QUEST FOR PARTY OF PEACE

The post-conflict settlement in the South Caucasus is gaining momentum. On February 7, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev held a videoconference with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian through the mediation of his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron and President of the EU Council Charles Michel. Macron and Michel issued a joint final statement after the meeting, which reiterated many of the points formulated in the ‘peace agenda’ during the multilateral meetings in Sochi and Brussels. These include the normalisation of relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia, humanitarian issues, and the unblocking of communications, primarily the access to the Zangezur Corridor. Leaders also discussed the fate of missing persons, progress with mine clearance, and the EU readiness to render assistance in this particular issue. Finally, confidence-building measures between the sides are also on the agenda.

Mediators (Russia and the EU) are optimistic. And they regularly confirm that it is time to leave the conflict behind and build a peaceful future together.

All parties are asked to end the war

It seems all the conditions and chances are available for improving the regional situation in the post-war period. Baku has unilaterally, by means of military and political tools, solved the most painful issue—the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the seized Azerbaijani lands and the implementation of the four ‘Garabagh resolutions’ of the UN Security Council. Azerbaijan has restored its territorial integrity and control over its state borders. Mediators, and primarily Russian President Vladimir Putin, outlined a new road map: delimitation and demarcation of borders, opening of communications, resolution of humanitarian issues. Russia has already expressed its readiness to assist with border delimitation and demarcation, including the provision of maps developed by the USSR General Staff, where the borders of union republics are the most detailed, GPS data and other technical assistance.

Azerbaijan has repeatedly stated that it was ready to work on a full-fledged peace treaty, was interested in normalising relations with Armenia, including the delimitation and demarcation of borders.

But is Armenia ready for reconciliation?

The Peace Party: hopes and reality

It may seem that Yerevan also provides good reasons for optimism. Vahagn Khachaturyan, the presidential candidate from the ruling Civil Contract Party, advocated peace with Azerbaijan and relations with Turkey. "One can and should live only in peace with neighbours. The thesis of ‘forcing [someone] to peace’ is outdated. We must all realise that peace is the only form of development and life. Nothing can be achieved by coercion. Even if we are very strong, we should still strive for peace," Khachaturyan said on Armenia’s Public Television.

Ararat Mirzoyan, the Armenian Minister of Foreign Affairs, gave some reason for optimism in his speech to the Armenian National Assembly: "The disaster that we suffered was a result of great self-deception. We need to face reality, speak to each other frankly, without hiding anything."

Earlier, Nikol Pashinyan held a sensational conference on his Facebook account. He revealed many intriguing details, including the real scope of the Minsk Group talks, issues that his predecessors had agreed, the diplomatic legacy he inherited, and so on. Among other things, he outlined his negotiating strategy for the current stage of the post-conflict settlement: "Let's distinguish between the emotional and rational sides."

I would like to think that Nikol Pashinyan and the members of his administration, including Ararat Mirzoyan, are gradually preparing the Armenian society for peace, urging it to face reality and distinguish between the emotional and rational sides of the existing situation. However, signals coming from Yerevan do not seem to be that optimistic.

Armenia fails the test on negotiability

Soon after the videoconference between Ilham Aliyev and Nikol Pashinyan, Baku handed over to Armenia eight saboteurs detained during the November 2021 provocation in Kalbajar. In return, Armenia had to hand over to Azerbaijan the data on persons missing since the First Garabagh War and the mass grave sites. However, when Armenia received the saboteurs, Yerevan immediately stated that they had not taken any reciprocal commitment. Azerbaijan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has already voiced its position on the issue. Baku urged the international community to put pressure on Armenia and said that the refusal of Yerevan to honour its commitments was "completely against moral norms and international laws.” Indeed, Armenia has once again failed the test on its ability to negotiate. And this is not encouraging at all.

Track record, wordplay and image is everything!

Experts and observers were ready to recognise Pashinian as the leader of the ‘peace party’ almost immediately after his victory back in 2018. At that time he was not involved in the aggression against Azerbaijan and the genocide of Azerbaijanis, which distinguished him from Robert Kocharian and Serzh Sargsyan, both of whom took part in the Khojaly Genocide. Pashinyan was considered a supporter of Levon Ter-Petrosian, Armenia's first president, who lost his position after calling for compromise with Azerbaijan. After the Dushanbe talks, hopes for the so-called Pashinyan Peace reached the peak. Meanwhile, it was Pashinian who added to his team the hawks like David Tonoyan, who promised "a new war for new territories", and Vagharshak Harutyunyan, who suggested rocket attacks on Azerbaijani cities.  It was Pashinian who held Araik Harutyunyan's ‘inauguration’ ceremony in the then-occupied city of Shusha. Again, it was Pashinyan who said ‘Garabagh is Armenia, full stop’, thus finally destroying the negotiation process. Finally, it was during his leadership that Armenia started a new war in an attempt to expand the zone of occupation.

Almost since his ‘revolutionary victory’ Nikol Pashinian has regularly made statements that experts have interpreted as a sign of readiness for peace. But, unfortunately, in doing so, he has tried to refrain from being specific. While calling for a "rational approach", Pashinyan does not specify what he exactly means. This is not the first such trick made by the Armenian prime minister. On the eve of the 44-day war, he stated that the solution of the Garabagh conflict must satisfy the peoples of Armenia, Azerbaijan and "the people of Nagorno-Karabakh". This statement has obviously been appreciated by the expert community. But there was no progress in negotiations: Pashinyan did not specify what this solution should look like exactly.

During the Second Garabagh War, Nikol Pashinian made a similar statement—that Armenia was ready for concessions, but it depended on those Azerbaijan was ready to make. But the Azerbaijani President had already stated: "Baku is ready to stop the counteroffensive as soon as Armenia announces a clear schedule for the withdrawal of troops from the occupied Azerbaijani lands.” But while announcing his readiness to make concessions, Pashinyan did not announce any schedule for the withdrawal of troops. Hence the question: what is going on in Armenia today? Does Yerevan really prepare the Armenian community for concessions, or is what we hear yet another batch of optimistic statements with no real progress?

Baku accuses Yerevan of stalling the opening of the Zangezur corridor. Baku also categorically rejected Armenia's proposals on the border delimitation. Once again, instead of concrete works, Yerevan offers a "mirror withdrawal of troops" to preserve the ‘conflict’ status of the borderline.

In fact, Armenia is far from the situation it was before the 44-day war. There are no illusions of military superiority. Nor is there any hope for external support. Finally, Yerevan should also take into account the role of external guarantors (Russia and the EU) behind every negotiation initiative. And this lack of alternative to peace is the main argument supporting optimism.