The change of the Constitution under the compulsion of Baku can become a dangerous precedent. what is the alternative

Political scientist Davit Harutyunov answers the questions of "Detk".

"A few days ago, Aliyev announced that a "peace treaty" between Baku and Yerevan can be concluded only after amendments are made to the Constitution of Armenia. After that, various representatives of the Armenian government, including Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, spoke about the need to change the Constitution. Are the authorities following the path of changes to the Constitution due to external pressure, and if so, what consequences could this have?"

"The fact that they are going to change the Constitution of Armenia at the request of Azerbaijan is already obvious, and if we analyze Aliyev's statements and Pashinyan's last speech, where he comments on the issue of the Declaration of Independence, it becomes obvious that they are interrelated processes. I would also like to remind you that in the past, the RA authorities discussed the issue of constitutional amendments for a moment, but then they seem to have given up on that idea. That is, there is currently no domestic political reason to initiate constitutional changes. Therefore, only the external factor remains, which they do not particularly hide."

"Regarding the question of what this could lead to, I should note that this situation is worrisome especially in the sense that constitutional changes are being undertaken under external coercion. Changes in the Mother Law of Armenia can, of course, happen, and I myself do not think that the current Constitution is ideal, but it should be the internal agenda of Armenia and should not be imposed from outside. If this is done under external coercion, it sets a precedent that such a problem can be solved under external pressure, and secondly, it is a step towards the implementation of Azerbaijan's strategy, which implies the limitation of Armenia's sovereignty."

"Different formulations can be made here, I sometimes use the formulation "semi-colonial status", but it doesn't matter what we call the situation, it is a fact that they are trying to control or at least influence the decision-making of Armenia in a number of issues. on In other words, Azerbaijan has a clear strategy to limit Armenia's autonomy. It may not be in the form of an overt document, but in practice it is sought. And the current processes, in my opinion, are a step towards its implementation.

And, in general, changing legal documents related to the situation created after the handover of Artsakh was somewhat expected, considering how the situation has changed, but it should have been Armenia's internal agenda, not an external compulsion."

"Realizing all this, the Armenian authorities continue to follow the agenda dictated by the enemy. What do they want to achieve, the problem is only to sign a "peace treaty" at any cost?"

"I think there is a certain strategy problem. In other words, the RA authorities had an idea that Azerbaijan has a certain set of demands, which, after meeting them, could lead to a certain stabilization of relations and, perhaps, peaceful coexistence. But the problem is that, firstly, Azerbaijan changes that package quite actively, based on its goals, and secondly, I think that it also takes advantage of the general geopolitical situation, which is more unstable, the more convenient it is to put pressure on Armenia.This instability in the Middle East, for example, has contributed to Azerbaijan hardening its position even more, because this situation affects Iran and, therefore, our region.

Now, as Azerbaijan continuously expands its demands, that strategy of the RA authorities is experiencing a serious crisis, because it is clear that there is some threshold, that accepting those demands of Azerbaijan will not mean concessions, but something completely different.

And the other option is to confront Azerbaijan by force, because when Azerbaijan's demands are not met, they try to use force. Now there is an interpretation that if Armenia does not follow the path of constitutional changes, then a "peace treaty" will not be concluded, but this is a very dangerous situation, which shows that they can wait for an opportune moment when the main players in the region are busy with other issues, and use force. As long as these risks exist, we have a problem in the sense that the RA authorities are not ready to face this risk. It is true that they are taking some steps, it cannot be denied, but the pace and intensity are not such that they can cope with the emerging situation by themselves. Actually, it turns out that four years have passed since 2020, but in military terms, Armenia is unprepared, and under these conditions, it remains to make some concessions. Therefore, even realizing that this policy is experiencing a crisis, but realizing that its alternative is the option of force, which they are not ready for, the government moves with the Azeri agenda."

"Was that the reason why Pashinyan came to Khandakh with a recommendation to sign a "non-aggression" document?""

"The "non-aggression" agreement was an attempt to stabilize the situation, that is, when they see that the "peace agreement" is not working, they try to extract at least some guarantee from Baku that they will not use force. On the other hand, they are trying to justify Armenia's military construction, which is allegedly not directed against Azerbaijan. But the problem is that Azerbaijan knows this very well, that is, it knows that it is not aggressive, but its problem is not to let Armenia gain defensive opportunities. Therefore, they also reject Pashinyan's proposal."

"In the current difficult situation, in your opinion, what is the way out, because the direction imposed by Azerbaijan is leading to the collapse of our state?"

"Objectively, Armenia is in a difficult situation, and the government has made the situation even more complicated with its policies, for example, I think that relations with Russia should not have been strained, the issues could have been resolved more calmly, without excessive tension. The same about diversification that could have done without all that.

As for a possible collapse, there are now a number of factors that could lead to that situation, but the question here is what problems it causes strategically. It is not necessarily that something will happen immediately, on the other hand, we see that there were such events that were difficult to imagine, but life continues."

"Initiating constitutional amendments and changing the Constitution are different concepts, because there is an important circumstance between them: the referendum. According to you, do the people currently share the government's approach?"

"The fact that there is a desire to avoid war and seek peace, I think, is noticeable. However, in the case of a specific constitutional referendum, in my opinion, indifference will prevail again, as it happened the previous times.

Of course, there will be propaganda by the authorities, and some masses will accept it based on that approach, so as to avoid war. But there will also be a rather large mass that will be indifferent, and there will also be an opposition that will preach against these changes and will have its own segment of society, but I think it will not leave that segment."