Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Aliev says investigative mechanism on the line of contact can only start after withdrawal of Armenian forces starts

Aliev says investigative mechanism on the line of contact can only start after withdrawal of Armenian forces starts

26 June 2016

Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliev has made his first comments on the meeting he held in St petersburg last week with his Armenian counterpart, on the initiative of the President of Russia, positively assessing the meeting. However he added that if the results of the meeting "are about freezing the conflict and taking some additional measures on the line of contact, then of course, Azerbaijan won't do that". The Azerbaijani president downplayed the issue of increase in OSCE monitors and say the numbers will increase only from six to not more than fourteen. Aliev says investigative mechanism on the line of contact can only start after withdrawal of Armenian forces starts

Aliev was speaking at an event marking Armed Forces day in Azerbaijan.

Referring to the St Petersburg meeting the Azerbaijani President was quoted by the news agency APA as saying that "Hopefully, the process will continue at an accelerated pace. Once again, we are going to these talks without accepting any conditions. Negotiations should be substantive, meaningful and should not be carried out for the show, for the sake of imitation. Following the meeting a joint statement was adopted, which is also public. The declaration set out everything, including ways to resolve the issue. At the same time, we discussed the issue of enlargement of the office staff of the personal representative of the OSCE chairman. True, there is not specified the number, but I can say that if today 6 people working there, this figure may be increased up to 2 - 2,5 times. That is, there we are not talking about a large mission. If we consider that the contact line is measured in tens of kilometers - we should not see in this any significant meeting. The mandate is also in place - no it does not change. Simply, instead of 6 there will be 12, 13 or 14 employees, that's all.

As for the Armenians they put forward the issue of establishing a mechanism to investigate incidents, I believe that at this stage there is no need for this.

Firstly, these arrangements do not exist and no one is specifically saying what these will consist of. Therefore to consider this question today would be wrong. Secondly, what is its purpose? If it is meant to "freeze" the conflict and prevent the adoption of any additional measures on the line of contact, Azerbaijan, of course, will not do it. This can happen as part of a process of positive dynamics in the negotiation process. In case we see concrete results, we know the terms of liberation of our territories - in this case various mechanisms can be possible. Only in that case this issue can be considered".

Ilham Aliev said he wished to mention one important point in the statement adopted in St. Petersburg: "It was noted that in recent times on the contact line of troops the situation has stabilized, the ceasefire restored, which is regarded as a positive phenomenon. In this case, there is no need to apply a mechanism for investigating incidents. That is, and this condition was not accepted. I want to reiterate - we should negotiate on the basis of the subject matter. Aggressive policy of Armenia should be put to an end. We need to know when the process will begin the liberation of our territories. This process will certainly happen. The Azerbaijani side, and I, in particular, have repeatedly pointed out that we can only proceed step by step to resolve the conflict. Because otherwise it is impossible. Armenia is constantly trying to complicate the situation, to break the negotiation process and the option of a phased settlement. But, in our opinion, this is the most appropriate way. It can lead to an early solution of the problem. The principled position of the Azerbaijani government on the issue is known. This position has never changed and will not change.

The issue should be resolved within the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Nagorno-Karabakh will never get independence; and second Armenian state will not be created on the historical lands of Azerbaijan. This is the main question. As for the status of Nagorno Karabakh is a matter of the future. Of course, a certain status can be granted. As a part of Azerbaijan, we have the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. In Europe and other countries have a progressive experience and different statuses. However, this status should not violate the territorial integrity of our state".

President Aliev was speaking at the opening of a new headquarters for the general Staff of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces.

source: Commonspace.eu with APA.

President Aliev inspects weapons during a ceremony marking Azerbaijan armed forces day.

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

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