The war of words between Yerevan and Baku has taken a dangerous turn. What is the end-game behind the tough language?

Commentary by commonspace.eu political editor

The war of words between Armenians and Azerbaijanis has been going on for years now. Sometimes it reaches new heights, at other times it abets. To some extent people have got used to it, and like other things that one gets used to, in many ways it stopped being important.

But something very bad has been happening in recent weeks and days. The vitriolic language is now being used by the two Presidents themselves. Recent statements by both President Sargsyan of Armenia and President Aliev of Azerbaijan are significant not only for the tough message that they conveyed, but also for an unfortunate use of words aimed at each other, and each other's countries. Sargsyan and Aliev are rational men, not given to either hysteria or impulse. This makes this development rather more ominous.

Some explain this as posturing towards domestic audiences, and indeed a lot of is that. But neither man is naïve not to understand that their speeches are read carefully on the other side as well. The legitimate question therefore arises, what is the end game here?

Everybody is aware that the peace process is in deadlock. International efforts to resolve the conflict between the two countries continue, but the process seems to be in a quagmire and it is not clear how the sides are going to be able to come out of that. In these circumstances there is a need for calm and caution.

Presidents Aliev and Sargsyan are likely to be leading their countries in the immediate future and for some time to come. Any peace negotiations to be meaningful will at some stage need to be conducted by the two of them personally. They must not therefore make this eventuality even more difficult than it presently is, or even impossible. That there are serious disagreements between the two sides is well known. These disagreements however can only be resolved by negotiations and the Presidents need to act in a way that will make these negotiations possible.

source: This commentary was prepared by the political editor of commonspace.eu

photo: President Aliec and President Sargsyan in better times, shaking hands after one of their meetings several years ago.

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Key European countries back Denmark in the face of Trump's continuing insistence on taking over Greenland

Key European countries back Denmark in the face of Trump's continuing insistence on taking over Greenland

 Six major European countries have declared their support to Denmark following renewed insistence by the US that it must have control over Greenland. "Greenland belongs to its people, and only Denmark and Greenland can decide on matters concerning their relations," said the leaders of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain, in a joint statement, issued on Tuesday (6 January), together with Denmark. On Sunday, Donald Trump said the US "needed" Greenland - a semi-autonomous region of fellow Nato member Denmark - for security reasons. He has refused to rule out the use of force to take control of the territory, and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned on Monday that an attack by the US would spell the end of Nato. The issue of Greenland's future resurfaced in the wake of the US military intervention in Venezuela, during which elite troops went in to seize the country's President Nicolás Maduro and take him to face drugs and weapons charges in New York. Following the raid, Trump said the US would "run" Venezuela for an unspecified period of time. He also said the US was returning to an 1823 policy of US supremacy in its sphere of influence in the Western hemisphere - and he warned a number of countries the US could turn its attention to them. The US military raid in Venezuela has reignited fears that the US may consider using force to secure control of Greenland. A day after the raid, Katie Miller - the wife of one of Trump's senior aides - posted on social media a map of Greenland in the colours of the American flag, alongside the word "SOON". On Monday, her husband Stephen Miller said it was "the formal position of the US government that Greenland should be part of the US". In an interview with CNN, he also said the US "is the power of Nato. For the US to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend Nato and Nato interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the US." Asked repeatedly whether the US would rule out using force to annex it, Miller responded: "Nobody's going to fight the US over the future of Greenland." Stressing they were as keen as the US in Arctic security, the seven European signatories of Tuesday's joint statement said this must be achieved by Nato allies, including the US "collectively" - whilst "upholding the principles of the UN Charter, including sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders". Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen welcomed the statement and called for "respectful dialogue". "The dialogue must take place with respect for the fact that Greenland's status is rooted in international law and the principle of territorial integrity," Nielsen said. Trump has claimed that making Greenland part of the US would serve American security interests due to its strategic location and its abundance of minerals critical to high-tech sectors. Greenland, which has a population of 57,000 people, has had extensive self-government since 1979, though defence and foreign policy remain in Danish hands. While most Greenlanders favour eventual independence from Denmark, opinion polls show overwhelming opposition to becoming part of the US.

Popular