NO ALTERNATIVE

During his new visit to Shusha on May 10 to commemorate the anniversary of the national leader Heydar Aliyev, President Ilham Aliyev once again made it clear that the historical accomplishments achieved by the valiant Azerbaijani army cannot be revised and that Azerbaijanis return to their homeland, rebuilding and reconstructing it, forever. This can be interpreted as a response to an appeal by a group of Armenian public figures, journalists, economists, experts, analysts, teachers and doctors to Prime Minister Nikola Pashinyan and fellow compatriots to explain how important and necessary it is to abandon territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Perhaps these are the positive signals regarding the new post-conflict reality that Azerbaijan listens to and accepts from Armenia. Ilham Aliyev spoke about these signals recently during his meeting with a group of international experts. Thus, despite the opposition of Armenian revanchists, this movement is already taking clear shape.

New negotiation dynamics and battle for initiative

Following the April 6th meeting in Brussels between the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia mediated by the President of the European Council, there has been considerable diplomatic activity in the region. Foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia, Jeyhun Bayramov and Ararat Mirzoyan, have had two telephone conversation so far. They have discussed the implementation of agreements on the establishment of a bilateral commission on the delimitation and demarcation of the state border between the two countries and the preparation of a peace treaty between Azerbaijan and Armenia. All the former co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group visited the region, not as a group, but as special envoys of the foreign ministries of their countries. There have also been telephone conversations between Ilham Aliyev and Nikol Pashinyan and EU President Charles Michel, as well as with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Pashinyan visited Moscow and had a one-on-one meeting with the Russian leader. In early May, Azerbaijani presidential aide Hikmet Hajiyev and the secretary of the Armenian Security Council Armen Grigoryan also met in Brussels. All these events took place in the same month.

Certainly, it would be naïve to think that all this activity took place in an environment of complete unanimity between the sides with regard to the objectives and goals they wanted to achieve. Plus there was an extremely negative background of geopolitical rivalry between the facilitators of the Azerbaijani-Armenian dialogue intensified by the internal political instability in Armenia.

For example, Moscow’s reaction to agreements reached in Brussels to develop a peace treaty and a bilateral commission for delimitation and demarcation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border was somewhat controversial. A few days after the meeting between Ilham Aliyev and Nikol Pashinyan in Brussels, commenting on the EU initiative to bring the positions of the parties closer, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said: "We have observed shameless attempts by Brussels to appropriate the subject of the Russian-Armenian-Azerbaijani high-level agreements and the agenda proposed last year by the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group." In other words, the Russian side made it clear that it was important for Baku and Yerevan to regard Moscow's efforts to normalise their relations as essential.

Zakharova also recalled Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's negative reaction to the EU mediation. A day after the meeting, when he hosted the Armenian foreign minister, Mr. Lavrov said the following: "I have noticed that the EU communiqué following the Brussels meeting did not mention Russia anywhere. This suggests that it is more important for the EU leadership to build on what has been achieved, or to use the issue of Karabakh to underline its Russophobic agenda.”

Commenting on the refusal of Washington and Paris to work with Moscow in the OSCE Minsk Group, Lavrov also noted: "It is their right, if they are prepared to sacrifice the interests of the settlement in Karabakh and the Transcaucasus in general; if they are prepared to sacrifice the interests of the Armenian side, that is their choice. They make not only this particular conflict, but all other conflicts and crises a hostage to their Russophobic policies.”

Armenian proposals and regional realities

On May 5, Armen Grigoryan of the Armenian Security Council voiced the Armenian side's vision on further negotiations with Azerbaijan on a peace treaty and border delimitation. The theses about the ‘status of Nagorno-Karabakh’ voiced by Grigoryan, which the Armenian side considers as a prerequisite for the start of negotiations with Azerbaijan on a peace treaty, match with the approach of the Russian side, which offers its assistance in this matter. Commenting on the format of the high level trilateral agreements between Moscow, Yerevan and Baku, Maria Zakharova said: "There are fundamental disagreements between Baku and Yerevan on the status of Karabakh. We see our role in bringing the sides closer together".

Baku categorically rejects any possibility of discussing the status of the separatist entity, including the use of the phrase 'Nagorny Karabakh' unacceptable.

Moreover, the final statement signed in Brussels did not mention anything about the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. Yerevan is now taking advantage of domestic political tensions, and claiming a ‘public demand’ for its actions, is trying to get the issue of status onto the agenda of perspective negotiations. This could have an extremely negative impact on the pace and nature of preparations for a peace treaty between the two countries. Speaking at the fifth World Congress of Azerbaijanis held in Shusha on April 22, President Ilham Aliyev said that Baku intended to sign a peace treaty with Armenia only on the basis of five principles previously proposed to Yerevan, which imply, among other things, a clause on the absence of territorial claims to each other.

Azerbaijan will not recognise any reservations or footnotes on this issue. According to President Aliyev, if Yerevan fails to recognise all these principles, Azerbaijan will not sign a peace treaty. "This is the only way out for Armenia, and it may be the last chance. If they refuse, we will not recognise the territorial integrity of Armenia and we will officially declare it," Mr. Aliyev said.

It is too early to assume that the talks on a peace treaty are about to collapse. But it is clear that it risks being delayed, with a potential to worsen the regional situation.

Unfortunately, there are no mutually acceptable approaches to border delimitation and demarcation either. "There have been discussions around this issue. We hoped that it would be possible to find solutions and move forward by the end of April, but I can note intensive discussions on approaches ongoing at the moment," the head of the Armenian Security Council said.

He also touched upon the issue on resolving the problem of enclaves (exclaves, to be precise) between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which he regards as unrealisable.

"A possible solution is as follows: the enclaves of Armenia remain in Azerbaijan, while the enclaves of Azerbaijan on the Armenian territory remain to Armenia," Grigoryan said, adding that the issue of enclaves has not been raised so far.

"There are enclaves on both sides, like Artsvashen (Bashkend) in Azerbaijan and ones on the Armenian territory. These territories are almost equal," Grigoryan said.

However, the Armenian side ignores an important circumstance. In fact, Azerbaijani exclaves in what is now Armenia occupy a strategic position on the map of the country and the region. For example, the village of Karki is located within the Armenia-Iran highway and on an elevated position that provides visual control over the entire western part of Armenia's border with the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijani Deputy Foreign Minister Khalaf Khalafov responded to Mr. Grigoryan’s statements noting the impossibility of handing over the enclaves to Armenia. This confirms once again that Azerbaijan prefers to consider the issue with its own interests in mind. "These are Azerbaijani territories. The transfer of these lands to Azerbaijani control requires a delimitation process. Thus, it will be considered within this process. These issues will be resolved through discussion," Mr. Khalafov added.

Exclaves of Yukhary Askipara and Barkhudarli provide control over communication lines linking south-eastern Armenia to Georgia and also allow for an additional security belt around Azerbaijan's strategic pipelines and electricity lines towards Georgia.

As for the Bashkend exclave in Azerbaijan, its perimeter is surrounded by heights controlled by Azerbaijan and is of little strategic interest, as it is located in a remote and inaccessible mountainous area, far from the main settlements.

We can therefore assume that Azerbaijan is unlikely to agree to Armenian proposals.

Baku and Ankara sync positions

Meanwhile, Yerevan's announcement of its position on further communication with Azerbaijan amid intensifying protests in the country was not accidental. It was important for the Armenian authorities to deprive their opponents, who accused the ruling administration of violating the national interests and playing along with Baku, of arguments.

This is particularly important amid the ongoing talks with Ankara. On May 3, the third meeting between the Turkish and Armenian special envoys, Ambassador Serdar Kilic and Deputy Speaker Ruben Rubinyan, took place in Vienna. The sides once again confirmed their agreement to continue the process without preconditions.

As noted earlier, on May 2, Hikmet Hajiyev, Aide to the President of Azerbaijan and Head of the Foreign Policy Department of the Presidential Administration, had a meeting in Brussels with Armen Grigoryan, Secretary General of the Armenian Security Council. Apparently, the sides discussed a possible agenda for the heads of state. But the position taken by Yerevan after the meeting does not leave any room for such a meeting in the very near future.

Meanwhile, based on the tight negotiation regime and the intensity of the Armenian-Turkish dialogue, we can expect a tangible progress in this direction. The sides may even be working on a certain document. Perhaps a declaration of intent that would translate the nature of this dialogue into the public sphere and outline its main directions.

Such a document would be a breakthrough, as it would be the first joint Armenian-Turkish document to launch the process of normalisation of relations institutionally.

Normalisation of Turkish-Armenian relations complements the Azerbaijani-Armenian dialogue and generally shapes a new geopolitical and geoeconomic reality that will determine the vector of political and economic relations in the region.