Again about foreign policy

In several previous publications, I have described the fear factor in politics, drawing attention to the historical conditioning of such fear. Why did fear become the dominant factor in the formation of Armenian politics? Undoubtedly, the fear of history plays a significant role here. However, the fact that current political realities are completely incomprehensible to Armenian politicians is no less important. And fear, as we know, arises before an unknown and incomprehensible world.

The entire political behavior of the revived Armenian state is imbued with fear. Suffice it to say that the Republic of Armenia has never adopted a declaration of independence for a century. And the Armenian people are one of the undefined peoples of the world. Moreover, people not only do not know about this, but also do not attach importance to it. The reason is clear: any expression of will is considered a threat to the security of the Armenian people. Giving up one's rights is considered a way to ensure security. Only once, at the beginning of the nineties of the last century, the Armenian people decided to reject those traditions and self-determine, but the Armenian politicians decided to return to their normal life very quickly. They decided that the actions of their people were against the world. they must submit to this world. But they never thought about what world they were talking about.

Why did this happen? And why today the political elite of Armenia continues to see the foundations of its security in the "diligent" adherence to certain formalities? In this case, it is called acting "within the framework of legitimacy". Moreover, in legitimacy, according to one's own understanding. Five hundred years ago this was called "service to Christian princes". But does anyone think that the formalities that people are encouraged to follow today may not be able to provide security? After all, many already know that these are the formalities of a past world, a world that has lost its ability to provide order.

This circumstance is obviously not taken into account in Armenia, although there are already many signs of the devaluation of the former rescue formalities. It is not taken into account, because the ideas of people also remained in the past world. Unfortunately, Armenian politicians' ideas about foreign policy are very similar to the ideas of human rights organizations. In their world, only human rights, the law, violations of rights and actions aimed at protecting these rights are important. The former human rights defenders who entered the political field do not know that the mechanical transfer of these concepts to the level of foreign political relations blinds them in this world.

Because there are no such usual concepts in foreign policy, but there are the concepts of national interest, balance of power, international law and self-determination. There is no democracy there. democracy is an internal phenomenon. And nation-states build their relations on nationalism, sometimes hard nationalism. And certain ideas are used exclusively to create "us" and "other" coalitions. And resorting to international law is not a law-enforcement activity, but a method of legitimizing one's actions to isolate and oppress the opponent. Because international law is a system of agreements on the permissible methods of protecting one's own national interests, including through force. Diligent adherence to certain formalities in the hope of being conscious of others is destructive. The ability to conform one's actions to accepted formalities plays a role there.

Accordingly, if anyone wants to make a judgment about politics, he should know these simple things.

The beginning and end of any policy is the formation of a subject with a sovereign strategy through self-determination and its recognition by the surrounding political environment. Politics is a fight for your rights. And the mechanism of its implementation is the science and practice of forcing everyone to recognize your rights. Can you create new political realities and force everyone to accept them, you won and you are right? And international law is notes in the hands of a virtuoso player. All other "household beliefs" are only the result of subjective interpretation of one's own life experience.