This refusal adds a new layer of complexity to an already contentious issue, further complicating the path toward a comprehensive peace agreement.
The peace process so far
The peace process between Azerbaijan and Armenia has progressed, particularly in the border delimitation and demarcation efforts without third-party assistance. However, at this juncture, achieving a comprehensive peace agreement remains elusive.
Baku has dismissed Armenia’s recent overtures to sign a peace treaty within a month as a mere smokescreen, emphasizing that peace is impossible without constitutional changes in Armenia to remove territorial claims to Azerbaijan and Türkiye.
Pashinyan’s refusal: A strategic move?
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s refusal to engage in the proposed meeting with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev is contradictory to Armenia’s public declarations about an imminent peace agreement. This inconsistency raises concerns about internal political pressures or a lack of a cohesive strategy within the Armenian government. While advocating for peace on various platforms, Armenia’s actions suggest a reluctance to engage in direct dialogue with Azerbaijan.
The decision to refuse the meeting might reflect strategic hesitation on Armenia’s part. By not engaging in direct talks, Armenia could be buying time to reassess its position, leverage international support, or avoid making immediate concessions. This strategic calculation could be influenced by various internal and external factors, including domestic political considerations and international diplomatic pressures.
Armenia’s refusal might also be driven by perceived obstacles or unmet conditions deemed crucial for effective dialogue. These could include concerns over the meeting format, mediation, or specific preconditions not publicly disclosed. Armenia might be seeking to ensure that its interests are adequately addressed before committing to direct negotiations.
Armenia’s withdrawal from the proposed meeting has significant implications for the peace process. It raises doubts about its commitment to resolving the conflict and suggests a reluctance to make necessary concessions or engage in meaningful dialogue. This action could slow down the peace process, leading to prolonged uncertainty and continued tensions in the region.
Azerbaijani presidential top foreign policy aide Hikmet Hajiyev expressed disappointment over Armenia’s decision.
“Great Britain, which hosts the European Political Community, proposed to hold such a meeting, and it was proposed to be in the format of a meeting between the Azerbaijani president and the Armenian prime minister at the Munich Security Conference. Thus, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz participated in the Munich Security Conference at the beginning of the meeting, and after that, the meeting continued in a bilateral format between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The same format was offered by Great Britain as host,” he said in a comment on July 18.
However, Armenia refused the proposal. Hajiyev criticized this decision, interpreting it as a step back from the peace dialogue.
“We consider Armenia’s rejection of this meeting as a manifestation of its intention to withdraw from the dialogue and the advancement of the peace agenda.”
Hajiyev’s remarks underscore the importance of the international community recognizing and addressing Armenia’s reluctance to engage in dialogue.
“While Armenia talks about peace on various platforms, it is incomprehensible that it would refuse a meeting designed to advance the peace agenda. The international community should recognize that Armenia, rather than seizing opportunities for dialogue, is actively rejecting them.”
This highlights the need for increased diplomatic pressure on Armenia to participate in future talks and demonstrate a genuine commitment to peace.
The efforts to delineate and demarcate the border between Azerbaijan and Armenia have seen some progress. However, the broader peace process is mired in political manipulations, with official Yerevan engaging with every foreign guest on the topic, irrespective of their influence on the peace process. This has turned the regional peace efforts into a subject of political maneuvering, diluting the focus on genuine conflict resolution.
Among the international power centers exerting the most influence over the South Caucasus peace table, the US and the EU stand out. However, their involvement has not yielded positive results. On the contrary, their interventions are seen as limiting the possibilities of signing a final agreement. The US and the EU are currently perceived as blocking factors in the peace process.
Spokesperson for US State Department Matthew Miller recently asserted that the signing of a final peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia is possible but requires difficult compromises, noting progress in the latest Washington meeting between the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia, simultaneously emphasizing the need for the parties to make tough choices. This statement highlights one of the real reasons why the peace talks have dragged on – external pressures pushing both sides to resolve conflicts under conditions that may not align with their interests.
The involvement of the US and the EU is driven by their geopolitical interests rather than a genuine desire for sustainable peace in the South Caucasus. For these global powers, maintaining military-political tension in the region serves their strategic interests better than fostering stability. This approach has made it challenging for Azerbaijan and Armenia to reach a bilateral understanding, further complicating the peace process.
Despite acknowledgments from both Baku and Yerevan about the opportunities for signing a final peace agreement, external forces continue to hinder progress. The insistence on “difficult compromises” by international mediators has stalled the process, with the US and the EU pushing their geopolitical agendas at the expense of regional stability.
Azerbaijan’s firm stance
Azerbaijan remains resolute in its stance against involving third parties in the peace agreement. Baku prefers bilateral negotiations, believing that this approach will lead to a more sustainable and equitable resolution. The idea of signing the final peace agreement with the participation of any third party is not credible to Azerbaijan. Official Baku understands that the geopolitical manipulations by the US, the EU, France, and Russia are designed to prolong the process and increase their influence in the region.
Given the current dynamics, the future of the peace process between Azerbaijan and Armenia remains uncertain. The involvement of international powers will continue to be a contentious issue. While the US and the EU will likely persist in their efforts to mediate, their success will depend on their ability to genuinely address the concerns of both parties.
If the US and the EU can shift their approach and focus on facilitating direct negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia, there may be a greater chance of reaching a final agreement. However, if they continue to push their geopolitical agendas, the peace process will remain stalled.
Azerbaijan’s insistence on constitutional changes in Armenia before any peace agreement highlights the deep-seated mistrust and unresolved issues. Armenia’s territorial claims to Azerbaijan and Türkiye are seen as major obstacles to peace. According to reports, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has requested time to change Armenia’s constitution to remove these claims, promising to do so after the next parliamentary elections. Baku’s response to this request will be critical in determining the next steps in the peace process.
Expectations for months to come
The peace process between Azerbaijan and Armenia is at a critical juncture. The involvement of international powers, the insistence on constitutional changes, and the deep-rooted mistrust between the two nations are significant obstacles. However, with a genuine commitment to direct negotiations and a focus on the needs of the conflict parties, there is still hope for a sustainable peace agreement.
Armenia’s refusal to meet with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev in London, despite its public statements about a potential peace deal, signals potential internal and strategic complexities. This action raises questions about Armenia’s true intentions and commitment to the peace process, emphasizing the need for continued international engagement and pressure to foster meaningful dialogue between the two nations. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether the peace process can move forward or remain stalled amid external manipulations and internal discord.
Caliber.Az
