Initially, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan addressed Aliyev’s remarks about Armenia’s armament, the alleged dominance of fascism in the country, the prospects for peace talks, and the Zangezur Corridor during an interview with Armenpress.
Drawing on his diplomatic experience and carefully choosing his words, Pashinyan nevertheless declared that Armenia would continue to purchase arms and would consider opening the Zangezur Corridor solely within the framework of its own “Crossroads of Peace” concept.
Following Pashinyan, Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan held a press conference where he tried to comment on the Azerbaijani president’s statements, basing his remarks on the prime minister’s key points. “The purchase of arms is a sovereign right of any state,” Mirzoyan said. “It is also Armenia’s sovereign right to protect its borders. However, even if there are concerns, it should be noted that we recognize the territorial integrity of our neighbors, and we expect our neighbors to recognize ours. We have repeatedly stated that we have no intentions of taking military action against our neighbors. We expect the same behavior from them. At the same time, we are reforming our army, and one component of these reforms is the procurement of weapons.”
Mirzoyan reiterated that Armenia had purchased and would continue to purchase arms solely for defensive purposes.
It should be recalled that President Aliyev has repeatedly pointed out that Armenia’s armament increases the risk of a new war in the region and has urged Yerevan to abandon the arms race. However, Aliyev’s most recent statements were more direct and firm, emphasizing that countries supplying arms to Armenia should cancel existing contracts and that already delivered weapons should be returned to the manufacturers.
Responding to Aliyev’s demands, Pashinyan and Mirzoyan stated that Armenia had no intention of returning the arms it had acquired. Instead, they proposed the creation of a mechanism for arms control to alleviate Baku’s concerns.
Later, Mirzoyan lamented that the Azerbaijani side rejected this proposal. However, expecting Baku to take such an idea seriously was, at the very least, naive. Similarly, it is unrealistic to expect Azerbaijan to turn a blind eye to Armenia’s actions, which threaten regional stability, under the guise of “arms control mechanisms.”
The term “arms control mechanism” typically refers to international measures that limit the development, production, stockpiling, distribution, and use of firearms, conventional arms, and weapons of mass destruction.
Throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries, numerous bilateral and multilateral agreements were signed to establish arms control mechanisms, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and conventions on biological, chemical, anti-personnel mines, and cluster munitions, among others.
The UN Charter does not prohibit member states from possessing and using conventional weapons as long as it complies with international law. Thus, when discussing conventional weapons, terms like “arms control” and “arms limitations” are more commonly used than “disarmament.” However, there is a crucial distinction: while the UN permits member states to arm themselves, the situation is fundamentally different in the case of Armenia. Having invaded a neighboring country’s sovereign territory and occupied parts of it for nearly 30 years, Armenia’s actions are not comparable to Azerbaijan’s policies aimed at de-occupation and neutralizing potential threats from the former occupier.
For example, one might imagine how countries affected by the aggression of Nazi Germany or militaristic Japan during World War II would have reacted if those nations had quickly rearmed post-defeat. The answer is evident.
Azerbaijan views Armenia’s militarization in a similar light, particularly since Yerevan has accelerated its armament efforts even before the signing of a peace agreement. This understandably raises questions and justifiable concerns from Baku.
Azerbaijan has openly declared its ongoing efforts to modernize its army and increase military spending to record levels annually. However, Azerbaijan has never occupied its neighbor’s territory or carried out ethnic cleansing. Therefore, Armenia or any other party lacks legitimate grounds to criticize Azerbaijan’s military efforts.
In contrast, there are more than enough reasons to scrutinize Armenia’s actions. Despite lacking the economic and political resources to achieve military parity with Azerbaijan, Armenia’s attempts to rebuild its military capabilities, after previously waging a war of aggression, give Azerbaijan every right to demand an immediate halt to this process in its pursuit of sustainable peace in the South Caucasus.
Farhad Mammadov
Translated from haqqin.az
