In an interview with Public Television of Armenia, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said that the delimitation of the border with Azerbaijan is primarily conducted in areas where there is a certain risk of conflict. Naturally, over time, the border will be defined in all places where the territories of the two countries meet. The Prime Minister also specified certain deadlines, for example, he mentioned that by July 1 of this year, the regulations for the work of the delimitation commissions for subsequent steps would be clarified. His statements indicate that the Armenian leadership is seriously intent on completing the issue of delimitation and demarcation of borders. The fact that today Armenian security forces detained more than 30 people near the village of Kirants in Tavush who blocked a section on the border with Azerbaijan to prevent the delimitation process further indicates the seriousness of their intentions.
Minval.az asked political analyst Rasim Musabayov to reveal the true motives of the Armenian leadership and comment on the current situation.
The fact that Armenia is actively involved in the border delimitation process… Does this indicate that, distancing itself from Russia and not fearing traps from the European Union and the USA, Pashinyan is beginning to understand that rapprochement with Azerbaijan and Turkey is indeed the only way forward for Armenia?
The most ambitious project put forward by Nikol Pashinyan’s government, the so-called ‘Crossroads of the World’, cannot be realized without normalizing relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey, followed by unblocking transport routes and opening borders. Pro-Western Armenian politicians have the example of Georgia before their eyes, which could not have withstood Moscow’s pressure, maintained its Atlanticist policy direction, and commitment to Euro-integration without strategic partnership with Azerbaijan and Turkey. Unfortunately, what Nikol Pashinyan and his supporters have understood after close acquaintance with the ‘iron fist’ is still hard to reach the consciousness of the general populace poisoned by nationalist myths. However, slowly, through breakdowns, objective realities are taking over. Support for Pashinyan from the disappointed populace has significantly decreased but is still incomparably higher than that of his opponents in the face of the Dashnaks or the Karabakh clan of Kocharian-Sargsyan.
What are the requirements and conditions of the Alma-Ata Declaration referred to by Pashinyan, mentioning that an agreement was reached with Azerbaijan back in 2022? Does that agreement include either a direct indication or indirect hints about which maps can now be used for border delimitation? And if the delimitation and demarcation process is already underway, does that mean the issue of maps is settled?
I was part of the Azerbaijani delegation in Almaty where the Declaration was adopted that ended the USSR and legitimized the independence of the former Soviet republics. No bilateral agreements between Armenia and Azerbaijan were made at that summit. The Alma-Ata Declaration is a multilateral agreement under which signatory countries agreed to recognize each other’s independence and territorial integrity within the actual administrative borders at the time of the USSR’s dissolution. No maps were mentioned, neither in the text of the Declaration nor in its appendices. As for cartographic materials, they exist since in Soviet times, Committees on Geodesy and Cartography operated in the center and in the republics, along with respective scientific divisions and publishing houses. Commissions formed under the leadership of the vice-premiers of the parties (Mustafayev and Grigoryan) attract all available cartographic material and technical means (GPS) for the process of delimitation and subsequent demarcation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border. As we can see, the process is moving forward and 38 boundary posts have already been set up, marking about 18-19 kilometers of demarcation.
From Pashinyan’s speech, it follows that demarcation at the border is done where it does not raise special questions between the parties. Does this mean that the process will proceed on a ‘torn’ principle, where posts and wire are established, then a disputed zone where the parties have not reached an agreement, and then posts and wire again?
Not exactly like that. Usually, the boundary line is divided into specific segments. They are first clarified on maps and agreed upon. Then they are tied to the terrain using technical means. Where parties come to an agreement, this is documented, then they move on to the next segment. Where agreement cannot be reached, the issue is left for further negotiations. Clearly, in areas of the border where there are settlements and intense economic activity was carried out, the affiliation of a particular territory is relatively easy to establish. In Soviet times, it was known to whom any village council or collective farm and its lands belonged. Documents and living witnesses have been preserved both by the 30-year occupation of our lands and by the fact of the occupation of 7 villages of the Gazakh region. It will be more difficult to carry out delimitation in mountainous areas where there were no villages, no intensive economic activity was carried out, and only occasionally, a few months a year, flocks of sheep were grazed or foresters conducted patrols. As for border fortifications, posts, and wire will be where they are necessary for effective control. There are areas where the terrain (mountain peaks, gorges, rivers, etc.) makes the installation of boundary posts and wire fences superfluous. Let’s leave these details to those directly engaged in border issues.
There is information that Armenia is looking for lobbyists to establish contact with British defense companies, and Sanctuary Counsel has already been chosen as such. Will England agree to supply weapons to Armenia?
Generally, acquiring modern weapons systems is not such an insurmountable problem. France, for example, is ready to supply them to Armenia. The problem is the lack of financial resources to purchase and maintain modern high-tech military equipment. Armenia is struggling with this. Yerevan has influential lobbyists in the United Kingdom, take for example the former president Armen Sarkissian. However, I have not come across information about military supplies from the United Kingdom to Armenia or even real negotiations on this issue. The firm mentioned in the question does not produce or sell weapons itself but provides consulting services.
