist Farhad Mammadov once noted, they are trying to appease Russian right-wing patriotic forces that are determined to reassert their influence throughout the post-Soviet space.

In any case, Moscow is making it clear to Yerevan that it will not support the new "suffering" Armenian narratives. This is due first and foremost to the fact that the Kremlin does not want to play a game that was initiated in Europe and is therefore aimed at forcing Russia out of the South Caucasus region. It was the West that initiated the imaginary problem of "the rights and security of the Karabakh Armenians" and is still pushing it. Moreover, Yerevan and its "curators" are trying to portray the voluntary resettlement of Karabakh Armenians in Armenia as "ethnic cleansing", given that this narrative has in no way prevented Baku from carrying out a just anti-terrorist operation. In all likelihood, Yerevan, through its envoys, told the Karabakh Armenians "to leave in case of the anti-terrorist operation". Talking to some of the Armenians who left Azerbaijan seems to confirm this. Let us not forget the psychological component of the Armenians' motivation for leaving. Many of their fathers and grandfathers (and sometimes they) participated in the ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis; they left because they did not know how to live with the descendants of the victims of this cleansing. But this is not our problem, as they say.

The UN has confirmed that no acts of violence have been committed against the Karabakh Armenians, whatever their motives. Furthermore, the same fact was confirmed by Prime Minister Pashinyan himself, who stated that "there is no direct threat to the civil population of Nagorno-Karabakh". On September 22, 2023, Azerbaijan's foreign minister, Jeyhun Bayamov, recalled those very words at a French-initiated emergency UN Security Council meeting. Overall, this was certainly a very sensitive blow not only to the Armenian initiative but also to the image of the Armenian authorities. After all, it turned out that the Prime Minister said one thing and the Foreign Minister said another.

Moreover, after Zakharova's statement, it becomes clear that Pashinyan, who in September declared that there were no facts of violence on the part of Baku against Karabakh Armenians, not only demonstrated a constructive approach to the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict but also distanced himself from Moscow, which Armenian revanchists and representatives of the West were quick to accuse of betraying the Armenians.

Against this backdrop, the rumours that Pashinyan no longer suits the West and that his inner circle is the greatest danger because of its concentration of pro-Western forces have gained credibility.

It seems that Pashinyan's personnel policy is playing a cruel joke on him. Five years ago, he surrounded himself with Western supporters to consolidate his power. What will he do now to protect himself from them?

Caliber.Az