NEW NATIONWIDE MISSION

The recent interview of Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev with local TV channels may have signalled the start of a fresh political season in the country. With the New Year festivities and the winter holiday political pause behind us, the early days of the year are traditionally a time for unveiling new ideas and concepts.

However, President Ilham Aliyev's interview didn't just kick off a new political season in Azerbaijan.

Political reset

In his interview, the President of Azerbaijan announced the dawn of a new political era: "Our primary national objective was the liberation of our territories. The entire nation rallied around this idea, this goal, and we accomplished it. Certainly, I have my own thoughts on future development, and in many cases, they will be pivotal. However, I would like to see discussions on our fundamental national idea and thoughts about our future development taking place in society - among politicians, political scientists, scientists, intellectuals."

Clearly, this isn't just about a collection of slogans and well-wishes for everything good against everything bad. The President extended an invitation to politicians, political scientists, scientists, and intellectuals for a wide-ranging and open discussion on this matter. He reiterated his commitment to the concept of a nationwide dialogue on issues crucial to the country. The key is that it should genuinely be a dialogue, not a series of shouting words.

The political life, ideology, state, and military construction in independent Azerbaijan were largely shaped by the need to resolve the Garabagh issue and liberate its territories from Armenian occupation. Now that this task has been brilliantly accomplished, the question arises: what's next? What are the country's current goals and what challenges is Azerbaijan already facing? The "post-Garabagh era" has effectively begun, at least since Supreme Commander-in-Chief Ilham Aliyev hoisted the Azerbaijani flag in Khankendi, Khojaly, Khojavand, and Aghdere, and the Azerbaijani Victory Parade took place in Khankendi's main square.

Lessons learned

In such a situation, some might have anticipated and predicted that Azerbaijan would succumb to post-victory euphoria, start slashing the military budget, and redirect finances to social programmes, especially ahead of the extraordinary presidential elections slated for February 7. History is replete with such examples. However, the problem is that such euphoria often comes with a steep long-term price. After World War I in Europe, many politicians were convinced that after such a horrific bloodbath, humanity simply had to bid farewell to arms. Military spending was reduced, and some countries even disbanded their armies entirely. The Versailles agreements severely curtailed Germany's ability to rebuild its army, and no one anticipated any threats in Europe... But then Hitler came to power in Germany, skilfully sidestepped the Versailles slingshots, built a formidable army, and began his revenge. He easily swallowed the countries of Europe one by one, which had naively believed in the advent of an era of universal peace. More recent examples include NATO countries, which, after winning the Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of the USSR, also started cutting military budgets. And while the political community was initially apprehensive about the consequences of merging the powerful armies of the FRG and the GDR in the immediate aftermath of German reunification, today experts from many countries concede that the Bundeswehr is practically unfit for combat due to cuts in defence spending.

In his recent interview, Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev reaffirmed that Baku has no intention of succumbing to post-victory euphoria. As he stated, "Our society should not be lulled into complacency. We must remain vigilant at all times, as the actions against us will not cease with the issues we've mentioned; they will persist. We have instigated significant shifts on a global scale. Analysts may perceive that the repercussions of our victory have been costly for some countries. We have instigated major societal shifts. Our victory transcends local significance and has become a prominent issue on the international agenda."

The majority of the interview was not solely or primarily focused on the main outcome of the Garabagh war. Instead, the President discussed the complexities of the negotiation process between Baku and Yerevan, against the backdrop of Armenia's apparent efforts to lay the groundwork for revanchism and secure external support for this purpose.

Armenian revanchism with a French accent

As President Ilham Aliyev highlighted in his interview, Armenia has repeatedly disrupted the peace process following the 44-day war due to external influences. It's worth noting that there are numerous forces and countries worldwide that wouldn't hesitate to manipulate conflicts and exert pressure on both Armenia and Azerbaijan. France, under President Emmanuel Macron, began formulating ambitious plans in every sense even before the autumn of 2020, hoping to make inroads into the South Caucasus via Armenia.

Frankly, Armenia's defeat in the 44-day war, after a lengthy period of bombastic militaristic posturing, should have convinced any rational politician that relying on Armenia to achieve any significant goals in the region is unfeasible. But...

In his interview, Ilham Aliyev didn't just talk about France's desire to become one of the mediators and its assurance of objectivity in the negotiations. He observed that until recently, at least on the surface, a balance was maintained. He then recalled: "...If we examine the history of our relations, everything started off quite promisingly. Both in the early 1990s and when I assumed the leadership of Azerbaijan, relations were fairly normal. Whether this was due to our lands being under occupation, or simply due to a generational shift in France's political landscape, is hard for me to say. But the balance, in any case, was maintained It was disrupted even before the Second Garabagh War by the French side, seemingly due to such a generational shift in the fundamentals of French foreign policy. We now see this not only in France, but also in most European countries, when individuals of great stature in their countries and on the international stage were replaced by, generally speaking, random people, populists, demagogues, and we all see the results." Consequently, relations between Azerbaijan and France are essentially at a standstill today. Nothing transpires between Baku and Paris - unless we count the defeat of French agents, expulsion of diplomats, etc.

As Ilham Aliyev pointed out in his interview, Azerbaijan and France could very well exist without remembering each other. But there are nuances here. In response to French attacks on Azerbaijan, the President stressed: "We are not a country that merely defends and justifies itself. We have taken and will continue to take appropriate actions, especially since there are ample reasons for the entire world to recall the horrors of French imperialism in colonial countries. And, it seems, the Azerbaijani side's response was quite painful for France. So Paris won't be able to 'ignore' it. Especially in light of all its recent, to put it mildly, troubles in former colonies."

However, the most significant challenges may yet lie ahead for Armenia. They may once again place undue reliance on fresh promises with a French accent.

Empty threats and the real threat

Azerbaijan's historic triumph has paved the way for both Baku and Yerevan to build a genuinely peaceful future. Unfortunately, opportunity does not equate to a guarantee. The peace process can be likened to a tango, requiring the participation of two. Yet, Armenia continues to harbour thoughts of revenge. There is also a lack of complete trust in the Armenian leadership - the President recalled how illegal "presidential elections" were conducted in Garabagh, contravening the agreements reached. According to the head of state, this was the second red line. As Aliyev pointed out, "the first was the congratulatory letter sent by Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan to the separatist regime on September 2. This was both a crossing of a red line and a highly contentious move. Even prior to that, the Armenian Prime Minister had officially recognised Garabagh as Azerbaijani territory and repeatedly affirmed so. What, then, did that congratulatory message signify!".

In the interview, the President sent an unequivocal message to third countries: "Armenia desires this peace treaty to have guarantors. We believe that there is no need for that. This will be a peace treaty that will be signed by two sovereign states". In other words, it is up to Azerbaijan and Armenia to reach an agreement amongst themselves. Third countries can only assist, not impose their own version of the settlement on the parties. They should especially refrain from attempting to reach an agreement with one party at the expense of the other. Most importantly, the President made it clear that no external intervention will aid Armenia in realising its revenge scenario: "Let everyone hear that if we identify a genuine threat to ourselves, not this French junk, not these so-called 'Bastion' tin cans, we will immediately take preventive measures to destroy them.

And as history has demonstrated, the words of the President of Azerbaijan do not contradict actions.

BRIEFLY:

"Today, communication between the main part of Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan still takes place through Iranian territory. Why is there no objection to this, but only to the section passing through Meghri? Armenian-Iranian trade is flourishing and growing every day. Iran has opened a consulate in Western Zangezur. Why does not this raise any questions? Such illogical and meaningless statements do no one any honour. When they say in America "we will not allow this," what do they mean, how will they not allow it happen? Will they build a barrier in Zangezur?! Will they deploy an army in Zangilan or on Iranian territory? How will they not allow this? This is our sovereign right.

Recently, we jointly with Iran opened a bridge across the Astarachai. Why? Because the volume of cargo transport along the North-South corridor has doubled. At present, the terminal in Astara cannot accept all these cargo traffic. In Khanoba, we opened a second checkpoint with Russia. And now there are two points on the Russian-Azerbaijani border instead of one. There are also two checkpoints on the border with Iran. This is our sovereign right, too.

Therefore, I advise the Armenian side not to engage in manipulations on this issue. The route they proposed from mainland Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan is completely unsuitable for use. It will be impossible to use it throughout the year, as the weather conditions and terrain there are very harsh. The most appropriate option is to pass through the territory of Meghri. Even in Soviet times, there was a railway line, and a motor-road was built. The railway and motor-road should also pass along this route. As I said, people and goods from Azerbaijan to Azerbaijan must pass without any checks. Otherwise, Armenia will forever remain a dead end. If the route I mentioned is not opened, then we do not intend to open the border with Armenia in any other place. That is, they will get more harm from this than benefit."

President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev