Edmon Marukyan and “marukyanisation” of Ararat Mirzoyan Contemplations with Orkhan Amashov/VIDEO

Revanchist sentiments in Armenia, far from being consigned to the opposition and large swathes of society, are also in abundance within government circles, with the diplomatic corps vocally endorsing territorial pretensions against Azerbaijan. Orkhan Amashov briefly examines the case of Ambassador-at-Large Edmon Marukyan.

 Today, I would like to say a couple of words about Edmon Marukyan, who is currently serving as Armenia’s Ambassador-at-Large, having been appointed by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan on 14 March 2022.

Initially, allow me to make one point absolutely clear, at the outset. Although Pashinyan has repeatedly stated that Yerevan recognises Azerbaijani sovereignty over Karabakh, if to judge by Armenia’s current constitutional order, domestic legislation and official correspondence with international organisations, it is abundantly clear that, as of today, this nation openly maintains territorial pretensions against Azerbaijan.

In this vein, I strongly recommend perusing an extensive analysis on the subject recently published by the Baku-based Centre for Analysis of International Relations, entitled “Persistence of Armenia’s territorial claims against Azerbaijan in Constitutional documents and official correspondence”. The problem is not solely connected with the Preamble of Armenia’s Constitution, referring to the 1990 Declaration, but with a series of other documents which could be the subject of myriad Contemplations. Perhaps, in a forthcoming episode, I will dig deeper and expound on the nature of Armenian governmental responses, for there have been some reactions worthy of attention.

But, today, I need to be brief and focus on Edmon Marukyan. Despite the fact that the baseless territorial claims are engrained in Armenia’s legislation, one would have assumed that, given that it is Prime Minister Pashinyan’s declared position that Yerevan recognises Azerbaijani territorial integrity, including Karabakh, all members of his administration and diplomats representing Armenia abroad should subscribe to the self-same view, at any rate, in public.

In this sense, Edmon Marukyan is a glaring example of revanchist sentiments, often appearing as a loose cannon or massive liability. However, he is, by no means, an isolated case.

In a post shared on the X platform on 7 February, he criticised President Ilham Aliyev for voting in Khankendi in the snap presidential elections, claiming that, since the Azerbaijani leader was not registered in this city, he was not eligible to vote there. Marukyan went on to lash out at Baku for what he described as “ethnic cleansing in Karabakh”, bemoaning that the international community had started to use the name Khankendi, as opposed to “Stepanakert”, at the behest of the Azerbaijani side. In Marukyan’s view, this contradicts international law, including the obligations undertaken by Azerbaijan before the Council of Europe, according to which “the names cannot be changed without the decision of the local population.”

However puerile the assertions made by Marukyan, who is, by the way, of legal background by virtue of his education and training, may be, allow me to make a few observations for the sake of absolute clarity.

First of all, President Aliyev was perfectly eligible to vote in Khankendi, for, in line with Azerbaijan’s electoral legislation, any citizen who is not going to be at their place of registration as a voter on Election Day, can obtain a document about their removal from the precinct or polling station where they are registered, and, on the basis of this, vote in any convenient precinct.

Secondly, each sovereign state reserves the right to demand that any city, town, settlement or other unit within its internationally-recognised sovereign borders should internationally be referred to by the name it considers appropriate. In 1991, the Azerbaijani authorities restored Khankendi’s original historical name, used prior to 1923, together with the decision which also abolished the autonomy of the-then Nagorno-Karabakh region, long before Azerbaijan became a member of the Council of Europe. Plus, it is not just that any commitment by Azerbaijan by signing any charter or any other document under the aegis of the Council of Europe regarding local governments is irrelevant and inapplicable here, but no undertaking could trump its sovereign right, in this context.

Leaving aside Marukyan’s ill-conceived legal claims, what was particularly striking to me was that when one social media user replied to his post, pointing out the proper terminology, that is “Khankendi, the city of Azerbaijan”, the Armenian diplomat replied to this, saying “Stepanakert, Nagorno-Karabakh” with an exclamation mark. This could be interpreted as nothing but a point of view expressed by an Armenian diplomat as tantamount to open disregard for Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, entailing an unveiled territorial pretension.

Again, it is worth reiterating that Edmon Marukyan is not some blogger, political activist or an ordinary member of Armenia’s National Assembly, but a roving ambassador, a prime ministerial appointee, and a high-ranking diplomat accredited to represent his country.

Yes, it is indeed true that he is the founder and chairman of the Bright Armenia Party. He was an MP from 2012-21, until his party failed to pass the electoral threshold and he lost his parliamentary seat. In the past, he was a human rights activist, leading various NGOs. Plus, as a trained lawyer, he acted as a legal advisor, involved in litigation and taking cases up to the European Court of Human Rights.

However, as of March 2022, he is an official person and whatever he has publicly stated in an official capacity bears upon how Yerevan’s attitude towards the peace process with Azerbaijan is internally perceived.

Diplomacy requires finesse, the fine articulation of intricacies and responsible judicious statements. All of these attributes appear to be woefully lacking in Marukyan.

In a democracy, people may disagree within governmental circles, openly and behind closed doors. But there is a collective responsibility, however self-opiniated a given diplomat may be, they are advised to keep their unwanted views to themselves.  

As stated earlier, Edmon Marukyan is by no means an isolated case in Armenia’s foreign policy establishment. There are many other high-ranking diplomatic representatives at various international organisations and in different countries making similar gaffes. Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan himself is prone to regular instances of “marukyanisation”, often making statements casting aspersions on Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity.

Is this a problem of the lack of coordination? I very much doubt it is. However shambolic Pashinyan himself may appear to be, it may be assumed he is more than capable of exerting sufficient influence on his ministers and diplomats. It appears that the ambiguity maintained by Yerevan regarding Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity is, in fact, pre-meditated.

All of these are, naturally, of consequence in the context of the Azerbaijani-Armenian peace process. On 6 December, speaking at an international forum, President Aliyev stated: “We need firm, verified guarantees that there will be no attempt at revanchism in Armenia. We need this because we know what’s happening in Armenia, and also we know that Armenia has very bad advisers in some European capitals.”

In early 2024, for Azerbaijan and Armenia to be able to move forward towards attaining a long-awaited peace treaty a positive agenda based on mutual renunciation of territorial claims and representing steps taken to entrench mutual trust constitute an indispensable must. The regular, almost incessant, statements made by Marukyan, and other high-ranking Armenian diplomats, exacerbate Azerbaijan’s incredulity as to Yerevan’s genuine intentions, delaying the achievement of a peace deal between these two neighbouring nations.