Azerbaijan slams Armenian PM's claims, calls for constitutional amendments for peace

Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has strongly condemned the statements made by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan in an interview with Azerbaijan Public Television in Albania on May 15. The Azerbaijani government accuses Pashinyan of misleading the international community on key issues relating to territorial claims in Armenia’s constitution and the dissolution of the Minsk Group.

Aykhan Hajizada, Spokesperson for the Azerbaijani Ministry of Foreign Affairs, issued a pointed response to the Armenian Prime Minister’s comments. He emphasized the dissonance between Armenia’s international commitments and its domestic policies, Caliber.Az reports.

“On May 15, during an interview in Albania with Azerbaijan Public Television, the Armenian Prime Minister once again attempted to mislead the international community regarding the territorial claims in the Armenian Constitution and the dissolution of the Minsk Group,” said Hajizada in a statement.

“It is an undeniable fact that expressions of support for territorial integrity in international agreements hold no significance for the Armenian side.”

Hajizada referred to Armenia’s history of violating international agreements, particularly its accession to the Almaty Declaration. He pointed out that Armenia had not honored its commitments, which further undermines its credibility on territorial integrity issues. “To prove this, it is pertinent to recall the process of Armenia’s accession to the frequently referred Almaty Declaration, and how it has grossly violated this agreement. The Armenian reservations made during the process of joining the Almaty Declaration, and the existence of legislative acts in force that oppose recognizing Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, are well known.”

The spokesperson also refuted Pashinyan’s reference to Armenia’s constitutional provisions on the supremacy of international treaties over domestic laws, calling it baseless. “The Prime Minister’s attempt to substantiate his claims by referencing the constitutional provision that international treaties, which Armenia has supported and ratified, have supremacy over domestic laws is entirely baseless. To disprove this, it is sufficient to examine Article 5 of the Armenian Constitution (on the hierarchy of legal norms). According to this provision, the Armenian Constitution holds supreme legal force, and the Prime Minister’s reference to the supremacy of international treaties has no relevance to the Constitution.”

Hajizada further highlighted that Armenia’s coat of arms, as specified in Article 21 of its Constitution, reflects territorial claims against its neighbors, underscoring the ongoing contradiction between Armenia’s international commitments and its domestic stance. “It is also well known that Armenia’s coat of arms, referenced in Article 21 of the Constitution, reflects Armenia’s territorial claims against neighbors. Thus, regardless of which treaties Armenia accedes to, the preservation of constitutional provisions that contradict Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity clearly serves a specific purpose.”

The Azerbaijani spokesperson also reminded the international community of Armenia’s ongoing support for what Azerbaijan terms a “puppet regime” in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which contradicts the stated peace framework. “In addition, while the draft peace agreement discussed since October 2022 included the provision supporting territorial integrity, no one has forgotten how, in parallel, the Armenian leadership continued to support the puppet regime and legitimize it until the anti-terror measures of September 2023.”

Hajizada also raised critical questions regarding Armenia’s long-standing refusal to accept internationally recognized borders, referencing the Almaty Declaration and Soviet-era maps. “Moreover, it would be better for the Armenian side to explain why, for nearly 35 years, it has not adhered to the borders of 1991 and the agreements based on the Almaty Declaration regarding territorial integrity, and why it has refused to accept the borders reflected in Soviet maps.”

Furthermore, Hajizada pointed to Armenia’s Constitutional Court decisions, which continue to support territorial claims, including the controversial “Western Armenia” concept. “In addition to the aforementioned, it is sufficient to remind the Prime Minister, who frequently refers to the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Armenia, that the Armenian side has not renounced the claims of the so-called ‘Western Armenia’ back in January 2010,” said Hajizada.

“The detailed justification provided by the Constitutional Court regarding the compliance of the Protocols on normalizing relations with Türkiye with the Armenian Constitution, and that the same logic and approach were applied by the Court in its decision on 26 September 2024, concerning the compliance of the regulations of the border delimitation commissions between Azerbaijan and Armenia with the Armenian Constitution. Notably, the characterization of the preamble, and by extension, the Declaration of Independence within the Court’s decision as the ‘fundamental principles of Armenian statehood,’ declaring them immutable provisions, demonstrates the extent of the threat posed by Armenia’s claims to Azerbaijan’s territories.”

Hajizada concluded by asserting that Armenia’s continued territorial claims and opposition to the dissolution of the Minsk Group show a lack of genuine interest in sustainable peace. He argued that these actions suggest Armenia’s intention to preserve a fallback position for future aggression against Azerbaijan. “The logic of the Armenian Prime Minister in suggesting that these issues can be ignored indicates that Armenia is not interested in sustainable peace and is merely trying to maintain this situation as a fallback option for future aggression against Azerbaijan,” he said.

The spokesperson also criticized Armenia’s opposition to the formal dissolution of the Minsk Group, calling it a relic of the past conflict that no longer serves any useful purpose in current peace negotiations. “Additionally, Armenia’s attempts to oppose the official dissolution of the Minsk Group, a remnant of the past conflict, and its efforts to tie the process to a peace agreement demonstrate the existence of a hidden agenda against Azerbaijan.”

Hajizada reiterated that amending Armenia’s Constitution to align with Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity is a fundamental condition for achieving lasting peace. “All of this further proves that amending Armenia’s Constitution, which poses a direct threat to Azerbaijan’s national security, is a fundamental condition for peace, and demanding this is Azerbaijan’s legitimate right,” he concluded.

By Vafa Guliyeva