BORDER PROBLEMS WITH PASHINYAN

On March 26, 1990, Armenian militants carried out a devastating massacre of civilians in Baganis Ayrum village in the Gazakh region. Following the investigation, Azerbaijan has placed 18 individuals accused of this violent crime on the international wanted list. Baganis Ayrum remains under Armenian occupation and is a key part of the "seven villages" issue currently in the spotlight.

Baku is pushing for the demarcation and delineation of the border with Armenia, which is still pending. The anniversary of this tragic event underscores the difficulty of this process. During a meeting with residents of Azerbaijani territories held by Armenia, Nikol Pashinyan warned that failure to resolve the border issue through negotiation could lead to a conflict starting imminently.

Is Pashinyan willing to compromise?

The recent visit of Armenia's Prime Minister to Tavush, also known as the Tovuzgalinsky district, and his statements are seen as a way to prepare public opinion for potential territorial concessions. There are indications that the government leader may be hinting at such actions. Reports suggest that the meeting was planned for broadcast and publication well in advance, with intense discussions leading up to it, further fuelling the work of the Prime Minister's public relations team.

However, Pashinyan's recent statements do not convey a peaceful tone. He reiterated a baseless claim made in mid-February that Azerbaijan had taken control of lands belonging to 31 Armenian villages. Following this, the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry issued a stern response, dismissing these assertions as political manipulation. They reminded Pashinyan of Armenia's obligations to return eight Azerbaijani villages: "The Armenian Prime Minister, when asked about the enclave and exclave villages of Azerbaijan, reiterated his claim that Azerbaijan supposedly holds 31 villages under occupation, suggesting political manipulation. It's worth reminding the Prime Minister, who previously mentioned 32 such villages, that Armenia is obligated to return eight Azerbaijani villages."

At the same time, Pashinyan was quite vague regarding Azerbaijan's demands: "They say: let's free the settlements first, and then we can discuss the vital areas of the villages. We object, stating that a village comprises not only the village council but also its vital areas. Our policy aims to prevent war. This is why we have decided to adjust Armenia's border in this region. We are pursuing this not only for Armenia's benefit but also specifically for the villages of Voskepar and Kirants, ensuring their security."

As we can see, Pashinyan did not show willingness to liberate the villages. Instead, he attempted to appear constructive, playing with words to convey a peace-oriented message while keeping flexibility for himself.

Words, numbers and cards

On the other hand, Baku has clearly addressed the enclave and non-enclave villages without ambiguity or room for misinterpretation. Azerbaijan's stance on border delimitation was laid out by Ilham Aliyev in January during an interview with local TV channels: "There are enclave and non-enclave villages. The four non-enclave villages must be returned to Azerbaijan without conditions. Regarding the enclave villages, there is one Armenian enclave village on Azerbaijani territory - a separate expert group should discuss this. Our position is that all enclaves should be returned, with necessary conditions on the roads leading to these enclaves and resettlement for the former residents."

Deputy Prime Minister Shahin Mustafayev's call for Armenia to promptly return the occupied villages led to the sudden appearance of a map showing "31 villages" allegedly occupied by Azerbaijan. A brief examination of this map reveals it to be false as it implies Azerbaijan controls over half of Armenia's territory. In response, Nikol Pashinyan stated during a government meeting that "not a single inch of Armenian land will be given to Azerbaijan." He visited de facto Azerbaijani villages occupied by Armenia, showcasing a facade of peaceful gestures while keeping the option open to retract under the pretext of being misunderstood. It is worth noting that his room for manoeuvring is limited.

Territorial dispute or occupation?

Border delimitation and demarcation are intricate and protracted processes, even between seemingly amicable nations. An illustrative case involves an island claimed by both Denmark and Canada, despite their NATO membership and alliance.

Similarly, Türkiye and Greece, also NATO allies, have disputes over islands and offshore areas. While Baku and Tbilisi maintain a strategic partnership with Azerbaijan being a significant investor in Georgia's economy and Georgia serving as a key transit route for Azerbaijani hydrocarbons to the West, a border dispute persists concerning the ancient monastery lands of Keshikchidagh (David Gareji).

In a past instance, a resolution was successfully reached for two villages within Azerbaijan's territory inhabited by Russian citizens. After a prolonged dispute, most residents relocated to Russian Dagestan without provocations or conflicts, in line with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks on resolving disputes peacefully.

Contrastingly, Armenia's occupation of 20% of Azerbaijan's territory until recently, including control over Khankendi, Aghdara, Khojavand, and Khojaly, was only restored in September 2023. The capture of these villages was through force, emphasizing the necessity to seek peaceful settlements at the negotiation table to prevent further hostilities.

The village of Baganis Ayrum, the site of a massacre, holds significant historical and emotional weight for Azerbaijan due to the memories of refugees and war crimes committed by Armenia. Azerbaijan remains resolute in not ceding their territories to Yerevan. While this stance may not echo tranquillity, any concession of Azerbaijani land to Armenia after three decades of conflict could embolden Yerevan towards aggressive actions. History, exemplified by the Munich deal of 1938, underscores that territorial concessions often fuel rather than assuage conflicts.

Between Baku... and Pogos

Armenia has witnessed first-hand that Azerbaijan's patience has limits when it comes to territorial disputes. Previous attempts to resolve issues with Armenia based on international law and recognized borders were met with delays and territorial retention by Armenia. Ultimately, this approach led to military actions by Baku with unfavourable outcomes for Yerevan.

Armenia now faces uncertainty about the possibility of history repeating itself. The loss of territory has understandably dampened optimism. However, Yerevan finds itself at a crossroads. While Pashinyan has suggested a "non-aggression treaty" and "mirror withdrawal of troops," Baku remains steadfast in its demand for the return of Azerbaijani villages. Despite the importance of these villages for Armenia's infrastructure, Baku maintains that their return is non-negotiable. The responsibility for traversing foreign territories lies with Yerevan, and Baku makes it clear that no territorial concessions will be made.

Armenia must acknowledge that resorting to force can lead to confrontation more easily than finding a peaceful resolution. Standing up against the Azerbaijani military alone is an insurmountable challenge. Seeking external support has also proven futile, as evidenced by the swift abandonment of promises by Western officials during the recent incident in Zangilan. The international community is well-aware of the parties responsible for escalating tensions along the border.

Moreover, convincing the Armenian electorate to accept a resolution favouring Azerbaijan in the border dispute poses a significant challenge. This dilemma particularly impacts Pashinyan's core supporters, known as "pogos," who view any concession as a betrayal. The opposition once again accuses the prime minister of betrayal, while former Defence Minister Seyran Ohanyan urges the army to hold onto the occupied villages and hints at potential guerrilla warfare.

In this context, parallels can be drawn with the situation in Zabukh, where similar sentiments were expressed in the past.