Opinion: we may still be far from an Armenia-Azerbaijan peace treaty

Current circumstances in the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process raise a number of questions, writes Vasif Huseynov in this op-ed for commonspace.eu. "Above all, it is unclear whether Baku and Yerevan will be able to stand resilient against all this pressure from the Russian side. Retrospectively, both capitals have realistically assessed Russia’s influence in the region and avoided any confrontation with Moscow." He adds that there is "ambiguity and uncertainty in the regional geopolitical landscape which poses substantial challenges for the peace efforts between Baku and Yerevan and may prolong the signing of a peace treaty indefinitely."

In a similar vein to the fourth quarter of last year, Armenian and Azerbaijani officials have again started talking positively about the prospects of signing a peace treaty in the near future. To be more precise, an Armenian government representative recently stated that there is a good chance that the document will be signed by the end of this year. The vigorous dynamics observed in the recent peace talks further support this expectation, as they clearly indicate that both parties have dedicated significant efforts to the negotiation process and have reached mutual understanding on a list of thorny issues.

In parallel, the attendance of the Armenian leader at the inauguration ceremony of the Turkish President on 3 June for the first time in history was  a highly symbolic occasion. It is important to note that Baku and Ankara have consistently emphasized the interconnectedness of the two tracks for normalizing regional relations, namely, the Armenia-Azerbaijan and Armenia-Turkey tracks. The latest developments have, therefore, raised optimism that the negotiations are nearing their final destination, i.e., the signing of a peace treaty between the two South Caucasian countries. However, while the negotiations between the local actors look to be on a progressive path, the current wider geopolitical situation in and around the region does not seem to be conducive to a peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

First and foremost is the question of how the peace treaty will affect the future of Russia’s role in the region. As spokesperson for Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Maria Zakharova recently stated, the regional conjecture seems to have changed. Originally, in the trilateral statement of 10 November 2020, it was envisaged that Russia will take up the role of security provider both along the Lachin road and the land passage between the western parts of Azerbaijan and its Nakhchivan exclave through the Syunik (Zangazur) region of Armenia. Despite Russian objections, Azerbaijan took the initiative to establish its own border crossing post at the entrance of the Lachin road on 23 April. This move effectively granted Azerbaijan full control over the road, eliminating any potential for intervention by the Russian peacekeeping mission. 

Russian influence in the region is waning, but Moscow can be expected to put up a fight

Emboldened by this development, Armenia has now started to voice plans to install its own checkpoints at the entry and exit points of the Zangazur road. The secretary of the Security Council of Armenia, Armen Grigoryan, in a recent statement signaled that Armenia would decline the control of the Russian border guard service in case of the future unblocking of economic and transportation routes. This is Armenia’s attempt to stave off the deployment of the Russian border guard service as envisaged previously and, indeed, would constitute a severe blow to Russia’s regional influence if Yerevan succeeds in this endeavor.

Maria Zakharova’s response to Grigoryan’s statement highlights Moscow’s displeasure with the position of the Armenian government and with the current situation overall. Zakharova emphasized the significance of the Russia-Armenia-Azerbaijan trilateral statements as the foundation for peace talks and urged the Armenian side to address these matters through dialogue instead of making public statements. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had previously warned his Armenian counterpart against disregarding Russia’s interests in the South Caucasus, stressing that “Russia has major interests at stake [in the region]. I am convinced that our allies are aware of that”. 

It is widely believed by local observers that while Russia may have experienced setbacks in its invasion of Ukraine, it is unlikely to relinquish control over the South Caucasus without putting up a significant fight to protect its own interests and prevent others from replacing Moscow’s longstanding dominance in the region. It is no secret that Russia sees the growing mediating role of the EU and the United States between Armenia and Azerbaijan through the lens of geopolitical rivalry in the context of larger confrontation between the two sides. The deployment of the EU monitoring mission to Armenia in October 2022 and its renewal for a longer period in January this year caused  major anxiety in the Kremlin. The EU’s recent announcement regarding the expansion of the monitoring mission further exacerbates the situation, as Yerevan has not yet given approval for the deployment of a similar mission by the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).

These circumstances raise a number of questions. Above all, it is unclear whether Baku and Yerevan will be able to stand resilient against all this pressure from the Russian side. Retrospectively, both capitals have realistically assessed Russia’s influence in the region and avoided any confrontation with Moscow. Armenia has been a Russian ally within the CSTO and Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Equally, Russian support has been a major factor behind Armenia’s maintenance of the Azerbaijani territories under occupation for the significant part of the post-Soviet period.

The present course of developments in the region could evolve in a different direction which would gradually spiral into serious problems, if not conflict, between Russia and the two countries of the South Caucasus. Neither Baku nor Yerevan wants it, despite the fact that Russia has increasingly limited policy options to impactfully affect regional processes. This all, however, creates ambiguity and uncertainty in the regional geopolitical landscape which poses substantial challenges for the peace efforts between Baku and Yerevan and may prolong the signing of a peace treaty indefinitely.

source: Dr Vasif Huseynov, is a Senior Advisor at the Center of Analysis of International Relations (AIR Center) and Adjunct Lecturer at Khazar University in Baku, Azerbaijan.
photo: Reuters
The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

 

 

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Key European countries back Denmark in the face of Trump's continuing insistence on taking over Greenland

Key European countries back Denmark in the face of Trump's continuing insistence on taking over Greenland

 Six major European countries have declared their support to Denmark following renewed insistence by the US that it must have control over Greenland. "Greenland belongs to its people, and only Denmark and Greenland can decide on matters concerning their relations," said the leaders of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain, in a joint statement, issued on Tuesday (6 January), together with Denmark. On Sunday, Donald Trump said the US "needed" Greenland - a semi-autonomous region of fellow Nato member Denmark - for security reasons. He has refused to rule out the use of force to take control of the territory, and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned on Monday that an attack by the US would spell the end of Nato. The issue of Greenland's future resurfaced in the wake of the US military intervention in Venezuela, during which elite troops went in to seize the country's President Nicolás Maduro and take him to face drugs and weapons charges in New York. Following the raid, Trump said the US would "run" Venezuela for an unspecified period of time. He also said the US was returning to an 1823 policy of US supremacy in its sphere of influence in the Western hemisphere - and he warned a number of countries the US could turn its attention to them. The US military raid in Venezuela has reignited fears that the US may consider using force to secure control of Greenland. A day after the raid, Katie Miller - the wife of one of Trump's senior aides - posted on social media a map of Greenland in the colours of the American flag, alongside the word "SOON". On Monday, her husband Stephen Miller said it was "the formal position of the US government that Greenland should be part of the US". In an interview with CNN, he also said the US "is the power of Nato. For the US to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend Nato and Nato interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the US." Asked repeatedly whether the US would rule out using force to annex it, Miller responded: "Nobody's going to fight the US over the future of Greenland." Stressing they were as keen as the US in Arctic security, the seven European signatories of Tuesday's joint statement said this must be achieved by Nato allies, including the US "collectively" - whilst "upholding the principles of the UN Charter, including sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders". Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen welcomed the statement and called for "respectful dialogue". "The dialogue must take place with respect for the fact that Greenland's status is rooted in international law and the principle of territorial integrity," Nielsen said. Trump has claimed that making Greenland part of the US would serve American security interests due to its strategic location and its abundance of minerals critical to high-tech sectors. Greenland, which has a population of 57,000 people, has had extensive self-government since 1979, though defence and foreign policy remain in Danish hands. While most Greenlanders favour eventual independence from Denmark, opinion polls show overwhelming opposition to becoming part of the US.
Editor's choice
News
Donald Tusk: "One for all, and all for one! Otherwise we are finished."

Donald Tusk: "One for all, and all for one! Otherwise we are finished."

Europe is rattled by events in Venezuela, and there are serious concerns that US disregard for international law may have consequences close to home.  The BBC diplomatic correspondent, James Landale, said, the question is how Europe may respond in the longer term to America's military operation in Venezuela. Will it provide a catalyst for the continent to take greater responsibility for its own security in the face of so much instability from what many see as an unreliable ally? Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, appears to have answered the question, saying on social media: "No-one will take seriously a weak and divided Europe: neither enemy nor ally. It is already clear now. "We must finally believe in our own strength, we must continue to arm ourselves, we must stay united like never before. One for all, and all for one. Otherwise, we are finished." The US seizing of Venezuela's leader has faced strong criticism from both America's friends and foes at an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council, held on Monday, 5 January. Many member states agreed with the US that Nicolás Maduro had been an illegitimate and repressive leader. But many also condemned the US military action as a breach of international law and the UN Charter, and they demanded a democratic transition that reflected the will of the Venezuelan people. (click the image to read the full article).

Popular

Editor's choice
News
Key European countries back Denmark in the face of Trump's continuing insistence on taking over Greenland

Key European countries back Denmark in the face of Trump's continuing insistence on taking over Greenland

 Six major European countries have declared their support to Denmark following renewed insistence by the US that it must have control over Greenland. "Greenland belongs to its people, and only Denmark and Greenland can decide on matters concerning their relations," said the leaders of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain, in a joint statement, issued on Tuesday (6 January), together with Denmark. On Sunday, Donald Trump said the US "needed" Greenland - a semi-autonomous region of fellow Nato member Denmark - for security reasons. He has refused to rule out the use of force to take control of the territory, and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned on Monday that an attack by the US would spell the end of Nato. The issue of Greenland's future resurfaced in the wake of the US military intervention in Venezuela, during which elite troops went in to seize the country's President Nicolás Maduro and take him to face drugs and weapons charges in New York. Following the raid, Trump said the US would "run" Venezuela for an unspecified period of time. He also said the US was returning to an 1823 policy of US supremacy in its sphere of influence in the Western hemisphere - and he warned a number of countries the US could turn its attention to them. The US military raid in Venezuela has reignited fears that the US may consider using force to secure control of Greenland. A day after the raid, Katie Miller - the wife of one of Trump's senior aides - posted on social media a map of Greenland in the colours of the American flag, alongside the word "SOON". On Monday, her husband Stephen Miller said it was "the formal position of the US government that Greenland should be part of the US". In an interview with CNN, he also said the US "is the power of Nato. For the US to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend Nato and Nato interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the US." Asked repeatedly whether the US would rule out using force to annex it, Miller responded: "Nobody's going to fight the US over the future of Greenland." Stressing they were as keen as the US in Arctic security, the seven European signatories of Tuesday's joint statement said this must be achieved by Nato allies, including the US "collectively" - whilst "upholding the principles of the UN Charter, including sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders". Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen welcomed the statement and called for "respectful dialogue". "The dialogue must take place with respect for the fact that Greenland's status is rooted in international law and the principle of territorial integrity," Nielsen said. Trump has claimed that making Greenland part of the US would serve American security interests due to its strategic location and its abundance of minerals critical to high-tech sectors. Greenland, which has a population of 57,000 people, has had extensive self-government since 1979, though defence and foreign policy remain in Danish hands. While most Greenlanders favour eventual independence from Denmark, opinion polls show overwhelming opposition to becoming part of the US.