Opinion: the road to an Armenia-Azerbaijan peace treaty is an undeniably challenging one

"The legacy of two devastating wars, different motives and the underlying need of the conflicting parties towards the normalization of relations, and geopolitical implications of the Second Karabakh War, act as stumbling blocks that complicate the overall peace process," writes Gulshan Pashayeva for commonspace.eu. "Today it is paramount that Armenia abandons its territorial claims against Azerbaijan and accepts Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, including the recognition of Azerbaijani sovereignty over Karabakh. Azerbaijan, on the other hand, should continue its work to reach out to Karabakh Armenians in order to incorporate them into the Azerbaijani society," she adds.

There was some cautious optimism among the expert community that a peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan could have been signed in 2022. However, these hopes were unjustified and, by the end of the year, the negotiations had stalled and this is still the case. 

To date, there are certain stumbling blocks which divide Armenian and Azerbaijani societies, including the fate of Karabakh’s ethnic-Armenian population which occupies a particular place in the normalization of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. 

First of all, the legacy of two devastating wars that left deep scars in the memories of these two nations should be highlighted. There are people from both sides who are directly affected by the hostilities and have experienced personal tragedy and loss. So far, some estimates put the number of deaths on both sides at 30,000 in the First Karabakh War and around 7,000 in the Second Karabakh War. 

Today, Azerbaijan continues to carry out large-scale post-conflict reconstruction efforts in the liberated territories in order to return about 700,000 Azerbaijani IDPs to their homes in the coming years. However, the destruction is almost total and at least one million anti-personnel, anti-tank mines and other unexploded or abandoned munitions were left behind by Armenian forces. In fact, since the signing of the Trilateral Statement in November 2020, 290 people have become victims of landmines, of whom 51, including 3 journalists, were killed and 239 seriously injured.

Armenia also continues to plant mines on the territory of Azerbaijan, and in total, 2,728 landmines, made in Armenia in 2021, have been found in sovereign territories of Azerbaijan. These were transferred via the Lachin road, which is a flagrant abuse of the humanitarian purpose of this road, hence Azerbaijani demands to establish customs and border checkpoints at the entrance and exit into that part of Karabakh where the Russian peacekeeping contingent has been temporarily deployed.

In Armenia there is no consolidated vision about a peace treaty

Secondly, there are different motives and underlying needs of the conflicting parties towards the normalization of relations. Azerbaijan strives to sign a peace treaty with Armenia and submitted a proposal containing five basic principles for the normalization of relations to Armenia in March 2022. Azerbaijan assumes that Armenia must recognize the part of Karabakh where an Armenian population lives as an integral part of the territory of Azerbaijan, and needs to concentrate on its own internationally recognized sovereign territory in the future. 

In contrast, in Armenia there is no consolidated vision about a peace treaty. There is opposition in parliament, in Armenian diaspora communities in the US and France, and in Karabakh separatist leaders who do not want to accept the defeat in the Second Karabakh War, and oppose any peace treaty between two states. 

Initially, Armenia expressed its preliminary agreement with the above-mentioned five basic principles put forward by Azerbaijan; however, afterwards it responded with additional principles that included security and the rights of ethnic Karabakh Armenians. Moreover, Armenia later agreed to the draft of a peace treaty, submitted by Russia, that stipulates the postponement of the so-called Karabakh issue to the future and, thus, to prevent recognition of Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan by Armenia. Azerbaijan, however, refused this proposal.

Thus, there is a certain inconsistency in Armenia’s policy with regard to the normalization of relations with Azerbaijan. At a meeting in November 2022 with Dirk Schuebel, the European Union’s special envoy for the Eastern Partnership, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev underlined that "statements from Armenia are very controversial. They say they recognize our territorial integrity and sovereignty. Not only say but they signed under that in Prague and Sochi."

However, Armenia wants, at the same time, to incorporate issues relating to the Armenian minority in Azerbaijan into a peace agreement, to which Azerbaijan will not agree. Therefore, he thinks that "a very clear position from the Armenian government about their agenda" is needed. From President Aliyev’s perspective it is necessary to have two tracks: (1) on the Armenia–Azerbaijan normalization process and (2) on issues relating to the Armenian minority in the Karabakh region of Azerbaijan and concerning their rights and security.

There are geopolitical implications to consider

Thirdly, the geopolitical implications of the Second Karabakh War should also be taken into consideration. Today Russia has become a key regional peacekeeper due to its temporary peacekeeping contingent in a particular part of the Karabakh economic region, and facilitating the Armenia–Azerbaijan normalization process. In contrast, Türkiye has also recently increased its influence in the region with the establishment of a joint Russian–Turkish Center for ensuring the ceasefire and the cessation of all hostilities in the Aghdam district of Azerbaijan. 

The change in the balance of power in the region has also led to a sharp increase in Armenia’s dependence on external actors. In fact, instead of persuading Armenia to abandon its revanchist aspirations, some of those powers are, in contrast, supporting Armenia’s vindictive behavior. This aspect has also gained particular importance against the backdrop of the war raging in Ukraine, which is accompanied by an unprecedented deterioration in relations between Russia and the West. 

From the perspective of many Armenians the war in Ukraine has produced a vacuum of power in the South Caucasus and they think that Moscow no longer supports them as it would have before. Therefore, from a security perspective Armenia is keen to bring other external actors into the region and the recent establishment of a two-year EU Mission is a good example of this. Incidentally, Russia considers this as an attempt to undermine their position in the South Caucasus. Azerbaijan also expressed its concerns that this EU Mission can serve as a pretext for Armenia to evade the fulfillment of commitments of the 2020 Tripartite Declaration. Meanwhile, Armenia also tries to involve Iran, which is dissatisfied with the new geopolitical reality.

The road to an Armenia-Azerbaijan peace treaty is undeniably challenging

Thus, in a nutshell, the legacy of two devastating wars, different motives and the underlying need of the conflicting parties towards the normalization of relations, and geopolitical implications of the Second Karabakh War, act as stumbling blocks that complicate the overall peace process.  

However, the recent provocation committed by the Armenian Armed Forces on the undelimited Armenian-Azerbaijani border which led to the death and injury of several Armenian and Azerbaijani servicemen once again demonstrates the necessity of the work on the delimitation of the state borders as well as the finalization of the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace treaty. 

Today it is paramount that Armenia abandons its territorial claims against Azerbaijan and accepts Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, including the recognition of Azerbaijani sovereignty over Karabakh. Azerbaijan, on the other hand, should continue its work to reach out to Karabakh Armenians in order to incorporate them into Azerbaijani society through attractive political, economic, social, and other developments in the coming years.

source: Dr. Gulshan Pashayeva is a Board Member of the Baku-based Center of Analysis of International Relations. She is also a former Senior Adviser in the Office of the President of Azerbaijan and Deputy Director of Azerbaijan’s Center for Strategic Studies. Dr.Pashayeva previously worked for UN Office in Azerbaijan as National Programme Coordinator for the UNIFEM regional project “Women for Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding in the South Caucasus” and Public Information Associate for the UNDPI. She also directed the NGO “Conflict Research Center” and taught at various state and private universities in Azerbaijan. Dr.Pashayeva specializes in conflict resolution and security studies, as well as gender and language policy. She is the author of more than 150 publications.
photo: Alexander Hunter/Washington Times
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)