“Perhaps, in no country other than Armenia, the national security strategy contains verses and mentions of Babylon” – Hikmet Hajiyev

By Azeri Daily

Some time ago, the Armenian government presented its new National Security Strategy to the public. In his notes, as a preface to the document, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan extensively refers to the history of Armenia, mentioning the Armenian Highlands, Hayk, King Artashes, Arshakids, the Kingdom of Van, genocide and other similar historical details of folklore and mythical properties, which is not entirely compatible with documents of this format.

Assistant to the President of Azerbaijan, Head of the Foreign Policy Department of the Presidential Administration Hikmat Hajiyev presented his views and comments on the new Armenian Security Strategy.

In general, Hikmat Hajiyev is convinced, the National Security Strategy of Armenia looks like a fake history textbook. Usually such documents do not include so many historical references. It appears that Armenia still remains a hostage of the past, its inferiority complex manifested itself in this document.

‘As you get acquainted with the strategy, it becomes obvious that it promotes chauvinistic, xenophobic and racist ideas, sends messages about the greatness of the Armenian people, their superiority over other peoples, as well as intolerance towards neighbouring nations. The prime minister of Armenia, with a quote from a poem by Vahan Teryan, welcomes the destruction of the great Babylonian civilisation. In fact, the whole essence of the strategy is summarised in the quote: “Babylon was our enemy, but where is it now? It is covered with deserts.” There is no difference between this thinking and the worldview of terrorists destroying ancient historical sites in the Middle East. It becomes clear how the chauvinistic theory of the fascist Garegin Nzhdeh “Tseghakronism” appeared, and why such ideologies are so widespread in Armenia.

Perhaps, in no country other than Armenia, the national security strategy contains verses and mentions of Babylon.

No country has a security strategy that refers to Babylon
The document also refers to the “Velvet Revolution”, and it is emphasised that it defines new standards. In fact, such a reference in the National Security Strategy does not correspond to the format of the document and is illogical, since such documents should not promote any political force, but are intended to describe the concept of the general and long-term security of the state. That is, the concept should be a document that meets the interests of the state, not the authorities. It turns out that this strategy will automatically become invalid if tomorrow the forces opposing Pashinyan and the “Velvet Revolution” come to power in Armenia. One gets the impression that this is the National Security Strategy not of the Armenian government, but of the Pashinyan government, which came to power as a result of the “revolution” with the support of Soros and his entourage, who received money from the Soros Foundation.

The document also contains numerous references to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, accusations against the Azerbaijani side, it is argued that there is Armenophobia in Azerbaijan. In addition, it contains many references to the illegal regime created by Armenia in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan.

In this regard, I would like to emphasise that the facts and arguments about the conflict in the Strategy are also falsified. Armenia occupied Nagorno-Karabakh and seven adjacent districts of Azerbaijan. Armenia committed genocide against Azerbaijanis, carried out ethnic cleansing and committed war crimes. Despite the demands of four UN Security Council resolutions, Armenia has not yet withdrawn its army from the occupied territories. Armenia carries out illegal activities in the occupied territories, including pursuing a policy of illegal settlement. Armenia is trying to destroy the traces of Azerbaijan in the occupied territories. Armenia, flagrantly violating the ceasefire regime on the line of contact and the state border, undertakes provocations, deliberately firing at civilians and civilian objects of Azerbaijan. Armenia is not interested in negotiations and is trying to artificially prolong the status quo in order to consolidate the occupation.

The goal of Armenia’s army of occupation is to keep the Azerbaijani regions under control
As for the fabrications about the hostilities in April 2016, I must say that then the Armenian armed forces resorted to yet another provocation against Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan was forced to take retaliatory measures to protect its population. During the latest provocation by Armenia in the direction of the Tovuz district of the state border, the civilian population and civilian objects were once again targeted.

The document repeatedly makes references to the principle of self-determination of peoples. It is noted that the so-called institution of the right to self-determination must be recognised unconditionally.

Armenia is trying to cover up the fact of occupation with the principle of self-determination. But this principle is absolutely inapplicable to the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan. This is occupation, not self-determination. The conflict must be resolved within the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and there is no alternative to this.

This strategy document, which calls for unconditional and unlimited recognition of the unrestricted right of the so-called “structure” to self-determination and in which this illegal regime is called “a free country,” is in fact another blow by Armenia against the negotiation process within the OSCE Minsk Group. I believe that the co-chairs and the international community should respond to this.

In general, all the comments considering the territories of another state in the document relating to Armenia itself are a vivid example of the occupation policy.

The strategy states that Armenia is allegedly committed to negotiations within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group. However, such statements by the prime minister of this country as “Karabakh is Armenia, and that’s that,” by the minister of defence “New war for new lands,” attempts to involve the so-called “regime” in the negotiations as one of the parties, as well as a provocative position on the conflict in this document, prove that Armenia deliberately disrupts the negotiation process and intends to continue the occupation.

It is emphasised that the so-called “entity” must have appropriate lines of defence capable of ensuring its security, as well as safe and versatile communication with the outside world, including Armenia. Thus, they are talking about the Lachin district and other occupied districts adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh. This shows once again that Armenia does not intend to liberate the occupied lands.

The document repeatedly states that Armenia is the guarantor of the security of the so-called “entity.” This is an open recognition of the occupation. In addition, it is argued that the possible attempts by Azerbaijan to resolve the conflict by military means pose a threat to the physical existence of the population of the so-called “entity,” while the occupation policy of Armenia put an end to the physical presence of the Azerbaijani civilian population in their native lands. Armenia pursued a policy of ethnic cleansing, expelling about a million refugees and internally displaced persons from their homes.

Armenia does not intend to liberate Lachin
The document also notes that the purpose of the negotiation process is “to preserve the results of the war.” This clearly shows that Armenia intends to continue the occupation and is not interested in negotiations aimed at achieving a sustainable peace.

When reading the document, there is no doubt that the last provocation committed by Armenia in the Tovuz direction of the state border was purposeful.

Reading the strategy, one clearly senses Azerbaijanophobia deepening in Armenia. Hatred towards Azerbaijanis is openly incited in this country.

The strategy speaks of the massacres of Armenians allegedly committed by Azerbaijan. In the document, the city of Ganja is called Gandzak. Such statements of the country, which committed genocide and atrocities against Azerbaijanis, destroyed the heritage of Azerbaijan in Armenia and the occupied territories, changed its place names, represent real hypocrisy.

It also states that there is no place for violence and xenophobia in Armenian society. In fact, Armenia forcibly expelled more than one million Azerbaijanis. Armenia is a country that destroys mosques, historical monuments and graves. Xenophobia there has reached such a level that they are trying to change the architectural features and the very essence of the Blue Mosque in Yerevan and the Upper Govhar Agha Mosque in Shusha, passing them off as Iranian monuments. The grave of the great Azerbaijani poet ashug Alasgar has been destroyed in Armenia. The ex-president of Armenia in 2003 in the centre of Europe said that “Armenians and Azerbaijanis are ethnically incompatible.”

The Armenians became victims of the first “genocide” of the 20th century, and Armenia pays special attention to the topic of preventing genocide at the international level, the document says. This is a blatant lie, because Armenia itself at the end of the 20th century committed genocide against Azerbaijanis in Khojaly.

The strategy also contains discourses discrediting Turkey, making references to the so-called “genocide.” The reason for this is Turkey’s call to Armenia to liberate the occupied territories of Azerbaijan on the basis of international law and historical justice. On the wave of mythical history, Armenia again demonstrates that it cannot live in peace with its neighbours, and therefore the future development of Armenia as a state is impossible.

Armenia’s future development as a state is impossible
It is also noted that Armenia is concerned about the regression in the spheres of democracy and human rights in the region. At the same time, it is added that there is a lag in the field of democracy and human rights in Azerbaijan and Turkey, which “negatively affects the fulfilment of international obligations by these countries.” This is another indicator of racism and chauvinism. I believe that Armenia, which occupied the territory of another state and carried out ethnic cleansing, is the last country that has the right to talk about human rights. Armenia, which falsely and shamelessly positions itself as a herald of democracy and a defender of human rights, should not worry about us, but focus on solving its ever-deepening large-scale human rights problems.

All the arguments of Armenia about democracy and human rights are simply ridiculous. In this country, a military junta was in power for almost 20 years, high-ranking government officials were shot within the walls of parliament, and the current prime minister is threatening to “put on the asphalt” his political rivals and is doing it. In Armenia, politicians and journalists are persecuted for their political views. Journalist Mher Yeghiazaryan died in prison after a hunger strike.

The document also contains references to threats in the region. I want to emphasise that the biggest threat in the region is Armenia itself and its occupation policy. And in Armenia itself, the policy of the country and the Pashinyan government poses a real threat to national security.

As stated in this strategy, Azerbaijan and Turkey keep Armenia in an economic blockade and do not allow it to participate in regional projects. This is blatant arrogance. Such accusations by Armenia in the conditions of the occupation of the internationally recognised territories of Azerbaijan, as they say, are simply banal.

The document notes that Armenia’s foreign policy is based on international, inter-ethnic and inter-civilisational dialogue. The fact that Armenia comes forward with such a thesis causes only a smile. This is exactly the opposite of reality. Armenia is an occupying state. The foreign policy of such a state cannot be based on dialogue between peoples and civilisations. Armenia was the only country to boycott the 7th UN Alliance of Civilisations Global Forum in Azerbaijan in 2016. This proves once again that the values declared by Armenia in no way correspond to the values to which the UN Alliance of Civilisations strives.

The strategy also touches upon relations of Armenia with the countries of the Middle East. Armenia has occupied the territory of the state of the Islamic world and is destroying its Islamic heritage. What kind of cooperation between Muslim countries and such a state can one talk about? I believe that the countries of the Middle East should take this fact into account.

Armenia will make efforts to ensure that the members of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) fulfil their allied obligations to each other, as well as to increase the effectiveness of the organisation. As if Armenia owns this organisation and is going to teach a lesson to its other members. Armenia arrested the ex-CSTO secretary general without consulting any of its members, and now intends to teach all of them a lesson. Armenia, which has long boycotted the appointment of a new CSTO Secretary General, has itself dealt a severe blow to the effectiveness of the organisation. President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev noted that Soros’ scum cannot be allies of the CSTO.

Soros’ scum cannot be CSTO allies, the author of the Counter-Strategy believes
The document also declares Armenia’s alleged support for freedom of speech and pluralism, as well as its efforts in the fight against terrorism and extremism. However, this is an absolute lie. Recently, in Los Angeles, Brussels and other cities of the world, Armenians barbarously attacked and wounded Azerbaijanis. This is the result of precisely the extremist policy of Armenia. The Armenian diaspora also promotes an ideology based on the unfounded mythical Armenian exclusivity. As a result of their destructive activities, the Armenians abroad create additional obstacles to the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.

As for the points about “pan-Armenianism,” it seems to me that this actually means interference in the internal affairs of other countries, because Armenia directs the Armenians living there, sets for them certain priorities.

The strategy also contains promises to create all the necessary conditions for the repatriation of Armenians to their homeland. That is, Armenia intends to acquire additional human resources to carry out a policy of illegal settlement of the occupied territories of Azerbaijan.

At the same time, the document openly admits the presence of a demographic crisis, poverty, social inequality and social polarisation in Armenia, and also indicates that the growing emigration is one of the main problems of the country.

The document recognises the growing poverty of the country’s population
Nevertheless, the so-called development prospects of the country are also presented. However, what development of Armenia can we talk about if it cannot participate in regional economic projects and will remain living in economic isolation. In the conditions of an unresolved conflict, it makes no sense to talk about any prospects for the economic development of Armenia, as well as about the elimination of emigration, poverty, unemployment and social inequality.

But in spite of everything, population growth and achievement of demographic growth are declared as the goals of the Armenian state. However, if Armenia continues its occupation policy, it will not be able to achieve these goals and the situation will only worsen. Because people have no confidence in the future of Armenia, and many Armenians, fearing confrontation with Azerbaijan, leave the country.

The document notes that in the development of Armenia as a centre of high technologies, special attention will be paid to the role of science and education. But how to achieve this goal against the background of a massive outflow of educated people from the country, which is recognised in the Strategy itself?

The document says that the solution of internal problems through violence between Armenians is unacceptable, all conflicts must be resolved through independent courts. In fact, political pressure on the already non-free courts is intensifying, the Constitutional Court, which does not want to follow the PM’s instructions, is under pressure, and judges are replaced at the discretion of the government.

In the section of the document on the environment, logically, the issue of the Metsamor nuclear power plant should be considered, but, oddly enough, it is not even mentioned there. While located in an active seismic zone and having exhausted its service life, this nuclear power plant poses a serious danger, first of all, for Armenia itself.

Armenia is unable to solve the problem of Metsamor nuclear power plant
In general, the analysis of the document shows that Armenia focuses not on such issues as economic development, education, science, but on groundless accusations against Azerbaijan and Turkey. This unambiguously characterises the views of the Armenian government for the future. The main goal is to keep the Armenian people hostage to the conflict,’ sums up Hikmat Hajiyev.