Rasim Musabayov, a renowned political analyst, responded to Minval.az’s question on the significance of Nikol Pashinyan’s proposal for a “non-aggression pact.” He criticized it as a primitive diplomatic game and a display of political amateurism, questioning whether it devalues the ongoing efforts to normalize Armenian-Azerbaijani relations.
Musabayov suggested that before proposing an Armenian-Azerbaijani non-aggression pact, Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan should have acquainted himself with similar diplomatic practices, even at a Wikipedia level. He pointed out that such international agreements were popular in the 1920s and 1930s for peacekeeping and diplomatic play, but modern diplomacy prioritizes collective agreements for peace and security.
According to Musabayov, Pashinyan’s proposal to conclude a “non-aggression pact” is a ploy to appear as a peace advocate while evading the almost two-year-long negotiations on an agreement to normalize interstate relations with Azerbaijan. He highlighted the shift in international practices after World War II and the formation of the UN, where collective agreements have taken precedence, making such “peace” treaties redundant.
Musabayov emphasized that contemporary issues of war prevention are governed by collective agreements, citing the Helsinki Act in Europe and the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe as examples. He noted that both Azerbaijan and Armenia, along with other post-Soviet states, have joined these agreements.
He accused Armenia of violating these agreements by invading and occupying about 20% of Azerbaijan’s territory under the guise of the “NKR” army. Musabayov asserted that Azerbaijan had to increase its military capabilities to reclaim its territorial integrity.
Regarding Pashinyan’s proposal, Musabayov sees it as unproductive, as the ongoing agreement already includes commitments to non-violence and peaceful negotiations, aligning with international law and modern diplomatic practice.
He pointed out that normalizing interstate relations would allow both parties to return to fulfilling commitments under the Helsinki Act and the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, regulating the deployment and number of heavy weapons, conducting military exercises, and inviting international observers.
Musabayov doubted that experienced diplomats from France, the USA, or Russia would join Yerevan’s negotiating initiatives, dismissing it as another amateurish complication by Pashinyan and his inner circle. He suggested that qualified Armenian diplomats and foreign policy experts are either sidelined or ignored in the decision-making process.
Finally, addressing the risk of a new war between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the Zangezur corridor, Musabayov reiterated Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev’s statements denying such intentions. He concluded that rational politicians and military leaders would not engage in armed conflict, especially considering Azerbaijan’s upcoming elections, major events like Formula 1, and the COP-29 climate summit.
