Success is achieved where high preparedness meets opportunity. Following the end of the Second Karabakh War, the peace process has stalled, despite the fact that both Azerbaijan and Armenia have the necessary foundation and opportunities. Observing the challenges that have emerged, it becomes clear that a third factor is also crucial: the desire or political will.
Azerbaijan not only has no shortage in this regard but can even be said to have an abundance of this valuable resource. After the successful conclusion of the counteroffensive operation by the Azerbaijani army, President Ilham Aliyev, even before the end of hostilities, began signing orders to create and restore communications, and to build new roads and overpasses. This was a good sign, signaling Baku’s desire to swiftly move toward peaceful development of the de-occupied territories and surrounding lands.
Armenia, on the other hand, struggled to focus on post-war realities for a long time, having faced a difficult capitulation. Azerbaijan did not humiliate its defeated opponent; on the contrary, it offered to join regional integration projects, making it clear that the region, tired of prolonged turbulence, should quickly shift to peaceful life.
Nearly four years have passed, and Yerevan continues to hesitate and waver, harboring revanchist goals. All signs indicate that this country is preparing for everything except peace. The Armenian side is primarily interested in military preparations. This is a separate topic, but the saber-rattling, characteristic of the Armenian mentality, does not inspire optimism about the peace process. The defeated aggressor is regaining strength for new provocations, and possibly for a military campaign. When the Azerbaijani side points out the dangers of shelling from the Armenian side, Armenia denies violations of the ceasefire. At the same time, the disruptors propose creating mechanisms for monitoring the situation.
Wouldn’t it be better to abandon provocative actions and follow the right path of de-escalation? This is needed by the Armenians themselves. However, other demands and pretexts used by Yerevan indicate that Armenia is not working on a peace plan at all, and the goals of the parties differ.
As for the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group, further discussion is unnecessary. It became obsolete for one obvious reason—to resolve the territorial dispute between the two states. The Karabakh crisis was resolved through Baku’s efforts, which found the key to the solution by taking on the extraordinarily heavy military-political burden.
If Yerevan is returning to a resolved issue, it is engaging in adventurism. Baku does not see this as an insurmountable dilemma and understands that Armenia does not agree to the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group because it is considering the revival of territorial claims. Azerbaijan is not burdened by this, and this is known not only to the opposing side but to the entire international community.
Isn’t it reasonable for Baku to demand amendments to Armenia’s Constitution to remove territorial claims against its neighbors? By disagreeing with Azerbaijan’s position, Yerevan only confirms its unwillingness to reconcile and leaves time bombs for the future. In the current context, Armenians refer to the preamble of their Constitution, which supposedly references the Declaration of Independence, where the Karabakh region is mentioned as an integral part of Armenia.
There are many things in Armenia’s fundamental legal documents that raise questions with no clear answers. For example, Article 5 of the Declaration of Independence states that the armed forces are created under the leadership of the Supreme Council (parliament). But in 1995, when the RA Constitution was adopted, the army and the Ministry of Internal Affairs were subordinated to the head of state. It turns out that the provisions of the Declaration and the Constitution contradict each other. What is literally reflected in the Constitution does not confirm the content of the Declaration, and what is not written means it does not concern the Constitution. As for the residents of Karabakh, referred to as the “people,” they have never participated in RA elections.
The Armenian Constitution defines “miatsum” (reunification) as the goal of the Armenian people. Azerbaijan is consistent in its demand for changes to Armenia’s Constitution. The people of the country must, through a referendum, put an end to the issue of “miatsum” and recognize that the Karabakh issue is resolved once and for all.
There is no inconsistency in Azerbaijan’s Constitution, which references the Act of Independence of 1991, as well as the Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan from 1918. It states that Azerbaijan is the successor of the First Republic. But in Armenia, it is believed that some of their territories are mentioned as Azerbaijani lands. These include “the southwestern parts of the Transcaucasus, the Tavush, Gegharkunik, and Ararat regions.”
They believe that Azerbaijan’s Constitution contains territorial claims against Armenia, and that Yerevan does not raise this issue, although it could. Making a favor to Baku, Yerevan believes that the agreed articles of the peace treaty already stipulate that neither side can refer to its internal legislative acts.
This is a mere excuse, because Karabakh has never been outside Azerbaijan, and by what right is it mentioned in Armenia’s legislative acts?!
Armenia’s tactic is to block progress towards the main goal—a comprehensive peace—through verbosity and talkativeness. Nikol Pashinyan himself proclaims to the world that Azerbaijan is arming itself, buying new weapons and ammunition from Italy. This is a lie. Azerbaijan purchased a transport aircraft from Italy, which is not considered a weapon. Is the attention being diverted from the main goal to mask Armenia’s procurement of serious offensive weapons? Indeed. Armenia is buying modern weapons in large quantities from France, the United States, India, and other countries. If a country wants peace, should it be building up its arsenals?!
At the last press conference, the Armenian Prime Minister misled media representatives, saying that Azerbaijan spends 17% of its GDP on military purposes. In reality, this figure is less than 4%, while in Armenia, the corresponding index is much higher. The country is spending invisible budgetary and fund resources on building up its military muscles.
According to the logic of the Armenian leaders, “Azerbaijan is armed,” so Armenia must do the same, although this argument does not hold up to scrutiny. Armenia occupied Azerbaijani lands for 30 years, and the people of the country subjected to aggression were forced to build up their military power to restore territorial integrity.
After World War II, Armenia was one of the few countries that invaded the territory of another country. It is recalled how, after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, an arms embargo was immediately imposed on the aggressor country. No sanctions were applied to Armenia.
If it continues to develop its military potential, there are no guarantees that it will not use its powerful arsenal in the future. A mechanism for controlling Armenia’s intense militarization is essential. Responsibility for this lies with both international organizations and the countries that arm Yerevan.
Armenia kept Nakhchivan under blockade for 30 years. This continues even after Nikol Pashinyan came to power. Now Armenian representatives are talking about lifting the blockade, but within the framework of their own interests, which is nothing but hypocrisy.
For the normalization of relations and the improvement of the overall situation, Yerevan must show goodwill and create the opportunity to open communication between the main part of Azerbaijan and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. Only after this can other transport and communication issues be considered.
Armenia is determined to change the current situation in its favor at all costs to seize the initiative for further goals. These goals do not align with the spirit of peacemaking. On the contrary, in a country where politicians and experts in their professional activities rely on lies, manipulation, and deliberate distortion of historical and regional truths, it is unrealistic to expect radical changes.
Baku’s view of the current situation is rational. It understands that trust must be strengthened, and healthy initiatives are needed for this. Baku is ready to share its positive experience.
Tofig Abbasov
