The authorities renounce the Armenian Genocide in the same way they surrendered Artsakh

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Armenia sparked a lot of discussions in Armenian society. One of the widely discussed topics was that the Russian Foreign Minister did not visit the Tsitsernakaberd memorial complex. Armenia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that when planning the visit, the Russian side informed Armenian officials that Minister Lavrov would visit Victory Park to commemorate the anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. A wreath would be laid at Tsitsernakaberd on behalf of the Russian Foreign Minister.

“In the case of working visits, the inclusion of such events in the program is decided at the initiative of the host party,” the Armenian Foreign Ministry said.

It should be noted that at the time when this topic was discussed, the Armenian government rejected a bill criminalizing denial of the Armenian Genocide. Earlier, Secretary of the Armenia faction Artsvik Minasyan said that the bill was submitted for discussion to the relevant commission of the National Assembly on the occasion of the 110th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide and related to amendments to the Criminal Code. However, the ruling Civil Contract faction rejected the draft.

The Armenia faction insists on the need to adopt a law, especially in light of the authorities’ decision to exclude international recognition of the Armenian Genocide from the foreign policy agenda. It should be noted that in this matter, Nikol Pashinyan’s government deliberately repeats the steps previously taken with the Karabakh issue.

Even before the 44-day war, the status of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR) began to be gradually lowered. The National Security Strategy of Armenia, adopted in 2007, used the phrase “Nagorno-Karabakh Republic,” while the document approved in 2020 used the terms “Artsakh” and “population of Artsakh” instead. This change lowered the political status of the second Armenian statehood.

The 2007 document prioritized the Republic of Artsakh’s right to self-determination and its international recognition outside Azerbaijan. There is no such wording in the 2020 document. Instead, it talks about the realization of the right to self-determination “in all possible ways,” with the primary task being “ensuring the rights and security of the population of Artsakh.”

These changes in the doctrinal documents occurred in the summer of 2020—just months before the 44-day war. A similar process is currently being observed regarding the Armenian Genocide, with the Armenian authorities purposefully changing the perception of this topic in society and excluding it from the country’s foreign policy agenda.

After the rejection of the bill criminalizing Genocide denial, the next step may be the creation of a commission of historians of Armenia and Turkey to study the “events of the early twentieth century.” It is not difficult to guess what conclusions such a commission will come to.

If this happens, it will be another fundamental blow to the foundations of the Armenian statehood. An independent Armenia with a modern combat-ready army was also needed as a tool to ensure the physical security of the Armenians who had been subjected to Genocide. By closing the issue of the Armenian Genocide, the authorities are questioning the very expediency of Armenia’s existence as a tool for protection. If the state itself excludes this issue from its agenda, doubt inevitably arises regarding the necessity of its existence.

Pashinyan cannot be unaware of this—just as he could not fail to realize the consequences of reducing NKR’s political status in Armenia’s official documents.

Think about it…