The head of the neighboring country proposed signing only the parts of the agreement that are already agreed upon, and simply removing the remaining points, leaving them, so to speak, “for later.” However, history does not provide examples of such practices, and it is unclear why Pashinyan, the leader of Armenia, thinks that our two countries should be the first to test this practice and create a precedent.
The text of the peace agreement is an organic whole. It cannot be easily amputated, with parts separated and signed in some sections while leaving others unsigned. It’s not like a daisy, after all. The entire document must be signed. In international practice, it is understood that until everything is agreed upon, nothing is agreed upon. Pashinyan’s plan is clear: to achieve the signing of something, so that he can then wave the paper and signatures before the world, claiming that his country is “for peace,” while freezing the remaining points indefinitely.
However, peace is not possible until elements of open territorial claims against Azerbaijan are removed from his country’s constitution, unimpeded land communication with Azerbaijan’s Nakhchivan exclave is established, and the already clinically dead OSCE Minsk Group is dissolved. Armenia must not be allowed to relax— it must agree to all conditions; otherwise, there will be no peace, as “partial” peace, like “partial” pregnancy, does not exist.
Pashinyan also attempted to substitute concepts regarding the unblocking of communications. Specifically, he again tried to replace the infamous “Crossroads of Peace” with the ninth point of the trilateral statement from November 10, 2020. According to the Armenian Prime Minister, “today Nakhchivan is not deprived of transport links, because it has the opportunity to connect with the outside world through both Iran and Turkey.” It is unethical to deflect the issue to other countries when it concerns your own country. Those countries might react and counter with arguments like “why me, and not you?”
Indeed, why not Armenia? And now, can we, using Pashinyan’s logic, state that all accusations from Armenia of the so-called “blockade” by Azerbaijan and Turkey are also groundless because Armenia has access to the outside world through Iran and Georgia? We think this is indeed the case. Thus, in this matter, we would advise Pashinyan to exercise caution to avoid facing a boomerang effect.
Furthermore, Pashinyan, comparing his “Crossroads of Peace” with the trilateral statement, made a completely shameless attempt to distort the text of the latter. He said, “Recently, there has been increased discussion about how the ‘Crossroads of Peace’ project fits into the logic of the Trilateral Statement of 09/11/20. And these discussions try to present that supposedly the Statement of 09/11/20 implies the provision of security for communications on Armenian territory by third forces or a third country. Such an interpretation has nothing to do with reality,” he said, reading out the ninth point of the statement.
“As we see, the function of ensuring security and the role of guaranteeing the safety of communications on Armenian territory are assigned to Armenia. This is an open and public document. It could not be otherwise because ensuring the security of communications of one country on the territory of another country is illogical,” Pashinyan concluded.
It is evident that the Prime Minister decided to “play dumb” in hopes that his listeners would not catch the semantic difference between “guaranteeing security” and “exercising control.” Armenia, according to the text of the statement, is obliged to guarantee security but exercising control is, forgive the term, the function of the Russian Federal Security Service. Guaranteeing security means the obligation not to attack. That’s all. Nothing more. Control is not delegated to the Armenian side!
Pashinyan also complained that “some partners, referring to the Trilateral Statement, are trying to present what is not in this Statement. For example, it does not state that any part of Armenian territory can be controlled by another country.” How is it not? What about the Border Service of the Russian Federal Security Service? What does control by this service mean? It implies control by a foreign state service over part of Armenian territory, and your signature is under it—the signature of the head of the government! How can one not see what is written in black and white in the text and under which you yourself signed?
Similarly, Pashinyan denied that the text of the Statement contains elements that restrict Armenia’s right to exercise various kinds of control. According to him, the document does not contain anything indicating that “Armenia’s sovereignty over its territory can be in any way limited, in terms of customs, border, phytosanitary control, etc.” How is it not? What does the phrase “unimpeded communication” mean? It means the absence of any posts, barriers, or control points by Armenia! Do you need each word to be explained?
Pashinyan lamented that the seventh point of the statement, which involves the return of refugees and displaced persons, was also not fulfilled. Supposedly, “Armenian refugees did not return.” And did Azerbaijani refugees return to Khankendi, Khojaly, Kyarki-Dzahan, Malibeyli, Umudlu, Meshali, Jemilli, Mughanli, and other settlements? Did you fulfill this point yourself, or do you think that there were no other refugees apart from the Armenian ones? What did you yourself accomplish?
Pashinyan also revisited the issue of the so-called prisoners of war, claiming that the eighth point “was not fulfilled.” And once again, he lied. All prisoners of war present at the time of signing the Trilateral Statement were returned. The moment of signing the document marked the end of the war. Everything that followed was beyond the term “war,” and thus, there could be no prisoners of war. Pashinyan, violating the fourth point of the Statement, instead of withdrawing ALL Armenian forces (which he failed to do until last September’s anti-terrorist operations), transferred a new unit to Karabakh, consisting solely of Armenian citizens from the Shirak region. Is this not a violation of the Trilateral Statement? And who are they if not saboteurs? Prisoners of war occur in conditions of war, while outside the scope of war, they are saboteurs. Moreover, individuals who have committed serious crimes cannot benefit from the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
Pashinyan does not understand that by repeatedly discussing “prisoners of war,” he not only lacks any arguments (except hysteria) but also exposes himself, reminding the world of his country’s violation of the 4th point of the Trilateral Statement! With the exchange of prisoners of war that followed immediately after the end of the war, Azerbaijan no longer had any. And repeating the same worn-out nonsense will not make it true! In short, Nikol Pashinyan’s statements today once again demonstrated that by repeating old mantras and refusing to fulfill his obligations, his country is not oriented towards peace.
Zuhrab Dadashov
Translated from minval.az
