Opinion: President Aliyev does not intend to sign a peace agreement with Armenia

As war in Ukraine rages and the confrontation between Russia and the West continues unabated, a growing number of experts are speaking of the beginning of Cold War 2.0, pitting the West against Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, the so-called “Axis of upheaval.” As with the original Cold War, the new one covers many areas of the globe, including Asia-Pacific, Africa, and the Middle East. The former Soviet Union remains the heart of this confrontation, and the South Caucasus is no exception.

Strategically located between Russia, Turkey, and Iran, for the 25 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union the region was mainly the scene of competition between Russia and Turkey, with the first in the leading role. The last four years have brought significant changes in equilibrium. Azerbaijan transformed the status quo in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict by defeating Armenia in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War with the direct military involvement of Turkey. Russia sought to compensate for the growing influence of Turkey by deploying peacekeepers in Nagorno-Karabakh. However, as the war in Ukraine diverted Russian resources and attention, and Azerbaijan and Turkey became important for Russia (they have enabled sanctions evasion, and Baku allowed Russia to establish new transit routes reaching Iran), Azerbaijan used the momentum to launch a military takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh and force the displacement of Armenians in September 2023.

Russia’s failure to prevent the destruction of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic fueled anti-Russian sentiment in Armenia, which was already on the rise after Russia and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) failed to react to Azerbaijani aggression against Armenia in September 2022. This sentiment, coupled with the government's rhetoric of restoring Armenia’s sovereignty, increasing cooperation with the European Union, and transformative defense cooperation with India and France, has created an opportunity to start pulling Armenia politically and militarily away from Russia. 

The cornerstones of such a development should be the signature of an Armenia–Azerbaijan peace agreement and normalization of Armenia–Turkey relations. As long as Armenia faces an aggressive Azerbaijan and Turkey makes signature of an Armenia–Azerbaijan peace agreement a precondition of Armenia–Turkey normalization, it will be highly challenging, if impossible, for Armenia to think about moving politically and militarily away from Russia. 

Therefore anyone interested in enabling Armenia to decrease its dependency on Russia and bring tangible change to regional geopolitics in the South Caucasus, making Russia less influential, should call on Azerbaijan and Turkey to shift their agenda for Armenia. The critical factor here is Azerbaijan, for several reasons, including the personal relationship between President Aliyev and President Erdoğan, the business ties of the two presidents' inner circles, and Azerbaijani investments in the Turkish economy. Turkey has clearly articulated its position that it will not take any steps toward normalization with Armenia without an Armenia–Azerbaijan peace agreement first being signed. Thus President Aliyev holds the key not only to peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan but also to Armenia–Turkey normalization and significant geopolitical change in the region.

The Armenian government has taken steps to facilitate peace. It recognized Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan without even demanding autonomous status, accepted the post-September 2023 status quo, removed a section about Nagorno-Karabakh from government websites, and did not raise the issue of  Armenians’ right of return in public discussion. In April 2024, Armenia accepted the Azerbaijani demand to withdraw from several areas along the Armenia–Azerbaijan border in Tavush without any guarantee that Azerbaijani troops would withdraw from Armenian territories they control as a result of 2021 and 2022 incursions. Prime Minister Pashinyan started a debate about the “historical and real Armenia,” arguing that Armenians should concentrate on building statehood within 29,743 square kilometers of Soviet Armenia and forget about any other territories, including Nagorno-Karabakh.

It appears that the Armenian government has done everything in its power to make it easier for Azerbaijan to sign a peace agreement with Armenia, pave the way for Armenia–Turkey normalization, and decrease Russian influence in the region.

Yet, instead of using the unique opportunity presented by Pashinyan’s government, Azerbaijan opted to make new demands and impose fresh preconditions for peace with Armenia. These include changing the Armenian constitution and other laws, providing an extraterritorial corridor to Nakhichevan via Armenia, and recognizing what happened in Khojaly in February 1992 as genocide. Further, Azerbaijan continues to push forward the agenda of Western Azerbaijan. President Aliyev does not intend to make a peace agreement with Armenia. After every concession by the Armenian government, he imposes new preconditions, making the negotiations a never-ending process. Simultaneously, Azerbaijan continues to flirt with Russia. During his meeting with President Putin on April 22, 2024, President Aliyev stated that “Russia is a fundamental country regarding regional security in the Caucasus.” Azerbaijan supports the Russian vision of a 3+3 regional cooperation platform in the South Caucasus, repeating the Russian narrative that extra-regional powers obstruct the peace process. Azerbaijan echoed Russia’s criticism of the EU observer mission in Armenia and the April 5, 2024, Brussels meeting between Prime Minister Pashinyan, US Secretary of State Blinken, and President of the European Commission von der Leyen. After the events of September 2023, Azerbaijan undermined Western platforms of negotiations with Armenia, refusing to take part in meetings in Brussels and Washington, which is good news for Russia. Thus, Azerbaijan and Russia share the goal of reducing Western influence and presence in the South Caucasus.

Azerbaijan is actively engaging with Russia and Iran to launch a direct connection between them via Azerbaijan, a vital link for Russia to reach Iran and Southeast Asia in its efforts to deepen economic cooperation with non-Western countries. Thus, Azerbaijan is effectively undermining the process of Armenia–Azerbaijan and Armenia–Turkey normalization. This policy not only prevents the establishment of peace in the region but also hinders Armenia's efforts to move away from Russia.

The assessment of Azerbaijan’s regional strategy suggests that Azerbaijan is interested only in maintaining Russia’s position as the most influential player in the region and preventing the growth of a Western presence. If the EU and the US want to decrease Russia’s influence in the area, they should reach out to Azerbaijan and Turkey and warn them about the consequences of such an agenda. They also should increase pressure on Azerbaijan to use the momentum for finalizing a comprehensive peace agreement with Armenia and to stop derailing the process by putting forward never-ending demands.

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 and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev (archive picture)
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
King calls slave trade a 'shameful chapter' during Commonwealth address

King calls slave trade a 'shameful chapter' during Commonwealth address

King Charles has described the transatlantic slave trade as a "shameful chapter of history" that filled him with "profound sorrow" as he opened a summit of Commonwealth leaders in the Caribbean. He said the trade in enslaved persons "still casts a shadow" over the association of nations. There have been calls from some for the UK to make a formal apology for its historic role in the slave trade ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (Chogm) in Antigua and Barbuda, but there was not one in the King's address. Prime Minister Andy Burnham, also at the summit, has said that he is open to Britain issuing a formal apology but has ruled out financial reparations. While there was no direct apology, the King did offer some contrition - and there was also an acknowledgement that he had personally learnt more about the legacy of the slave trade. He said: "The transatlantic trade in enslaved persons still casts a shadow over these islands and other members of our Commonwealth. "As I have said before, that shameful chapter of history is one that fills my heart with horror and my soul with the most profound personal sorrow." (click image to read more).

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)