FUTILE IDEOLOGY

The Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict can rightfully be called a “war of unheard warnings”. The following statements of the first President of Armenia Levon Ter-Petrosyan is a classical example of such a warning message: "As long as there is Karabakh, Armenia will not live well" and "What we reject today, we will have to ask in the future, but we will not get it, as many times before in our history."

Yet we know much less about something else. The almost forgotten Armenian politician Vazgen Manukyan, who was a very influential public figure in Armenia back in the 1990s, in one of his interviews expressed a very interesting idea. He accused the so-called Diaspora parties of Armenia–Dashnaktsutyun and Liberal Democratic Party–of ‘setting the tone for the confrontation’ in the Karabakh issue. Unfortunately, he was not heard at that time. He is not heard today either. But Manukyan’s statement makes one ponder the essence of the problem.

Geography of the War

Indeed, there are many disputed territories and unspecified borders in the world. Somewhere on the uninhabited island of Hans, which is the cause of territorial claims between Denmark and Canada, such a confrontation is more an obligatory ritual than a real conflict. Some conflicts, such as the ones in Kashmir and Ladakh, are smoldering. But Armenia is a unique case. It has territorial claims along the entire perimeter of its borders. It demands Karabakh and Nakhchivan from Azerbaijan. Moreover, Armenian claims to Azerbaijan extend to all lands up the Kura River, while some Armenians declare even Baku as an Armenian city. Armenia demands, albeit semi-officially for now, the region of Javakhetia (Akhalkalaki) from the neighbouring Georgia. Back in 1918, Armenia made claims to the Borchala district of Georgia. And even today a group of active Armenian nationalists are ready to declare Tbilisi an Armenian city too, let alone many ‘controversial’ churches and monasteries in Georgia, which are suddenly declared ‘Armenian’. The coat of arms of Armenia depicts the Aghridagh Mount (Ararat in Armenian) located in Turkey. Armenia demands at least six vilayets of East Anatolia, as indicated in the Treaty of Sevres. In a broader context, Armenian claims apply to all territories up to Adana, Turkey.

The source of these claims is also known - the notorious map of the Great Armenia, which has become an Armenian national icon.

In fact, similar maps depicting the ‘former greatness’ are present in the history of many countries and peoples, including the Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary, Great Sweden, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the possessions of Spain reaching the territories of modern Belgium and the Netherlands. But Great Armenia is a completely different case. Firstly, historians have serious doubts as to whether it actually existed. Secondly, and most importantly, the Spanish crown would hardly claim its rights to the Netherlands and Belgium again. But this issue is still relevant in Armenia. That turns all the border areas around Armenia into a chain of hot, frozen or smoldering conflicts.

The political elite of the Armenian Diaspora has indeed played a decisive role in this case.

Political anatomy of Diaspora

Yerevan has always considered the influential, wealthy, numerous and politically active Armenian Diaspora a ‘golden bonus’, keys to paradise, etc. But in reality, the political superstructure of this institution, let alone the Diaspora itself, played a very dirty trick on Armenia.

Armenian Diaspora hosts a number of political parties. They adopted their programs, held congresses and conferences, published a huge amount of political literature. The political elite of the Diaspora commemorated the ‘victims of genocide’, accused Turkey and enjoyed discussions of the mythical ‘historical rights’ of Armenia to the lands of the neighboring countries and peoples, which remained unfulfilled since the First World War. Most importantly, the parties of the Diaspora were free from discussing any issues related to taxes and pensions of ordinary Armenians, the central bank's discount rate and disputes over the healthcare insurance model in Armenia. As a result, there was no need to think about how to survive in real Armenia with such an astronomical number of conflicts along the perimeter.

Basis and superstructure

Perhaps those who believe that at some point all this ‘political life without a country’ would simply collapse were right. Nevertheless, Armenia, which is a small and poor country with a population of less than three millions people, has immediately adopted this false ideology of territorial claims. And the result is obvious. It's not even about the results and consequences of the war, as even before September 27, Armenia hopelessly lost its chance for peace. Azerbaijani export pipelines passed by the country. In the new transport geography of the region Armenia merely looks like a castaway. Its aggressive ambitions were too big to implement for its strength and budget. Armenia is turning into a victim of its own national ideology. Yerevan simply lacks the strength and resources for its own political and geopolitical ambitions.

And it is no longer a question of balancing military and social spending. It is about the real survival of Armenia as a country. To do this, Yerevan must abandon its most aggressive ideology. And it must finally realise that discussions about Armenia’s ‘historical rights’ over Karabakh or Akhalkalaki have completely different price tags in Yerevan and Glendale.