Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Commentary

Opinion: Secret diplomacy has failed and it is now time to think of new approaches

22 July 2020

In the second in a series of three commentaries on the consequences of the recent military clashes on the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, Azerbaijani political analyst Ahmad Alili says that recent events have changed a lot of things for Baku and will have far-reaching effects on the diplomatic mediation efforts also.  Secret diplomacy has failed and is causing more damage than it is creating constructive outcomes. It is time to think of alternative approaches, he argues.

Related content on commonspace.eu: The Current framework of negotiations has exhausted itself

On 12 July 2020, Armenian and Azerbaijani Armed Forces faced each other at their international border. For Azerbaijan, the news, broken by Armenia Ministry of Defence sources, came as a surprise. Azerbaijan's military is concentrated in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone, south to where the recent incidents occurred. During the first months of Prime Minister Pashinyan's tenure as the head of Armenia, Azerbaijan believed that the new Armenian Prime Minister had the vision to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and wanted to show goodwill. Baku redeployed its heavily equipped Armed Forces from the international border and replaced them with the relatively lightly equipped Border Service forces. It also agreed to a hot line between the military of the two sides. Both were meant to signal that Baku was not interested in increasing tension on the international border.

The recent outburst of violence was the biggest since the April 2016 escalation, even if it had a relatively smaller number of casualties: only 16 in total as far as is known at present, but the political and social consequences are extensive. The military escalation at the international border has changed a lot of things for Baku. These changes will shape the foreign policy of the Azerbaijani government in the coming years.

For Baku, the most significant result of the escalation was that it exposed that Moscow is not favouring Armenia (or at least an Armenia ruled by Prime Minister Pashinyan) in the conflict with Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan considers this hugely significant. Since the early 1990s, Yerevan was using its ties with Moscow to brand itself "Protected by Russia." All the rationale of Armenian foreign policy since the mid-1990s was to have Russian backing in case of an attack from Azerbaijan. It was natural that the Armenians were assuming that in case of an escalation on the international border with Azerbaijan, the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) will have to step in on the Armenian side. It did not work. For the last ten years, Azerbaijan was actively purchasing weapons from Russia, hence buying Russian loyalty at the expense of its traditional strategic partner in the South Caucasus - Armenia. Besides, Baku was actively working to build strategic links with Belarus and Kazakhstan,  also members of CSTO. It paid off. The CSTO called an urgent meeting on the escalation at the Armenia and Azerbaijan international border, but that was suddenly and unexpectedly postponed. There were other signals which the think-tank community in Baku interpreted as the Kremlin signalling its positive attitude towards Azerbaijan. For example, some Russian media outlets with links with high-ranking officials in the Kremlin published results of opinion polls, according to which Russian respondents wanted their country to support Azerbaijan over Armenia in twice the number (32% and 16%, respectively). Despite questions about the credibility of the report, it was clear that the Kremlin was signalling positive messages to Azerbaijan. The Russian Ministry of Defence also quickly denied that the military drills that started in the Northern Caucasus had something to do with the escalation at the border with Azerbaijan. For many, this answered the question of whether Russia would stay neutral if the fighting continued.

The developments also demonstrated that Azerbaijan has the backing of Ukraine. Kiev publicly supported the resolution of the conflict based on the UN Security Council resolutions as favoured by Baku. It also showed that Azerbaijan's renewed efforts within GUAM, and bilateral relations with Ukraine, are paying off. In previous years, Baku had also supported the territorial integrity of Ukraine in various international platforms and during the UN General Assembly sessions. A new alliance in the Eastern Partnership countries is thus becoming a reality: the former-Soviet Union countries who have seen an invasion by foreign powers are uniting, and this has the potential to open up new perspectives for Azerbaijan's foreign policy.

Of immense immediate significance is the public awakening and mass-rallies in support of Azerbaijan's military activity in Nagorno-Karabakh. It was proof that the importance of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict for the domestic audience in Azerbaijan should not be underestimated. It is still not clear what exactly triggered people to rush to the street, but local observers and analysts unanimously say that these public manifestations were spontaneous and authentic. A day before the mass-rally event, there was another, smaller one in the suburbs of Baku. Residents of "Gobu-Park," a neighbourhood built for the IDPs, around 20 minutes driving distance from Baku city centre, decided to march towards the city and to demand military activities for the liberation of Nagorno-Karabakh. The event, which was live-streamed on social networks, called on the rest of the population to "get brave and fight for the motherland," and was watched by many, even if those demonstrating were stopped by the police from reaching the city centre. The next day, when the Azerbaijani army lost its charismatic Major-General Polad Hashimov and Colonel Ilgar Mirzayev in unclear circumstances, the crowd gathered around their homes and initiated the rally, which lasted until 4.00 am. The rally, and the mood around it, has strengthened President Aliyev's hand if he opts to start a military campaign in Nagorno-Karabakh. However, it also demonstrates the potential public cost if the government decides not to. Such a mass rally is the first seen in Baku for many years, and it has enormous significance.

There were other consequences too. One of the most significant was the replacement of the Foreign Minister. Regardless of the reasons, coming at a moment of high-intensity diplomatic and military activity, the timing was unexpected. Elmar Mammadyarov was one of the longest-serving ministers in the Azerbaijani government, and he was the chief-negotiator in the OSCE Minsk Group peace process format since 2004. There are only few people who can be as experienced as Mammadyarov. It is not clear if the new Foreign Minister, Jeyhun Bayramov, will also be the chief-negotiator or if he will be replaced by someone else in this position. There is a possibility that, in order to demonstrate its frustration with the recent decisions of the mediators, Baku might want to signal that the format of the negotiations is no longer interesting for Azerbaijan. Hence, the new Azerbaijani foreign minister might be absent from the negotiation table for a long time, due to the objective reason that he has to familiarise himself with the background of the negotiations process. Also, Baku might decide to downgrade the talks by appointing a deputy-minister as the chief-negotiator, going back to a previous format. As a result, the effectiveness of the peace-negotiations at Track1 level might be much lower in the upcoming months. As President Aliyev said in one of his recent statements, "Azerbaijan is not going to have negotiations for the sake of negotiations." The last time when President Aliyev made similar statements was in the aftermath of the failed Kazan meeting in June 2011. In the following years, three significant escalations occurred: in August of 2014, November 2014, and April of 2016.

In 2018 there were expectations in Baku that Nikol Pashinyan's coming to power may open a new chapter in the conflict settlement process. Instead, Pashinyan's statement, "Karabakh is Armenia. Full stop" marked the demise of the peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The lack of an adequate reaction from the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs to the statement caused significant frustration in Azerbaijani society.

Instead, we are witnessing fatigue among the local peacebuilders in Armenia and Azerbaijan, among diplomatic circles and the donor organisations funding peacebuilding projects in the region. The consequences of the incidents in Tovuz (Azerbaijan) - Tavush (Armenia) border region this July is going to have far-reaching effects in the diplomatic mediation efforts also.

Given this, the way forward in the immediate future should be direct Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations. There should also be more significant involvement of experts working at the Track-2 level in the formal Track-1 peacebuilding process. Secret diplomacy has failed and is causing more damage than it is creating constructive outcomes. It is time to think of alternative approaches.

source: Ahmad Alili is Chairman of the Caucasus Policy Analysis Centre of Azerbaijan.

photo:  An Azerbaijani Unmanned Aeriel Vehicle (UAV) similar to the ones used in recent fighting on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border (picture courtesy of the Azerbaijan Ministry of Defence)

The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

 

 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?
Trending

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security
Trending

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

13 November 2026
Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest
Trending

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

7 September 2026
Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026
There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)
Dennis Sammut