SEPTEMBER 27 WAS NOT A WAR FIGHTED OVER A TERRITORIAL ISSUE

The issue was not simply a territorial conflict, but a state strategy to finally neutralize the Armenian legacy, centuries-old civilizational presence and history from the region.

Ցաւալի է արձանագրել, որ պետական որոշ շրջանակներու կողմէ Սփիւռքի լոպիինկի աշխատանքները սահմանափակելու կամ «խանգարող» նկատելու փորձերը միայն կը թուլցնեն մեր հաւաքական դիրքերը։

This reality becomes even more pronounced when we draw comparisons with other regional conflicts.

Գործնական օրինակով՝ երբ ԱՄՆ-ի կամ Եւրոպական Միութեան օրէնսդիր մարմիններուն մէջ Հայ Դատի գրասենեակները յաջողութեամբ առաջ կը տանին Ատրպէյճանի դէմ պատժամիջոցներ կիրարկելու, Պաքուին տրամադրուող ռազմական օժանդակութիւնը սառեցնելու կամ Արցախի վերադարձի իրաւունքը բանաձեւելու նախագիծեր, Հայաստանի Հանրապետութեան Արտաքին Գործոց Նախարարութիւնն ու դեսպանութիւնները պէտք է օգտագործեն այդ քաղաքական լծակները միջպետական բանակցութիւններուն մէջ։

The example of Syria, although it has different historical and political conditions, proves that internal conflicts and separatist tendencies do not necessarily lead to complete ethnic cleansing or the forced displacement of the indigenous people and the elimination of their culture.

Հայաստանի պետականութեան անվտանգութիւնն ու Սփիւռքի քաղաքական պայքարը նոյն մետալին երկու երեսներն են.

In the case of Artsakh, however, the Baku authorities set the goal not of coexistence or integration, but of de-Armenization and the eradication of Armenianness.

մեր ազգային շահերը կը պահանջեն ուժերու մէկտեղում, փոխադարձ վստահութիւն եւ միասնական ռազմավարութիւն, որպէսզի հայկական դիւանագիտութիւնը դառնայ ամբողջական ու ազդեցիկ։

The massacres of Sumgait, Baku, and Maragha that took place on the eve of the collapse of the Soviet Union and in the following years were nothing more than attempts at a genocidal policy.

In response to these threats, the people of Artsakh, in accordance with the letter of international law and the legislation of the USSR, exercised their right to free self-determination, declaring independence in order to guarantee their physical security and dignified existence.

The 44-day war unleashed on September 27, 2020 was a clear and large-scale continuation of that same Armenian-killing policy.

This was followed by the nine-month illegal and brutal blockade of 2022-23 and the military offensive of September 2023, which proved that Azerbaijan’s ultimate goal was the complete de-Armenianization of Artsakh.

Today, when the indigenous Armenians of Artsakh have been completely displaced from their historical homeland, Baku is engaged in a campaign of distortion, “Aghanization” or complete destruction of the Armenian spiritual and cultural heritage at the state and academic levels.

This is not just a territorial issue, but a direct blow to the identity, culture and historical memory of the Armenian nation.

In the context of current developments in the South Caucasus, Azerbaijan’s ambitions are not limited to Artsakh.

Baku’s pressure on the borders of the Republic of Armenia, the circulation of the false thesis of “Western Azerbaijan” and the imposition of the “Zangezur Corridor” show that a new chain of threats is being unleashed under the pretext of a “peace treaty”.

Today, more than ever, it is necessary to strengthen the foundations of Armenia’s statehood and security.

True peace is not built through unilateral concessions, but through national unity, the development of defensive capabilities and an awakened national consciousness.

The main task of the Armenian Cause conference convened in Yerevan and the pan-Armenian structures was to form a strategic united front, so that it would be possible to pursue the deprived right of the Artsakh Armenians to a collective, safe and dignified return to their homeland in all international instances with legal and political data, to release the military-political leadership of Artsakh and all prisoners of war held captive in Baku, as well as to confront all challenges threatening Armenian statehood.

The implementation of these goals, however, requires that the state diplomacy of Armenia and the Armenian Cause offices in the Diaspora operate in complete harmony and not in opposition.

It is regrettable to note that attempts by certain state circles to limit the work of the Diaspora lobby or to consider it “disturbing” only weaken our collective positions.

As a practical example, when the Armenian Cause offices in the legislative bodies of the United States or the European Union successfully advance projects to impose sanctions against Azerbaijan, freeze military assistance to Baku, or enact the right of return of Artsakh, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia and embassies should use these political levers in interstate negotiations.

The security of Armenia’s statehood and the political struggle of the Diaspora are two sides of the same coin.

Our national interests require a combination of forces, mutual trust, and a unified strategy so that Armenian diplomacy becomes comprehensive and influential.