SIGNS OF THE GENEVA MEETING

At the end of January, foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia—Elmar Mammadyarov and Zohrab Mnatsakanyan—held two-day talks in Geneva with the mediation of the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. The total period of the talks (11-12 hours) gives a reason to believe that the ministers were engaged in a substantive discussion on the key issues of the Karabakh settlement. Meanwhile, the final statements of both international mediators and the conflicting parties did not contain any provisions hinting at some kind of a breakthrough in the negotiations.

Spokeswoman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, Leyla Abdullayeva, confirmed that "the parties discussed the agenda presented by the co-chairs. These included the proposals made in 2019, in particular, the preparation of two peoples for peace, humanitarian exchange, principles and elements that form the basis of the settlement, especially the principles and paragraphs of the Helsinki Final Act, and, finally, the intensification of the negotiation process." The joint statement of the foreign ministers and the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group included the same wording.

Anna Naghdalyan, the spokeswoman of the Armenian Foreign Ministry, also noted a discussion of a wide range of issues, including "the implementation of existing agreements, proposals discussed in 2019 and the next possible steps to prepare peoples for peace".

Yerevan against Baku and mediators

Incidentally, Yerevan has not yet recognised the agreements discussed last year. Armenian authorities constantly stated that the essence of contacts between the parties is limited only to consultations. Now, following the results of the Geneva meeting, the Armenian Foreign Ministry had to acknowledge "agreements and proposals discussed in 2019".

President Emanuel Macron's recent telephone conversation with President Ilham Aliyev also confirmed the subjective character of negotiations. President Aliyev informed his French counterpart on Baku’s position on the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Remarkably, Macron made his phone call exactly when the longest ever negotiations between the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia took place.

Azerbaijan focuses on the discussion of the prospects for implementing the norms and principles of the Helsinki Final Act, the fundamental international legal document establishing the priority of territorial integrity over the peoples' right to self-determination. Meanwhile, the Armenian side emphasises that Mnatsakanyan advocated the involvement of "elected representatives" of Nagorno-Karabakh in the settlement process.

Yerevan has been manipulating "the right of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to self-determination" for many years. The relevantly new Pashinyan government attempts to present Armenian separatists from Karabakh as one of the parties to the conflict. The Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan gave a clear and unambiguous response to the Armenian statement on 'the involvement of the elected representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh' in the settlement process. "Who did elect 'the elected representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh' that the Armenian authorities refer to? There was ethnic cleansing and Azerbaijanis were expelled from their territories. What elections are they talking about?" Leyla Abdullayeva said in her interview with the Russian newspaper Kommersant.

No matter how vigorously the Armenian side tries to change the course of the settlement process to its own advantage in order to camouflage the occupation of Azerbaijani lands as the root cause of the conflict, the Geneva meeting confirmed that the format of discussions would remain unaltered. It is no coincidence that the issue of involving the so-called Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in the negotiations was reflected only in the statement of the Armenian Foreign Ministry.

Moreover, the U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan Lee Litzenberger met with the head of the Azerbaijani community of Nagorno-Karabakh, Tural Ganjaliyev, during the Geneva talks. Mr. Litzenberger mentioned that he was closely following the activities of the Azerbaijani community of Nagorno-Karabakh. This is also a kind of signal to Armenian authorities to realise that the settlement of the conflict be based on the dual community of Nagorno-Karabakh.

The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group reconfirmed their "commitment to assist the parties in finding a peaceful solution to the conflict and the principle of confidentiality in the settlement process." This statement can be viewed as the reaction of mediators to the recent statement of Armenian Prime Minister that the former president Serzh Sargsyan was discussing the issue of "returning the territories" to Azerbaijan. In other words, co-chairs clearly pointed out to Pashinyan that the unilateral publication of information on the progress of the settlement is unacceptable. Apparently, the Armenian prime minister's gaffe is a result of his populist considerations, which are far from the goal of a comprehensive peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Meanwhile, Pashinyan's actions harm the settlement process not only because of his excessive talkativeness, risking the principle of confidentiality of negotiations. In fact, it's not the first time that Pashinyan makes such obviously provocative statements amidst direct negotiations between Baku and Yerevan. During the Geneva meeting, Pashinyan visited the occupied territories of Azerbaijan to take part in a deliberately demonstrative action to present apartments to Armenian soldiers, which is fundamentally opposite to the prospect of comprehensive peace in the region. Incidentally, Pashinyan also visited Nagorno-Karabakh on the eve of the previous meeting of Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers in Bratislava in December 2019. In other words, this shows how incompetent Mr. Pashinyan is in terms of preparing the Armenian people for peace.

Will Armenia get tomorrow what it rejects today?

So, the Geneva talks between Mammadyarov and Mnatsakanyan confirmed that the discussion, contrary to the previous statements of Armenian authorities, is based on specific proposals. But will this discussion give a real result? The absence of serious statements on the long-awaited breakthrough in the final declaration suggests that Armenia continues to refuse to resolve the conflict on the basis of the principles and norms of international law. Therefore, the first question to ask the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs is why Armenia is not forced to implement the four resolutions of the UN Security Council adopted with the support of mediating countries (Russia, the USA and France) and providing for the unconditional withdrawal of Armenian occupation forces from the Azerbaijani territories. After all, if the conflicting parties could reach an agreement on their own, then neither the UN resolutions nor international mediators would be necessary. Therefore, the peaceful resolution of the Karabakh conflict should be sought not in the folders of Armenian officials, but in the resolutions of the UN and other international organisations. Otherwise, Baku reserves its legal right to liberate the lands through military means, which is quite feasible.

As President Ilham Aliyev noted at a recent government meeting, Azerbaijan is the 52nd strongest country in the global ranking of armed forces, while Armenia is the 96th. Other positions are as follows: air forces — Azerbaijan 63rd, Armenia 86th; navy — Azerbaijan 67th, Armenia has no sea at all; artillery — Azerbaijan 32nd, Armenia 78th. "All these indicators are real, not fantastic, as the Armenian leadership usually claims. In sporting terms, Azerbaijan is in the top league, Armenia — in the third one," Ilham Aliyev said.

Remarkably, the first president of Armenia, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, realised that "neither the world community nor the economic potential of Armenia would make it possible to retain the status quo in Karabakh." He showed readiness to agree to a compromise with Azerbaijan and warned his people: "What we reject today, we will have to ask in the future. But we will not get what we ask for, as has been the case for more than once in our history."

We all know well what happened to Armenia and Ter-Petrosyan then. A few days after those risky statements, he was toppled, while Armenia has been suffering from a hopeless systemic crisis ever since. In other words, it is the Armenian people that suffers the most due to Yerevan’s occupation policy.

Armenia is an aggressor, who has exiled itself to isolation and utter decline. It still remains away from all major integration projects implemented with the participation of Azerbaijan, including the Southern Gas Corridor, North-South and East-West transport and communication projects. Thus, the following statement of President Ilham Aliyev can be considered a call to prudence addressed to Armenia: "Armenia remains in a political, economic, transport and investment impasse. This situation will continue until the occupied Azerbaijani territories are liberated," Ilham Aliyev said.

Today, Armenia has firmly established itself as a Russian outpost in the South Caucasus. Whereas Azerbaijan’s position in the international arena only confirms its viability as an independent state, the leader of the South Caucasus region, the key bridge between Europe and Asia. Moreover, Azerbaijan has become a recognized platform for peace, security and cooperation. The recent, fifth in a row meeting in Baku of the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia and the Commander-in-Chief of the Joint Armed Forces of NATO in Europe convincingly testifies to this. The largest centers of world politics perceive Baku as a reliable partner, representing a platform of creative interaction, rather than confrontation.

All these factors should be enough for Armenia to think about the path it has taken and its prospects in the context of the occupation of Azerbaijani territories. For sure, the lag of Armenia from Azerbaijan will increase every passing year. She has neither the strength nor the ability to change this tendency, nor does she have any chances to maintain the status quo in the Karabakh conflict for the long term.