Opinion: we may still be far from an Armenia-Azerbaijan peace treaty

Current circumstances in the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process raise a number of questions, writes Vasif Huseynov in this op-ed for commonspace.eu. "Above all, it is unclear whether Baku and Yerevan will be able to stand resilient against all this pressure from the Russian side. Retrospectively, both capitals have realistically assessed Russia’s influence in the region and avoided any confrontation with Moscow." He adds that there is "ambiguity and uncertainty in the regional geopolitical landscape which poses substantial challenges for the peace efforts between Baku and Yerevan and may prolong the signing of a peace treaty indefinitely."

In a similar vein to the fourth quarter of last year, Armenian and Azerbaijani officials have again started talking positively about the prospects of signing a peace treaty in the near future. To be more precise, an Armenian government representative recently stated that there is a good chance that the document will be signed by the end of this year. The vigorous dynamics observed in the recent peace talks further support this expectation, as they clearly indicate that both parties have dedicated significant efforts to the negotiation process and have reached mutual understanding on a list of thorny issues.

In parallel, the attendance of the Armenian leader at the inauguration ceremony of the Turkish President on 3 June for the first time in history was  a highly symbolic occasion. It is important to note that Baku and Ankara have consistently emphasized the interconnectedness of the two tracks for normalizing regional relations, namely, the Armenia-Azerbaijan and Armenia-Turkey tracks. The latest developments have, therefore, raised optimism that the negotiations are nearing their final destination, i.e., the signing of a peace treaty between the two South Caucasian countries. However, while the negotiations between the local actors look to be on a progressive path, the current wider geopolitical situation in and around the region does not seem to be conducive to a peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

First and foremost is the question of how the peace treaty will affect the future of Russia’s role in the region. As spokesperson for Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Maria Zakharova recently stated, the regional conjecture seems to have changed. Originally, in the trilateral statement of 10 November 2020, it was envisaged that Russia will take up the role of security provider both along the Lachin road and the land passage between the western parts of Azerbaijan and its Nakhchivan exclave through the Syunik (Zangazur) region of Armenia. Despite Russian objections, Azerbaijan took the initiative to establish its own border crossing post at the entrance of the Lachin road on 23 April. This move effectively granted Azerbaijan full control over the road, eliminating any potential for intervention by the Russian peacekeeping mission. 

Russian influence in the region is waning, but Moscow can be expected to put up a fight

Emboldened by this development, Armenia has now started to voice plans to install its own checkpoints at the entry and exit points of the Zangazur road. The secretary of the Security Council of Armenia, Armen Grigoryan, in a recent statement signaled that Armenia would decline the control of the Russian border guard service in case of the future unblocking of economic and transportation routes. This is Armenia’s attempt to stave off the deployment of the Russian border guard service as envisaged previously and, indeed, would constitute a severe blow to Russia’s regional influence if Yerevan succeeds in this endeavor.

Maria Zakharova’s response to Grigoryan’s statement highlights Moscow’s displeasure with the position of the Armenian government and with the current situation overall. Zakharova emphasized the significance of the Russia-Armenia-Azerbaijan trilateral statements as the foundation for peace talks and urged the Armenian side to address these matters through dialogue instead of making public statements. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had previously warned his Armenian counterpart against disregarding Russia’s interests in the South Caucasus, stressing that “Russia has major interests at stake [in the region]. I am convinced that our allies are aware of that”. 

It is widely believed by local observers that while Russia may have experienced setbacks in its invasion of Ukraine, it is unlikely to relinquish control over the South Caucasus without putting up a significant fight to protect its own interests and prevent others from replacing Moscow’s longstanding dominance in the region. It is no secret that Russia sees the growing mediating role of the EU and the United States between Armenia and Azerbaijan through the lens of geopolitical rivalry in the context of larger confrontation between the two sides. The deployment of the EU monitoring mission to Armenia in October 2022 and its renewal for a longer period in January this year caused  major anxiety in the Kremlin. The EU’s recent announcement regarding the expansion of the monitoring mission further exacerbates the situation, as Yerevan has not yet given approval for the deployment of a similar mission by the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).

These circumstances raise a number of questions. Above all, it is unclear whether Baku and Yerevan will be able to stand resilient against all this pressure from the Russian side. Retrospectively, both capitals have realistically assessed Russia’s influence in the region and avoided any confrontation with Moscow. Armenia has been a Russian ally within the CSTO and Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Equally, Russian support has been a major factor behind Armenia’s maintenance of the Azerbaijani territories under occupation for the significant part of the post-Soviet period.

The present course of developments in the region could evolve in a different direction which would gradually spiral into serious problems, if not conflict, between Russia and the two countries of the South Caucasus. Neither Baku nor Yerevan wants it, despite the fact that Russia has increasingly limited policy options to impactfully affect regional processes. This all, however, creates ambiguity and uncertainty in the regional geopolitical landscape which poses substantial challenges for the peace efforts between Baku and Yerevan and may prolong the signing of a peace treaty indefinitely.

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: Reuters
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)