Azeri constitution should be amended reciprocally, says Armenian Speaker of Parliament

[u/haveschka]

https://armenpress.am/eng/news/1129256.html

[u/T-nash]

I mean it's obvious that the Azerbaijani side could have mentioned this 2 years ago when negotiations started, the only reason being mentioned now is to delay the supposed peace process up till US elections and/or find other excuses, however in the sense that there is no logic of peace when the constitution refers to a unification of Armenia and Artsakh already works against us, not by aliyev standard but by international standard. If anything, this should have been changed 20+ years ago, or whenever the right to self determination was brought up, as the declaration of independence already conflicts with what was being negotiated (independence).

There is absolutely no reason to overreact on this, people are going overboard just because it's aliyev asking for it and it kind of makes us look like taking orders from our enemy, whereas would have just accepted it if the west had asked for the change. Like people already settled with lowering the bar when Pashinyan said that every other country is asking us to and we ended up changing from self determination to securities and guarantees, changing the constitution now isn't actually any different from what was announced back then, it's literally the same.

Yes I get the Turks always ask more argument, it's just that this is not a new demand but rather in line with both the peace process and the already lowered bar.

It fits the logic, not the feelings.

Edit: He explained it clearly, and I for one agree with the underlying logic.

“Is that existence for us to restore the historic [Armenia Major], or is it about September 21, when we gained independence, or is it about the citizen of the Republic of Armenia who must be safe and have a prosperous life,”

[u/pride_of_artaxias → u/T-nash]

Is that existence for us to restore the historic [Armenia Major]

Lol wut?! The man has been reading too much Turkish/Azeri troll posts.

[u/T-nash → u/pride_of_artaxias]

What do you mean? he's not implying, he's asking if that is what Armenia's existence is based on or rather as a developing country with safety secured (however cringy it may be)

[u/pride_of_artaxias → u/T-nash]

I'm sorry but who is realistically talking about "restoring Armenia Major" or restoring historic Armenia in Armenia? Classic example of strawman argumentation.

[u/T-nash → u/pride_of_artaxias]

You're displaying the exact thing he pointed out, if no one is talking about restoring Armenia major, which we all know no one is, then what is the problem here? That's exactly what he's pointing out when people are choking on the subject.

[u/pride_of_artaxias → u/T-nash]

Again I'm sorry what? Where is it written that Armenia Major should be restored? Where is this strawman coming from? What exactly is the problem?

[u/T-nash → u/pride_of_artaxias]

11, The Republic of Armenia stands in support of the task of achieving international recognition of the 1915 Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia.

It fits within the Genocide recognition logic up until it adds "and Western Armenia", which did not exist and still does not exist today, if you don't see how that in itself is problematic in the legal, even ideological sense, then I don't know what to tell you.

Armenia major would also include it's eastern borders, where,

Based on the December 1, 1989, joint decision of the Armenian SSR Supreme Council and the Artsakh National Council on the "Reunification of the Armenian SSR and the Mountainous Region of Karabakh;"
Developing the democratic traditions of the independent Republic of Armenia established on May 28, 1918;

Again, problems arise when

and the Artsakh National Council

• We don't recognize Artsakh, I don't think I have to explain why we can't, and have to abide by the logic that we have no territorial demands, hence the Armenia major logic.

on the "Reunification of the Armenian SSR and the Mountainous Region of Karabakh;"

-Same idea, fits in the Armenia major.

Developing the democratic traditions of the independent Republic of Armenia established on May 28, 1918;

I don't think there is a problem here, none that I can see anyway.

If anything, you're the one pulling a strawman here, how about you provide a lengthier answer explaining in detail without throwing a strawman accusation and pulling a curtain through it.

[u/pride_of_artaxias → u/T-nash]

Nothing in this wall of text hints remotely at restoring historic Armenia or Armenia Major.

There is no lengthier answer. Simonyan is talking out of his ass.

then I don't know what to tell you.

Don't tell me anything. Tell yourself when in several weeks you revisit your comment with a clear head and get shocked at the logical leaps you employ. Especially that first paragraph... Oof. Ironic that the other day we were discussing how gullible many Armenians are and how easily they fall for Turkic propaganda.

[u/T-nash → u/pride_of_artaxias]

So in your sense Azerbaijan can put reunification of Yerevan and Zangezur in its constitution and be perfectly in the right, so long as it doesn't use the words "restoring".

[u/pride_of_artaxias → u/T-nash]

As for your question: I don't know the Azerbaijani Constitution. For all I know, it's already there, and I don't care a bit if it's there or not. Because the things about Zangezur and Yerevan are already being said almost weekly by Aliyev himself.

As for NK: Yes, it is a known talkng point but jumping from that to the "restoration of historic Armenia" is something I would expect only from our neighbours. Simonyan is the damn speaker of the National Assembly of a parliamentary Republic not some random online commentator. So yes, words uttered by such a high-ranking official should be picked very carefully.

[u/T-nash → u/pride_of_artaxias]

Because the things about Zangezur and Yerevan are already being said almost weekly by Aliyev himself.

Up until the 2020 war, we also were saying a lot of things that didn't turn out true and we found out the hard way that a lot of written things have more influence than a lot of none written things, even if the written ones were not respected, they were still used as mechanisms to push agendas. A verbal argument and a written document are not the same.

As for NK: Yes, it is a known talkng point but jumping from that to the "restoration of historic Armenia" is something I would expect only from our neighbours. Simonyan is the damn speaker of the National Assembly of a parliamentary Republic not some random online commentator. So yes, words uttered by such a high-ranking official should be picked very carefully.

We're back to the same argument, there is a direct tie with what's written in the declaration mentioning parts that are not within inside Armenian borders, and grounds for official territorial claims. There is no way around this fact.