Opinion: The future of the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process hinges on the Agdam-Khankandi road

The stalemate that surrounds the progress of various humanitarian convoys that seek to supply the Armenian population in Nagorno-Karabakh aptly symbolizes the situation at the moment in the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process, writes Vasif Husseynov is this op-ed for commonspace.eu. "Azerbaijan relies on the international law and hopes that the principle of territorial integrity will eventually prevail over all other counterclaims. At the same time, Azerbaijan takes measures to ensure that the local Armenians will have alternative for humanitarian supplies if they indeed face the threat of starvation. The dispatch of humanitarian cargo and declaring Baku’s readiness to provide more is the manifestation of this policy. For many observers in the region and as proposed by the Azerbaijani government, the only exit from the present deadlock in Karabakh looks like to be the opening of both Agdam and Lachin roads at the same time. It might create necessary conditions for the supplies of humanitarian aid to the local population and help Baku and Yerevan to proceed with the peace treaty negotiations", he argues.

The Lachin road that connects Armenia with the Karabakh region will be opened 24 hours after the opening of the Agdam-Khankandi road, said Hikmet Hajiyev, foreign policy advisor of the Azerbaijani president on August 30.This statement was made a day after Azerbaijan sent 40 tons of humanitarian cargo to the Armenian population of the Karabakh region via the Agdam road that was stopped by the separatist regime. Another humanitarian cargo was dispatched to the region with the French support at the around same time was stopped at the Lachin checkpoint before entering the Azerbaijani territory. Yet another humanitarian convoy that was sent by Armenia got stuck at the border with Azerbaijan since July 26. The stalemate that the convoys find themselves in aptly symbolizes the situation at the moment in the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process.

The situation has worsened since the Brussels summit on 14 May when the two countries recognized each other’s territorial integrity

Although Baku and Yerevan made significant breakthroughs and tangible progress in the peace talks even after the installation of a checkpoint at the Lachin road on April 23, the situation has deteriorated since then. While Azerbaijan expects the Armenian side to fully respect the Azerbaijani regulations at the checkpoint and honor its commitment to recognize Azerbaijan territorial integrity, with Karabakh as part of it, Armenia insists on unchecked and unregulated passage to the Azerbaijani territory. The control over the Lachin road is seen in Baku as of extreme importance to ensure the security of the liberated territories as this passage has been always used by the Armenian side as a lifeline for the separatist movement.

Another issue of contention between the sides is related with the Azerbaijan’s offer to use the Agdam-Khankandi road instead of the Lachin road for the humanitarian supplies. For example, Baku wants the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to use this road for humanitarian supplies to Karabakh and coordinate its work with the Baku office of the Committee not with the office based in Yerevan.

The Armenian side reads these demands of Baku as an effort to restore Azerbaijan’s control over the Karabakh region – which is the rightful interpretation. The officials of Baku do not deny Azerbaijan’s intention to re-establish sovereignty over the part of the Karabakh region that is under temporary control of Russia’s peacekeeping mission. In Baku, this is seen to be in line with international law. Supporting Baku’s assertions, the latest rulings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) rejected Armenia’s request to order measures “withdraw any and all personnel deployed on or along the Lachin Corridor since 23 April 2023”. These rulings of the international courts indirectly confirmed the legality of the checkpoint.

The separatist regime counts on external support

The international calls for dialogue between Baku and the representatives of the Armenian community in Karabakh have not delivered any results, either. The separatist regime that currently rules over the local Armenians remains resolutely uncompromising. On the one hand, they count on the support of the international actors that are not interested in the full dissolution of the separatist entity and reintegration of the region into Azerbaijan.

Above all, it is the Russian side whose interests partially overlap with that of the local separatists. It was no surprise to see Alexander Bordov, the head of the local Russian community that was recently installed by Russian peacekeepers, has called upon Russian President Vladimir Putin to annex Karabakh. As demonstrated by many statements and actions of the Russian officials, Moscow, in a similar vein to the Karabakhi separatists, is not happy with the present pace of the peace talks and recognition of Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan by the Armenian government. For Moscow, this constitutes a direct threat to Russia’s military presence in Karabakh and, in the long term, even in Armenia.

One the other hand, the separatist regime gets emboldened by the support of France and the political circles in some other Western countries. France’s dispatch of humanitarian cargo to the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, despite being well aware that it will have similar fate to the one sent earlier by Armenia, was largely seen as a cheap show and a pressure tool against Azerbaijan. Instead of acting as a responsible international actor and seeking to bring about a joint solution to this crisis, France acts like a divisive player with its own agenda. The separatist leaders seemingly hope that the fact that France and Russia share similar positions if not interests in this conflict will soon force Azerbaijan to backtrack.

Azerbaijan could not offord to compromise on its efforts for the restoration of its sovereignty over Karabakh

The resistance of the separatist leaders and external support to them have created a deadlock in the situation placing the sides at the extreme ends of the spectrum and increasing the stakes for both parties. Azerbaijan relies on the international law and hopes that the principle of territorial integrity will eventually prevail over all other counterclaims. At the same time, Azerbaijan takes measures to ensure that the local Armenians will have alternative for humanitarian supplies if they indeed face the threat of starvation. The dispatch of humanitarian cargo and declaring Baku’s readiness to provide more is the manifestation of this policy. For many observers in the region and as proposed by the Azerbaijani government, the only exit from the present deadlock in Karabakh looks like to be the opening of both Agdam and Lachin roads at the same time. It might create necessary conditions for the supplies of humanitarian aid to the local population and help Baku and Yerevan to proceed with the peace treaty negotiations.

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: A road sign on the Agdam road to Nagorno-Karabakh
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)