Opinion: Armenia-Azerbaijan negotiations are at a crossroad

Armenia – Azerbaijan negotiations have reached a crossroad, says Benyamin Poghosyan in this op-ed for commonspace.eu. "Azerbaijan lost its interest in Western platforms, criticizing the EU for its alleged "pro-Armenian approach" and indicating its willingness to go back to a Moscow-led format or launch direct bilateral talks with Armenia using Georgia as a venue. Armenia seeks to avoid Russian mediation efforts, simultaneously seeking to increase its cooperation with the EU and the US. Under current circumstances, hopes for signing the peace agreement by the end of 2023 are quickly fading away. Meanwhile, the pause in the negotiation process creates additional dangers for new military escalations, especially around the so-called "enclaves," which Azerbaijan portrays as "Azerbaijani territories occupied by Armenia." The EU and the US should increase their efforts to bring back Azerbaijan to Brussels and Washington formats, while Armenia should consider the option to re-start negotiation with Azerbaijan through Russian mediation."      

When, after imposing a 9-month long blockade, Azerbaijan launched a military offensive against the self-proclaimed Nagorno Karabakh Republic on September 19, 2023, forced its President Samvel Shahramanyan to sign a decree of dissolution of the Republic by the end of 2023, and effectively kicked out entire Armenian population from the region, experts and politicians started to explore the consequences of this move on Armenia – Azerbaijan negotiation process. Started immediately after the end of the 2020 Nagorno Karabakh War, it already had  its ups and downs. Dominated by Russia at the beginning, then through alternative platforms in Brussels and Washington, it seemed that negotiations slowly moved in the right direction – the signature of a peace agreement. When Armenia recognized Nagorno Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan in October 2022, many thought the step cleared a path towards peace.

However, the Armenian government was demanding an international presence in Nagorno Karabakh to ensure the rights and security of Armenians, as well as the establishment of an international mechanism for Baku – Stepanakert direct talks. Azerbaijan vehemently rejected these claims, and there was a feeling that after several rounds of talks in Washington and Brussels, negotiations reached a stalemate. The war in Ukraine and the collapse of Russia – West relations have created additional obstacles, as the negotiation process has become a sort of geopolitical competition between Russia and the West. It seemed that the West had the upper hand in this competition. In 2023, Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders met twice in Brussels, and the foreign ministers with their teams took part in two rounds of negotiations in Washington, working on the text of the peace agreement, while there was only one brief meeting of leaders in Russia in May 2023.

Under those circumstances, some believed that the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh was the primary obstacle to the way of the peace agreement. According to this logic, the military takeover of Nagorno Karabakh by Azerbaijan and the forced displacement of the entire Armenian population from the region, despite being a tragedy in itself, would facilitate the peace process under the Western umbrella, resulting in the signature of a peace agreement in Brussels by the end of 2023. At the margins of the third European Political Community summit, the meeting in Granada seemed to be an excellent place to finalize the details of the future agreement.

However, it appeared that after securing zero consequences from the West for the forced displacement of Armenians from Nagorno Karabakh, Azerbaijan lost its interest in Western platforms. President Aliyev canceled its participation in the Granada summit, and according to different sources, the primary reason was the alleged pro-Armenian stance of France and Germany. Azerbaijan thought that they could not be an honest broker of negotiations. Azerbaijan demanded Turkish President Erdogan's participation to balance pro-Armenian Europeans, but this demand was not accepted. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan indicated that it was ready to continue participating in the "original Brussels format", and sides agreed to have another Brussel summit by the end of October 2023. However, a few days before the meeting, Azerbaijan canceled its participation in the summit, allegedly because of a lack of time.

In parallel with distancing itself from the Western platforms, Azerbaijan launched active consultations with Russia. Azerbaijani foreign minister Bayramov had several phone calls with his Russian counterpart in October 2023. They agreed that the only base for the conflict settlement was the trilateral Armenia – Azerbaijan – Russia statements. President Aliyev met with President Putin in Bishkek during the CIS summit and discussed the Armenia – Azerbaijan negotiations process. Several voices from Azerbaijan started to talk about the necessity of settling the issues in the South Caucasus by regional states – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia, Turkey, and Iran, repeating the Russian and Iranian narrative that Western involvement in the South Caucasus will only exacerbate the situation. Through the active efforts of Russia and Iran, the second meeting of the 3+3 (3+2) format took place in Tehran in October 2023, and an agreement was reached to hold the next summit in Turkey in the first half of 2024.

While Azerbaijan made efforts to decrease its involvement in Western platforms, Armenia took steps to reduce its presence in Russia-facilitated formats. Prime Minister Pashinyan and Foreign Minister Mirzoyan did not attend the CIS summit in Bishkek, where Russia hoped to organize trilateral negotiations. Recently, the Armenian defense minister did not participate in the CSTO defense ministers summit, and Secretary of the Security Council Armen Grigoryan missed the meeting with his CIS counterparts. Simultaneously, Armenia increased its engagement with the West. Prime Minister Pashinyan participated in the sixth annual Paris Peace Forum, and Secretary of Security Council Armen Grigoryan took part in the Armenia-Europe Conference, held in Brussels on November 9-10, 2023. Armenian foreign Minister Mirzoyan will participate in the EU Foreign Affairs Council meeting on November 13.

Thus, after the forced destruction of the self-proclaimed Nagorno Karabakh Republic, Armenia – Azerbaijan negotiations have reached a crossroad. Azerbaijan lost its interest in Western platforms, criticizing the EU for its alleged "pro-Armenian approach" and indicating its willingness to go back to a Moscow-led format or launch direct bilateral talks with Armenia using Georgia as a venue. Armenia seeks to avoid Russian mediation efforts, simultaneously seeking to increase its cooperation with the EU and the US. Under current circumstances, hopes for signing the peace agreement by the end of 2023 are quickly fading away. Meanwhile, the pause in the negotiation process creates additional dangers for new military escalations, especially around the so-called "enclaves," which Azerbaijan portrays as "Azerbaijani territories occupied by Armenia." The EU and the US should increase their efforts to bring back Azerbaijan to Brussels and Washington formats, while Armenia should consider the option to re-start negotiation with Azerbaijan through Russian mediation.       

source: Benyamin Poghosyan is a Senior Fellow on foreign policy at APRI Armenia and the founder and Chairman of the Centre for Political and Economic Strategic Studies in Yerevan. 
photo:  Armenian prime minister Nikol Pashinyan met with European leaders in Granada in October. Aliyev refused to attend.

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?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

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).

Popular

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

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

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)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

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

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)