Strictly speaking, the provocative initiative—bearing the hypocritical title “Annexation of Nagorno-Karabakh. Release of Political Prisoners in Azerbaijan”—was introduced by lobbyists from the Armenian diaspora in the Geneva cantonal parliament back in 2024. Under Swiss law, in order to come into force it had to be approved by the Federal Parliament, as cantons have no right to adopt resolutions on foreign policy matters. The document was discussed by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Council of States, the upper house of the Swiss Parliament, on August 11. The Senate’s Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously decided not to bring the Geneva cantonal initiative 24.321 “Annexation of Nagorno-Karabakh. Release of Political Prisoners in Azerbaijan” to the plenary level. The Committee ruled that the Federal Assembly is not entitled to make demands of Azerbaijan and called the initiative one-sided.
Carlo Sommaruga, the chief Armenian lobbyist in the Geneva parliament, tried to “save the situation” by submitting an amended text focusing solely on detainees. However, the Committee also rejected this resolution—calling for the release of Armenian prisoners in Azerbaijan and the protection of Armenian cultural heritage in “Nagorno-Karabakh”—by 5 votes to 4, with 3 abstentions.
This is far from the first failure for Armenian lobbyists in Switzerland. One need only recall the unsuccessful attempt to organize a “peace conference on Nagorno-Karabakh,” which was categorically rejected by the federal government.
This time, however, the decision of the relevant committee employed unprecedentedly harsh wording, which in itself is noteworthy. Sentiments in the Alpine republic are clearly shifting—and not in Armenia’s favor. Credit is undoubtedly due to the professional and largely behind-the-scenes work of Azerbaijani diplomats in Switzerland. But there is another side to the matter.
Once again, it is worth stressing that attempts to portray as “illegally detained persons,” “political prisoners,” or other such euphemisms those accused of serious crimes—from supporting terrorism to committing war crimes and crimes against humanity—amount to political fraud with very dangerous consequences. Nothing encourages new crimes as much as impunity for past ones. But here it is important to note the chronology.
On August 8 in Washington, trilateral talks were held between Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, and US President Donald Trump. During the talks, the parties initialed a future peace treaty and signed a Declaration confirming their readiness to normalize relations. The issues of “detainees” and “return of Armenians to Karabakh” were not included in either document. These matters are already outside the negotiation agenda and the peace process. So why are Armenian lobbyists in Switzerland trying to bring them back?
We need to zoom out. The Washington meeting not only sparked acute jealousy in the European Union and Russia—both of which until recently claimed the status of “chief mediators” but are now sidelined—it also marked a turning point: Azerbaijan and Armenia are finally closing the chapter on the conflict, shutting the “window” that allowed many “third parties,” first and foremost Russia, to manipulate it. Russia, after all, had three decades to prove itself an effective peacemaker.
And yet, after the Washington talks, some forces are still trying to pull Azerbaijan–Armenia relations back into “conflict mode.” Clearly, Armenian revanchists are driving this “petty scheming.” It is also easy to see why Armenian lobbyists—from the “Armenian National Committee of America” to individuals like Carlo Sommaruga—are active in this way: without a conflict, the “Armenian lobby” loses its reason for being. Without a “project,” there is no way to solicit donations. Most cynically of all, the real fate of Armenia concerns these lobbyists least of all. For those living in Yerevan, Vanadzor, or Gyumri, the stakes are entirely different from those for someone strolling along the shores of Lake Geneva. From the comfort of the Alps, one can muse about who should control “Artsakh” or “Western Armenia” without considering the sacrifices and bloodshed such ambitions entail. In Yerevan, ignoring these realities is no longer an option. The result is a paradox: Armenia is signing peace with Azerbaijan, while Armenian lobbyists are still trying to reignite the conflict.
But how does Canada’s Foreign Ministry or the European Parliament end up in the same game? Is this sheer incompetence? Did they simply fail to understand what happened and what was signed in Washington? And how is it that the position of the “liberal circle” so neatly coincides with that of the Kremlin?
Perhaps this is just a textbook case of the naivety of “pink unicorns,” whose political inexperience makes them easy to manipulate—just feed them a few trigger phrases. But in the case of the European Parliament, such naivety is hard to believe. There, corruption is the more likely explanation. Too many bribery scandals—including from individuals close to the Kremlin—have erupted in this “pan-European legislative body” in recent years.
Yet, as practice shows, such provocative initiatives may serve to launder corrupt money, but they do not change political trends. The old schemes no longer work.
