Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
News

Sharp exchanges between Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents at CIS Bishkek summit

18 September 2016

"The spat in Bishkek is an indication that the atmosphere between the two sides remains poisoned, and that President Putin efforts at 'peace-making' do not seem to be going very far".

A summit of the presidents of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the CIS took place in the Kyrgyz Capital Bishkek on 16 September. This was supposed to be a celebratory summit to mark the 25th anniversary of the organisation formed after the collapse of the USSR in an effort by Russia to keep influence on its neighbours. The CIS has had a lacklustre history and on many occasions looked as if it was collapsing. Of the 15 former USSR republics only nine are now full members of the CIS. The three Baltic states never joined, Georgia left after Russia recognised Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states after the 2008 Georgia Russia War, and Ukraine and Turkmenistan downgraded their membership to associate members.

The meeting was also marked by a sharp exchange between the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan, with both men accusing each other of "saying a lie".

The incident started when in his address to the meeting, Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan made a reference to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. According to the website of the Armenian president Sargsyan said;

Unfortunately, tension and pockets of resistance are present also on the territory of our Commonwealth. Last April, for the first time after the establishment of the ceasefire in 1994, the territory of Nagorno Karabakh became a war place. The military activities not only resulted in combat losses but caused loss of life among the peaceful civil population, and caused a heavy blow to the peace process.

I refer to this problem because the ceasefire agreement was signed right here, in Bishkek and was based on the provisions of the Declaration made by the Council of the CIS Heads of State on April 15, 1994. Nursultan Nazarbaev is a witness, he was there.

It means that in a sense the CIS member states are guarantors of the implementation of this permanent ceasefire which stipulates the necessity of reaching a comprehensive resolution to the problem through the exclusively political means.

We have always been stating our position which is line with the position of the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group: the conflict must be solved through the peace negotiations, based on the norms and principles of international law, as well as on the reasonable mutual compromise, I stress - mutual compromise.

I would like to express my gratitude to the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, thank the Russian side which along with the other Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group - the United States and France - undertakes steps for the political and diplomatic solution of the NK conflict, for the implementation of the agreements reached during the Summits in Vienna and Saint Petersburg. First of all, it is the unconditional implementation of the trilateral agreements of 1994-95 on the cessation of military activities, creation of the mechanism for the investigation of the incidents, broadening of the capabilities of the mission of the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office.

We are guided by the understanding that the consistent implementation of the mentioned above agreements would create an appropriate atmosphere for the advancement of the peace talks.

You can read the full text of the Armenian President speech here

According to the press office of the Azerbaijani president, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko was supposed to speak next after the Armenian President, however Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliev  asked the Belarusian president for permission to speak before him . As Alexander Lukashenko did not object President Aliyev took the floor and gave what the website of the Azerbaijani Presidential administration described as "a compelling and tough response to the Armenian president's provocative remarks". It quoted Aliev as saying,

"I deemed it my duty to comment on the Armenian President's remarks. I did not consider it necessary to talk about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution here as this problem is addressed by other international organizations," said President Aliyev. "But when I heard another complaint of the Armenian side, I deemed it my duty to comment on this."

Armenia has already bothered all the international organizations with those complaints, he added.

"Situation is so paradoxical, as you can imagine: Armenia occupied territory of a sovereign state, violated its territorial integrity, expelled local Azerbaijani population from the Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding districts, making more than one million people refugees and IDPs, destroyed everything in the occupied lands, including historical, religious, cultural monuments and all the infrastructure, which was evidenced by the reports of two OSCE missions," said Azerbaijan's president. "Then Armenia has just pretended to engage in the negotiations process for more than 20 years. Moreover Armenia periodically makes different provocations to make this process eternal. One of these provocations took place this April. Over 500 houses of Azerbaijani civilians were shelled from the Armenian artillery, more than 100 houses were destroyed, nearly 10 civilians, including children, were killed, died."

According to president.az  Aliev noted that international organizations have a clear understanding of how this problem must be solved.

 "There is a supreme international body - United Nations Security Council. It is the highest international organization. The Security Council adopted four resolutions in early 1990s. These documents demand unconditional and immediate withdrawal of the occupant Armenian forces from Azerbaijan's territory. These resolutions remain unfulfilled. Armenia disregards them and tries to create a new reality by artificially changing the administrative borders of former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and illegally resettling in that area. It is absolutely illegal. It is a crime, and this crime has continued up to the present time," he said.

The Azerbaijani President website said that Ilham Aliev stressed that Azerbaijan is committed to a peace process.

"We work constructively. We have a Minsk Group format, but the Armenian side misuses this format just to make the negotiations continue for ever. They do not want peace. They just want to keep our territories under control and to accuse Azerbaijan everywhere of violating something. We are the aggrieved party. We did not occupy anybody's territory. It is our territory, 20 per cent of Azerbaijan's internationally-recognized territory, that has been under occupation. This is the reality. Therefore, with reference to the Armenian President's another inappropriate complaint, I deemed it my duty to bring this to the attention of our colleagues once again," he added.

 The same source says that after this, the Armenian President said "It makes no sense to respond to a lie" to which the Azerbaijani President replied, "I have already responded to a lie".

Commonspace.eu political editor said in a comment that "this of course is not the first time that there has been sharp exchange of words between the two leaders in international fora, and their subordinates have in the past said much worse.

What is important and significant however is that this exchange took place at this moment and in the presence of Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Russians have for some time been pushing for progress in the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and for the last year thought they had the green light of the two sides to push forward what have become known as the Lavrov ideas. The intense fighting in April, which left hundreds dead on both sides, led the Russians to intensify their efforts and for a moment after the last summit involving the Presidents of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia in St Petersburg in June there were expressions of optimism that a breakthrough was imminent. The negotiations, as always have been ongoing in secret and there has been little indication of what progress, if any, has been made. The spat in Bishkek is an indication that the atmosphere between the two sides remains poisoned and that President Putin efforts at 'peace-making' do not seem to be going very far".

source: commonspace.eu with the official websites of the president of Armenia and the President of Azerbaijan.

phot: A closed session of the leaders of the CIS at their 25th anniversary summit in Bishkek on 16 September 2016.

 

 

 

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