Recently, several key diplomatic events have taken place: a meeting between U.S. presidential advisor Mike Waltz and Hikmet Hajiyev, an aide to Azerbaijan’s president; a visit by Russian Federation Council Chairwoman Valentina Matviyenko to Baku; a direct contact between Presidents Ilham Aliyev and Vladimir Putin; the agreement on the text of a peace treaty between Azerbaijan and Armenia; and immediately after, an attack on Azerbaijani army positions by Armenian forces.
To discuss these political developments in the regional context, we turned to former Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Tofig Zulfugarov.
— Recently, it was announced that the text of a peace treaty between Baku and Yerevan had been agreed upon, followed almost immediately by an attack on Azerbaijani army positions by Armenian forces. Is this an attempt to provoke Azerbaijan and then blame it for obstructing peace in the region? Or is it a reaction from certain forces to the agreements reached? Can this be linked to Pashinyan’s urgent calls to Macron, Putin, and then Pezeshkian?
— It seems that the Armenian side, knowing that the Azerbaijani army is vastly superior in combat capability, still wants to shift the blame for these armed provocations onto Azerbaijan.
The issue is that after the change in administration in the U.S. and the processes that followed, the conflict and Armenia’s political agenda have been pushed to the background, if not completely dismissed. This topic is no longer relevant. To bring it back into focus, the Armenian side, as always, is trying to provoke incidents at the border, possibly even escalating tensions to attract media attention and public discussion.
Using this as a trigger, Armenian diaspora groups and specific individuals present discussions on this issue as highly relevant, attempting to bring them back into the political agenda. This is not the first time Armenia has tried to draw attention to itself, despite knowing that military actions will yield no results. Therefore, this is a politically motivated provocation.
The peace treaty itself is an interim document. In international diplomatic practice, conflict resolution typically follows specific stages.
First, a preliminary peace agreement is reached, primarily addressing military-technical aspects. Then, this document lays out the fundamental principles of a comprehensive peace agreement. Azerbaijan views this treaty as a primary, interim, and framework document.
The term “framework” was first used in reference to this document by Pashinyan himself after 2021 when Azerbaijan proposed its principles. We are talking about five principles, which align with the UN Charter and contain nothing new. Azerbaijan’s goal has been to declare its commitment to resolving issues in accordance with international law, specifically the UN Charter.
If we look at the experience of the OSCE Minsk Group, the mediators in that period worked on agreeing upon principles. The Madrid, Lisbon, and Kazan documents were not peace agreements but agreements on principles, which then served as the basis for drafting a comprehensive peace treaty to resolve all core conflict issues.
The same stage applies today. The Armenian side wants to present this document as final, but in reality, it only confirms the parties’ commitment to certain principles. A genuine peace treaty must confirm territorial integrity. However, how can this be done if the border has not yet been demarcated? The commissions are still working, and the delimitation and demarcation process is not yet complete.
Additionally, work on communication routes is ongoing, legal aspects and compensation issues remain unresolved, and the process must continue. Armenia wants to avoid responsibility for fueling the conflict. That is why the Armenian side is acting hastily and portraying an exaggerated commitment to peace. In my view, such a document is not even worth signing. It should simply be accepted as a statement at the level of foreign ministers, which would be sufficient.
The main work should continue, and Baku is right in stating that we do not want to approve even these principles until Armenia demonstrates a sustainable commitment to peace.
In Armenia, there are numerous revanchist statements, Pashinyan wavers, and, most importantly, public sentiment fluctuates: the further they move from capitulation, the more they lean toward revanchism or something similar. I believe that Armenia’s armed provocations are part of a pressure campaign aimed at misleading the global community and promoting its own narrative of the process.
— U.S. presidential advisor Mike Waltz recently discussed the regional situation with Azerbaijan’s presidential aide Hikmet Hajiyev. What role will Washington play in achieving peace in the region, considering Moscow’s eagerness to host the signing of the agreement?
— I do not consider this document significant enough to discuss where it should be signed. This is unproductive, and it would play into the Armenian side’s strategy of using the so-called peace agreement to their advantage.
We also see that certain parties want to gain short-term political dividends from this situation. I am sure that the Trump administration will seek our support in identifying Armenian culprits, including those involved in illegal activities or financial decisions made with the participation of individuals currently facing trial.
Therefore, we should regard this statement as an interim one. I believe the primary topics of discussion were different issues, and this was simply a way to divert public attention from them.
— Matviyenko’s visit to Baku was followed by a contact between Presidents Aliyev and Putin after the plane crash incident. Ilham Aliyev has also been invited to the Victory Day celebrations on May 9.
— Yes, the process is ongoing. However, it is important to understand that Azerbaijan-Russia relations are not a top priority on Russia’s political agenda because there are relatively few problems between the two countries. The artificially created tension following the crash of our plane was a mistake by certain political forces in Russia.
At the moment, Russia is focused on other issues. I am confident that after a ceasefire in Ukraine, potential political changes in Russia’s elite will take center stage. There are too many internal problems for Matviyenko’s visit to be considered significant for Azerbaijan-Russia relations.
The Azerbaijani president always has the opportunity to communicate directly with Russia’s leader. The functions assigned to Matviyenko do not carry the same weight, especially regarding the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. Azerbaijan insists that these issues should be resolved through direct contacts, without intermediaries.
Translated from minval.az
