Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
News

Reactions following the Aliyev-Pashinyan talks in Dushambe

1 October 2018

There have been a number of comments following the informal unscheduled discussion between the president of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and the prime minister of Armenia, Nikol Pashinyan on the margins of the CIS summit in Dushambe on Friday (28 September).

Over the weekend both sides reported the meeting, using broadly the same language.

read more: Aliyev and Pashinyan hold unscheduled informal talks in Dushambe

There have subsequently been further comments

Azerbaijan is always ready for constructive negotiations and contacts serving the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, the Deputy Head of the Foreign Policy Department of the Azerbaijani Presidential Administration Hikmat Hajiyev told Trend news agency on Monday morning (1 October). The conversation in Dushambe "started at the initiative of the Armenian Prime Minister", Hajiyev said.

"This once again shows that the format of the negotiations remains unchanged, and negotiations are conducted only between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which are parties of the conflict. Within the framework of the same format, in September, meetings between the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan were held during the UN General Assembly in New York, and in July in Brussels. We assess this positively, and Azerbaijan is always ready for constructive negotiations and contacts serving the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. This once again demonstrates Azerbaijan's commitment to the existing format," Hajiyev said.

He also commented on the strengthening the ceasefire regime on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border and the line of contact of troops.

"The Azerbaijani side has repeatedly stated that the main reason for the ceasefire violation is the illegal presence of Armenian troops in the occupied Azerbaijani territories and the continuation of military occupation. The Armenian side has always been responsible for the ceasefire violation and the aggravation of the situation. I would like to mention the large-scale military exercises conducted by the Armenian armed forces in the occupied Azerbaijani territories after the meeting of the heads of state in November 2014 in Paris, the incitement of a well-known helicopter incident, as well as Armenian armed troops' fire by heavy guns at civilians living along the contact line in April of 2016, and intentionally aggravation of the situation," Hajiyev said.

"So, the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the occupied Azerbaijani territories in accordance with the requirements of the UN Security Council's resolutions will eliminate not only military risk, but there will also be no need for a ceasefire, and there will be comprehensive opportunities for political solution of the conflict. This will ensure peace, stability and security in the region," he added.

Earlier there was a further comment by prime minister Nikol Pashinyan on the meeting: Azerbajiani President Ilham Aliyev left the impression of an educated person, he told Armenian media. "He left a positive impression. We had a normal, civilized conversation," Armenian media quoted Pashinyan as saying.

The prime minister said that an agreement was reached on regular contacts with Aliyev, but Pashinyan is not sure that the leadership of Azerbaijan will follow this agreement. "I'm not sure that the agreements will be implemented," he said.

He added that they plan to inform the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group about the agreements reached between the leadership of Armenia and Azerbaijan on supporting permanent contacts between the countries.

The question of Karabakh's return to negotiation table was discussed. "We also discussed this issue. Of course, our views are different. I called the President of Artsakh Bako Sahakyan and informed him about the reached agreements. The President of Artsakh noted that the agreement is acceptable for them as well."

In the meantime there has also been a comment from the de facto authorities in the self-declared Nagorno-Karabakh Republic: "The Republic of Artsakh welcomes the agreement between Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev on de-escalating the situation in the line of contact, but treats the issue with certain reservations, Davit Babayan, a spokesperson for the de facto authorities told ARMENPRESS.

"It is an interesting and commendable development if we were to give a political assessment. The three points which they agreed upon is very important. But there is a reservation here that completely trusting Aliyev or generally the Azerbaijani leadership isn't right, because they might breach any agreement in the most convenient time in the lowest way, which practice has shown. Nevertheless, let's hope that this time this agreement will give some kind of a positive effect," he said.

The spokesperson warned against expecting developments in the short term. "We should wait. We should view this agreement not within two hours or one-two days, but in the long-term," he said arguing that "Aliyev's consent on the agreement might depend on pressures from different levels against the Azerbaijani leadership".

"It is interesting that before this the Co-Chairs made a very strict statement. Certainly it was first of all addressed to Azerbaijan, because it is this very side that violates the ceasefire regime, and it is an interesting coincidence that it was the Russian President [Putin] who introduced the Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders to each other from a formal perspective. Taking into consideration that Russia is one of the OSCE Misnk Group Co-Chairing countries, it's not ruled out that Aliyev is in a very unique situation when great pressure exists against him, and has found a suitable occasion to both get to know the Armenian new leader and show himself to be a constructive side," Babayan said.

Nevertheless, Babayan noted that the situation at the line of contact is stable.

source: commonspace.eu with TREND news agency Baku, Armenpress (Yerevan) and news,am (Yerevan)

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