"Fact" daily writes:
67 MPs of the CP faction named after Nikol Pashinyan voted "yes" unanimously and in "proud solitude", so to speak, ratified the regulation on the joint activity of the state commission for the demarcation of the state border between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Naturally, 0 "against", 0 "abstain". Naturally, as it is known, the opposition factions of the parliament "Armenia" and "I have honor" boycotted both the discussion and the voting of the said "regulation" with political statements. Hayk Mamijanyan, the leader of the "I have an honor" faction, announced that they will not participate in the discussion and voting of the aforementioned regulation, considering the fact that "such regulations do not imply the ratification procedure by which the Armenian rulers conduct it." The leader of this opposition faction also mentioned. "And the fact that the CC has included in the decision an interpretation that is absolutely not related to the issue, gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that these actions are aimed at serving as a justification for subsequent anti-state concessions. For that reason and for a number of other reasons, the "I have an honor" faction did not and will not participate in the discussion and voting of the regulation. Shortly after that statement, the executive body of the RPA made a comprehensive statement. With that statement, if we want to describe it briefly, the RPA General Assembly, both from the point of view of political science and international and state law, directly leveled to the ground all the justifications and references of the Pashinyan government, with which Nikol Pashinyan and his group try to justify or justify Armenia and the Armenian territories to the enemy. to give up, to surrender their shameful and destructive practices. Let's not get bored and make a quote from the mentioned statement of the General Assembly of the Republican Party of Armenia, particularly regarding the "Alma-Ata Declaration", which is so unpublished and the balloon that Nikol Pashinyan put at the basis of this earth-shattering "policy". "It is necessary to emphasize at the same time that the Alma-Ata declaration of 1991 cannot under any circumstances be a basis for border demarcation, because it does not contain anything regarding the recognition of existing borders between Armenia and Azerbaijan. According to that declaration, independent states only recognize and respect each other's territorial integrity and the inviolability of existing borders. Within the framework of the CIS, the recognition of existing borders between the member states was fixed only in 1993. according to the charter of January 22. The Alma-Ata Declaration is irrelevant as a basis for demarcation also because Azerbaijan became a member of the CIS only in 1993, because before that Azerbaijan refused to ratify the Alma-Ata Protocol and the Minsk Agreement, which were the basis for the adoption of the Alma-Ata Declaration. The Armenia faction of the National Assembly made an equally extensive and thoroughly justified statement, among other arguments, also stating: "The process of internal agreement (ratification) of the regulation does not proceed simultaneously in both countries, in order to exclude the possibility of ratification by Azerbaijan with unacceptable reservations... The starting line for the demarcation of the interstate border between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan must be clearly defined and described by the legislation of the Republic of Armenia, so that as a result of demarcation the possible change of that outline shall be subject to a decision through a referendum." At the assembly, the "Armenia" faction more than clearly stated that it "considers the process of border demarcation between Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as the internal procedures for the ratification of the regulation, to be unconstitutional and contrary to the national-state interests of the Republic of Armenia." In other words, the parliamentary opposition, represented by the factions "Armenia" and "I have honor", described what was happening and its content as unconstitutional, anti-state and, of course, refused to take any part in it. Before proceeding to the observations regarding this political demarche of the opposition, it should be noted that the leader of "Holy Struggle" Bagrat Archbishop Galstanyan also made a separate statement. The bishop's speech was perhaps less filled with political and jurisprudential terms and definitions, it was simpler and, by the way, it was also directed to the hoods themselves. Ahavasik. "You all become accomplices in crime, you fall under sin, don't do it, give it up. Today, the foundation is being laid for collective guilt. The regulation is illegal in nature. It has passed through the Supreme Court, it is passing through the National Assembly, and by ratifying it in such a procedure, the blame is shifted to everyone: the judges of the Supreme Court, the "Civil Agreement" faction of the National Assembly, and indirectly to the people, the people, who voted for this faction. in favor". But it is understandable that those committed to serving hostile interests did not listen to all those warnings and exhortations and, as we have already mentioned, unanimously and cheerfully voted "for". For what? To the fact that their leader Pashinyan, and Mher Grigoryan on his instructions, continue to hand over Armenia in pieces to Aliyev, who openly and more and more enthusiastically declares the goals of the destruction of Armenia and the annihilation of the Armenian people. In principle, it is not even a regulation, regardless of what is written in it. By and large, there is a process of gradual dissolution, disintegration of Armenian statehood and putting our country at the disposal of our enemies, making continuous unilateral concessions. "Regulation-regulation" is just to give some legal veil to that crime. On the other hand, what Nikol Pashinyan is doing is not new to any knowledgeable person, especially under the pressure and "main patronage" of the current US administration and the direct control of its regional partner, NATO member and extremely Armenian-hating Turkey. That is why he was brought in 2018 and kept in power in 2021. He does his assignments. The whole question is what other forces, parliamentary and non-parliamentary opposition-national associations want to do. The most important thing is that both the boycott of the parliamentary opposition and the statements of the extra-parliamentary forces in themselves imply a logical continuation, imply actions. Otherwise, it turns out that Pashinyan did what he wanted, others said that what he did was anti-constitutional and anti-state, and... everyone went to their own "business". The question is that when even half of the darkest predictions of the same oppositionists come true, probably no one will be interested in who was for, who was against, who was boycotting...
ARMEN HAKOBYAN
