Today, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan participated in opening the 4th Global Forum "Against the Crime of Genocide" in Matenadaran at the Institute of Ancient Manuscripts named after Mesrop Mashtots. The conference is being held on December 12-13 in Yerevan under the title "Prevention of Genocide in the Age of New Technologies."

RA President Vahagn Khachaturyan, Speaker of the National Assembly Alen Simonyan, members of the Government, high-ranking officials, famous genocide scholars, representatives of prestigious international organizations, experts, and ambassadors were present at the event.

Prime Minister Pashinyan made a speech in which he stated:

"Dear President of the Republic of Armenia,
Dear President of the National Assembly,
Dear guests,
Members of the government

It is the fourth time that Armenia has hosted the Global Forum against the Crime of Genocide. First, I would like to welcome all the participants, our colleagues, officials, scientists, diplomats, politicians, and IT professionals, with the mandate to prevent genocides and other mass crimes, restore justice and truth and ensure the protection of human rights.

On December 9, 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Years after the adoption of the Convention in 2015, thanks to the initiative of Armenia and the broad support of the international community, it was possible to adopt the International Day of Remembrance and Dignity of the Victims of the Genocide Crime and the Prevention of that Crime. In this context, I would like to emphasize that during the previous global forums, unfortunately, we began to consider the phenomenon of "genocide" more and more not only as a historical phenomenon, not only as a historical heritage but also as a danger and a threat, which is still present in different parts of the world. In the regions, it exists, and, indeed, the prevention of genocide becomes a real problem. Usually, in this context, we, the representatives of RA, emphasize and highlight the first genocide of the 20th century, the Armenian Genocide, that took place in the Ottoman Empire. But I must stress that even today, the threat and danger of genocide in our region is considered a phenomenon of urgent prevention. Recently, more and more, in particular, representatives of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh are alarming the potential genocide as a threat. And I think that all of us, and the international community, should take those alarms seriously. It seemed that the tripartite statement signed on November 9, 2020, created the mechanisms to protect the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh from potential genocide. Still, unfortunately, step by step, we have seen and continue to see realities that make the voiced fears more and more objective. And I have to give a small overview of how we moved in the direction of objectifying this kind of danger. In 2021, we already witnessed the realities when civilians carrying out agricultural work in Nagorno-Karabakh were directly killed by a sniper while driving a tractor. Later, we saw more acute realities when the Azerbaijani armed forces invaded the zone of responsibility of the Russian gamekeepers in Nagorno-Karabakh. This process was combined with several facts and phenomena worthy of attention. In particular, when the armed forces of Azerbaijan illuminated the houses of Armenian villages after midnight with powerful searchlights at night, played an invitation to Islamic prayer, and called Armenian residents through loudspeakers, threatening to leave their settlements. Of course, we have great respect for Islamic civilization and religion, and one of the most evident proofs of this is the Blue Mosque in the center of Yerevan, which was restored during the RA independence, but, other than religious terror, the reality I have described I cannot evaluate.

And I must also record that, unfortunately, these actions are not separate or isolated. And today, we see consistent actions that make the fears that Azerbaijan is organizing and preparing for genocide in Nagorno-Karabakh more and more objective. And in this regard, I must emphasize the provocations that are taking place, particularly in the corridor of Lachin. Some try to parallel the Lachin Corridor with other regional communications or communications that may be restarted or built. Still, I must emphasize that the Lachin Corridor is a genocide prevention corridor because closing this corridor to stop the operation of this corridor means condemning the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh to genocide in three different scenarios.

The first scenario can be the scenario of pure depopulation when the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh do not have the opportunity to live in their homes on their land. And we see much, in fact, a mini-model in the Hadrut region of Nagorno-Karabakh, where no single Armenian life today as a result of the 44-day war of 2020. Moreover, I must emphasize that the tripartite statement of November 9, 2020, provides for the return of refugees to Nagorno Karabakh and neighboring regions with the support of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. But until today, even representatives of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees did not have the opportunity to enter the given areas, let alone the residents of the Hadrut region.

The following scenario that could play out is the loss of identity, which I think is also a possible model for genocide. And today, the struggle that Azerbaijan is waging against the place names and historical and cultural monuments of Nagorno Karabakh is the most evident proof of this. That is, in the context of security in general, when we say security, we sometimes mean only physical security, but identity security is an integral part of human rights and security. The phenomenon that we are seeing, it is even funny to talk about it, is an attempt to present the internationally recognized Armenian historical and cultural monuments as having a different origin. At the same time, we show flexibility in this matter, which may be criticized by many, saying that, you know, it might not be worth making it an interstate resolution; for that, there is a specialized international structure, UNESCO, which is capable and has all the expert and professional skills to evaluate historical and cultural genealogy of monuments. But I want to say that this is not just a struggle against inanimate structures, this is a struggle against identity, and that struggle doesn't just have a historical context; that struggle has a practical context. The whole purpose of that struggle is to demonstrate that Armenians have no right to live in Nagorno-Karabakh because we see the following context of the battle against these historical and cultural monuments when an order is given at the state level to erase the Armenian mural inscriptions and replace them with, so to speak, real ones. The protocol records the historical facts. It is difficult to describe this as anything other than a preparation for genocide or at least a policy with such a tendency.

And the third scenario is the physical destruction itself, the reality and signs of which we have also seen and are seeing, starting from sniper targeting of civilians doing agricultural work, ending with bombing and rocketing of peaceful settlements and residents during the 44-day war. But you know, I don't want us to perceive and consider the genocide, including the genocide I'm talking about, as an inevitable and unpreventable reality. And I have to record, no matter how strange it may seem, now after this preface, the conclusion that, in my opinion, the essential tool for preventing genocide is dialogue and cooperation, including between Baku and Stepanakert. And we consider this very important in our foreign policy process.

Azerbaijan, moreover, demonstrates to the whole world on various occasions that they are ready to ensure the rights and security of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh. Still, the addressee of that sentence heard on international platforms is the international community and not primarily the beneficial people. Azerbaijan addresses that sentence to the international community but not to the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh. And we believe this message will be honest when heard in Stepanakert, in Nagorno Karabakh, in the Armenian community of Nagorno Karabakh.

And I especially emphasized that safety is not only physical safety. identity security is an integral part of that security, knowing yourself is an inalienable part of human rights. But on the other hand, I also want to summarize my speech with one or several practical conclusions about what we should do to prevent genocides in general, including in our region. I think that with all the complex realities, current and historical, we need to change the content and quality of our regional relations. And really, it should start from the simplest things; for example, I consider the prevention, management, and ultimately exclusion of hate speech in our region to be the biggest problem, especially at the official level, but not only at the official story. I don't want the topic of genocide prevention and condemnation to become an occasion for condemnation of people and a platform for deepening the hostility of people because I think that, indeed, hatred in our region should also be managed, 

and we must start by controlling hate speech; we must constantly be in the role of critic and refuse the possibility of self-reflection, beginning at the most everyday level. For example, one of the essential tools for genocide prevention, I think, is for us to say directly the official story that we accept and emphasize that we must, for example, in Armenia, stop insulting people, including political rivals or opponents. Use another nation's name. In the Republic of Armenia, there is such a thing; for example, if they want to stab someone most sharply, there is a straightforward way to do it, to say: you are a Turk. A person who, due to the circumstances known to you, has received that address quite a lot, I want to tell people who tend to insult me that they are not insulting me at all because I do not accept and perceive it as an insult. And in general, I think we should face these realities and try to change them. Azerbaijan also has that reality to insult someone, even the most recent insults, which in our region, the Caucasus, have a deadly effect, sometimes do not work so effectively when you call someone an Armenian, for example. I think that we at the official level, at the level of government, should accept the reality and say that we are not at peace with that reality and we do not want the name of the nationalities, the nation, the name of any country to be used as an insult. And this, I think, is an essential tool for preventing genocide.

I assume that there are parallel realities in Turkey as well. My message from this chair is as follows: let's start here, we sometimes cannot solve global issues because we cannot diagnose these issues at the genetic level, and this chair is essential in that sense because we are talking about genocide, and to understand and prevent this problem, we must be able to understand and diagnose the genetic level of the issue.

And one of the critical discussions in this forum will become just that. For example, there was an idea, and that idea exists, to start discussions in the South Caucasus in some format between Armenia-Georgia-Azerbaijan. That idea is not new; that idea is quite old. Old, not in the sense of outdated, but in the sense of time. And I have always supported that idea, but I have proposed a basic fundamental formula. That platform, first of all, should be used only and only to eradicate hate speech from our region. At official levels, the countries' leaders should record this, saying that we agree to cooperate to eliminate hate speech, even more so in the official story.

And this is where the prevention and prosecution of genocides should start because if someone in Azerbaijan, Turkey, or Armenia calls someone Armenian or Turk, even more so at the political level, even at the non-political level, he is doing this to him morally, politically to destroy and humiliate in a way. And this is essentially genetic-level thinking of genocide.

But on the other hand, I have to say that the fact that I'm now speaking publicly about these issues on this occasion means that we're still moving, it means that we're facing it, it means that we're realizing are: I must emphasize that the relations between Armenia-Turkey, Armenia-Azerbaijan and in general in our region are significant in this regard.

By the way, there is another critical formula for hostility management. Sometimes precisely, this approach works. If Armenia says something, then in Azerbaijan or Turkey, the correct reaction is to say 180 degrees the opposite. And the same with us, if Azerbaijan says something, including in a political, official context - not always, of course, but very often we see such directions - the safest reaction is to say something 180 degrees opposite because it is safe both politically, it's safe morally, and it's safe in a broader, psychological sense.

And today, for the first time, I want to break this reality and express agreement with a recently made statement in Turkey. And the idea was that all the countries of the region, including Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, need each other, in terms of the security of those countries, in a meaningful sense, in terms of ensuring their historical, sovereignty, and independence. And this is a basic formula for us to change the mode of relationship I mentioned eventually.

We have to understand one thing: why are we here? Are we here to live side by side, or are we just here to bide our time to ripen the right opportunity to destroy each other or each other? Such a context, such a subconsciousness exists in our region: in one country more, in another country less, in one country it is at an institutional level, in another country it is at an embryonic level, but these realities from time to time we technologies, I must say that these realities are very are evident during the study and monitoring of social networks. And here, the problem of genocide, I agree with the organizers, shows itself and is expressed in a new way in new technologies or perhaps the most straightforward technology among these new technologies, which is social networks.

I once made an initiative when I said that social networks could become a platform for dialogue rather than hatred. Of course, at that time, that initiative failed, failed because of circumstances that were known to you. But today, I want to emphasize that the new technologies that have brought the most distant countries together should also be able to get countries that are physically located next to each other. This seems like a straightforward problem, but it's a very complex problem, and I wish the forum members the best of luck in helping to solve this difficult problem.

Thank you":

RA Minister of Foreign Affairs Ararat Mirzoyan and UN Deputy Secretary General, UN Special Adviser on Genocide Prevention Alice Vayirimu Nderitu, made opening remarks. The video message of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on the International Day of Remembrance and Dignity of Genocide Crime Victims and Prevention of Genocide Crime was also presented.

The 4th Global Forum, "Against the Crime of Genocide," is dedicated to the issue of genocide prevention in the age of new technologies. It will address the challenges, opportunities, and prospects of using new technologies in genocide prevention.