Opinion: the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process would be better off without mediators

As recent statements from President Aliyev and Prime Minister Pashinyan demonstrate, "the two South Caucasian republics do not look entirely happy with the role of the mediators in their peace efforts," writes Vasif Huseynov for in this op-ed for commonspace.eu. "It is now clear that the success of these efforts may not depend solely on Baku and Yerevan. Devastating hostilities between the West and Russia and the jealous reaction of the Russian side to the growing role of the United States in the region seriously complicate the peace process," he adds.

In an international conference in Shusha, Azerbaijan, on 3 May, while the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan were still deep in negotiations in Washington, President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan made some statements about the format of the negotiations between the two countries and the role of mediators. In response to a question whether there are any external actors who might try to prevent a peace agreement between Baku and Yerevan, President Aliyev indirectly referred to the negative influence of some actors.

“I think that the best way… to come to an agreement is direct negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia without any mediator and without facilitator or spoiler,” he said. Pointing out the more supportive mediating role of Russia, the EU and United States, and criticizing the biased role of France, President Aliyev noted that “I think direct negotiations between the two countries will be more useful and helpful. I think that we need to go in that direction”, adding that “of course, if Armenia also is ready to do it”. 

The Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has so far not publicly advocated a bilateral track of negotiations, but after the Washington meeting he was seen complaining about the security challenges posed by the deployment of the EU monitoring mission to Armenian territory this year.

“It does not provide any security guarantee, on the one hand, it can cause new challenges”, he said without elaborating which challenges he refers to. However, considering Russia’s reaction to this mission and its push for the deployment of the similar mission of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) to the Armenia-Azerbaijan state border, one can infer what the Armenian premier is concerned about.

The Russia-West rivalries have negative implications for the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process

These developments, and particularly the statement by President Aliyev, indicate that the widely shared perception amongst local experts about potentially negative implications of Russia-West rivalries and their parochial interests for the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process may indeed reflect the reality of behind-the-doors negotiations. 

In fact, this is not a secret anymore. The Kremlin has been traditionally unhappy with the “intervention” of the West in the Armenian-Azerbaijani peace process. For the Russian side, the mediating efforts of the EU and United States represent their attempt to encroach on Russia’s “sphere of influence” and elbow Russia out of this region. While the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan were talking in Washington, Russia signaled that it would not support a peace deal that is not agreed upon with Moscow and not built on the basis of statements from the tripartite documents brokered by the Kremlin in 2020-2021. 

In this context, the trilateral statements signed by the leaders of Russia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan on 10 November 2020, and on 11 January and 26 November 2021 are seen in Moscow as the major legal instruments to ensure Russia’s interests in a potential peace treaty. “So far, there has been no other legal framework that would contribute to the settlement [of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict]. Thus, these tripartite documents have absolutely no alternative,” the Kremlin spokesman said in reaction to the Washington meeting.

Moscow, apparently, feels itself cornered in the peace process between the two South Caucasian republics. On 23 April, despite earlier objections of the Russian side, Azerbaijan succeeded in installing a border crossing post at the starting point of the Lachin road at the Armenia-Azerbaijan border. Azerbaijani leaders had earlier made it clear that the border crossing point was supported by the EU and United States. 

The border crossing post at the Lachin road is largely seen as a major blow to Russia’s influence in the region as it restored Azerbaijan’s control over movement between the Karabakh region and Armenia, limited Russia’s scope to manipulate this passage as a leverage against Azerbaijan, and as such constituted a major step towards the realisation of Baku’s demand of the withdrawal of the Russian peacekeeping mission in 2025. In parallel, the holding of four-day negotiations in Washington, the re-activation of the Brussels format of Aliyev-Pashinyan-Michel talks, and the announcement of already three EU-mediated meetings this year do not bode well for Russia’s role in the region. 

The success of peace efforts does not depend on solely on Baku and Yerevan

Russia still does have some leverage over the region, however, and particularly over Armenia, which makes it so far an indispensable actor. This is the reason why both Baku and Yerevan seek to avoid provoking Russia and proceed with a balancing act between the rival mediators. The Moscow visit of the Armenian premier on 9 May and the planning of the new round of the foreign ministers’ meeting in Russia appear as the manifestation of these efforts. 

As the aforementioned statement of President Aliyev and Pashinyan’s concerns about the EU monitoring mission demonstrated, the two South Caucasian republics do not look entirely happy with the role of the mediators in their peace efforts. It is now clear that the success of these efforts may not depend solely on Baku and Yerevan. Devastating hostilities between the West and Russia and the jealous reaction of the Russian side to the growing role of the United States in the region seriously complicate the peace process. Nevertheless, the latest dynamics in the process, increasingly frequent meetings and occasionally positive messages show goodwill of the sides and raise hope that this historic momentum will deliver a long-awaited peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

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: Munich Security Conference
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).
Editor's choice
News
 Abu Dhabi Talks Resume as Russia Rejects Ceasefire and Disagreements Over Territory Persist

Abu Dhabi Talks Resume as Russia Rejects Ceasefire and Disagreements Over Territory Persist

Trilateral negotiations between Russia, Ukraine and the United States resumed in Abu Dhabi on Wednesday, November 11. The second day of meetings follows an initial round of discussions that received positive assessments from Kyiv and Washington but exposed continuing divisions over the terms of a potential peace agreement. The talks, brokered by the United States, address prisoner exchanges, security guarantees and possible de-escalation, while territorial disputes remain the central obstacle to an agreement. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy described Tuesday's discussions as “constructive and quite substantive”, while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio referred to them as “very productive”. US envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff reportedly told participants that Washington had narrowed the differences between the two sides. Kushner also raised the possibility of developing a new European security framework. However, the US administration has provided few details about concrete progress. Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov rejected the prospect of a ceasefire, accusing European countries of seeking a temporary truce to facilitate the deployment of foreign troops to Ukraine. He also dismissed the presence of European representatives in Abu Dhabi, saying: “Well, they flew to Abu Dhabi. Let them sit there.” European officials have held separate consultations with Ukrainian and American representatives but remain excluded from the trilateral negotiations, despite Washington signalling that their participation could eventually be considered. Territorial control seems to be an issue that the parties are unable to resolve. Russia continues to demand the entire Donbas region, including territories it has not captured, while Ukraine refuses to relinquish its land. A senior US official indicated that both sides had demonstrated some flexibility privately, but stressed that territorial arrangements could not be resolved before Ukraine's post-war security guarantees were established. Simultaneously, military escalation continues. On November 11, Ukrainian Prime Minister Sergii Koretskyi reported Russian strikes against six major electricity substations across four central regions, as well as railway infrastructure. Russia also reported targeting Ukrainian military-related facilities and a cargo vessel near Odesa. Meanwhile, NATO fighter jets were activated following overnight drone alerts in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. European divisions over continued assistance to Kyiv further complicate the diplomatic environment. Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz faced opposition from Slovakia, Czechia, Hungary and Bulgaria after proposing to link the EU's next long-term budget to additional financial support for Ukraine. Conversely, Denmark announced a €643 million military assistance package and €20 million for Ukraine's energy sector on Tuesday. As negotiations continue, the contrasting positions of Moscow, Kyiv and their Western partners highlight the considerable obstacles to reaching a settlement. The discussions have opened diplomatic channels, but fundamental disagreements over territory, security arrangements and Europe's future security architecture remain unresolved.

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)