Pashinyan’s new stance: a step toward peace or temporary respite?

The current negotiations between Azerbaijan and
Armenia, held on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in Kazan, have
emerged as a pivotal second within the diplomatic playbook of each
nations. Whereas official statements provided few concrete particulars,
the significance of this dialogue can’t be understated. It alerts
potential shifts within the protracted battle between these two South
Caucasus neighbors. The central focus of the assembly was the
development of the peace agenda, masking key matters corresponding to a
peace treaty, border delimitation, demarcation, and different issues
of mutual curiosity.

A Breakthrough Amid Diplomatic Stalemate

The mere incontrovertible fact that this assembly passed off is an achievement in
itself, significantly towards the backdrop of current diplomatic
failures. One want solely recall the ill-fated July assembly in London
between Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev and Armenia’s Prime
Minister Nikol Pashinyan, which was derailed resulting from Armenia’s
last-minute withdrawal. This mishap not solely set again the
negotiations but in addition left each side feeling the load of a
diplomatic impasse. Moreover, the cancellation of a deliberate
assembly between the audio system of the 2 nations’ parliaments —
Sahiba Gafarova and Alen Simonyan — solely exacerbated the sense of
mounting tensions. On this mild, the Kazan assembly might be seen as
a “reset” for the peace course of, a much-needed diplomatic
revival.

The Actual Query: Is This Sustainable?

But, the first query looming over these talks will not be merely
the resumption of negotiations however whether or not they are going to result in a
sustainable peace. On the floor, the involvement of worldwide
actors suggests cautious optimism. Latest visits by U.S.
representatives and private letters from President Joe Biden to
each Azerbaijani and Armenian leaders level to elevated diplomatic
strain. The U.S. appears invested in pushing this dialogue ahead,
hoping to safe a decision to the long-standing battle. However
regardless of these overtures, the fact on the bottom stays complicated
and much from resolved.

On the BRICS summit, Pashinyan revealed that 80% of the peace
treaty textual content has been agreed upon. This statistic would possibly sound
promising, however it obscures the truth that the remaining 20% covers
extremely contentious points that would unravel your complete settlement.
Chief amongst these is Armenia’s lingering constitutional declare to
Karabakh, which stays a critical concern for Azerbaijan. As lengthy
as these constitutional ambiguities persist, any peace treaty would
be little greater than a ceremonial gesture, missing the enamel to
guarantee lasting peace.

Border Points and Fragile Positive aspects

One other thorny problem is the delimitation and demarcation of
borders. Azerbaijan has already signed the required regulatory
frameworks, whereas Armenia’s parliament has solely ratified it within the
first studying. One notable breakthrough has been the settlement on
the return of 4 villages within the Gazakh area with out exterior
mediation — a uncommon constructive register an in any other case tense scenario.
Regardless of opposition from Armenian revanchist factions, Pashinyan’s
ruling social gathering pushed the measure by means of parliament, marking a small
however vital step ahead.

Fragile Successes and Unresolved Dangers

Nevertheless, these diplomatic victories stay fragile at greatest.
Armenia’s obvious willingness to ratify a peace treaty might nicely
be a calculated transfer to purchase time fairly than a real dedication
to alter. The important thing danger is that Armenia could also be utilizing the present
course of as a “costume rehearsal” for peace with out enacting the
constitutional amendments essential to completely align with the treaty.
For Azerbaijan, such a state of affairs, the place essential constitutional
points stay unresolved, is unacceptable.

This example introduces the very actual chance that even when
a peace settlement is signed, it might later be nullified by
Armenia’s Constitutional Courtroom. Alternatively, Armenian revanchist
forces would possibly seize on the treaty’s inconsistencies with the
nation’s structure to push for revisions or outright
cancellation sooner or later. These dangers make it clear why
Azerbaijan is cautious of shifting ahead with out concrete
assurances.

The “Stumbling Block” in Future Talks

Given these dynamics, Azerbaijan is prone to keep away from
signing any untimely or incomplete political agreements. Baku’s
precedence is to make sure that any accord is backed by strong authorized and
institutional ensures, stopping the potential for future
revisions. This stays the essential “stumbling block” that can
form the following levels of negotiations.

Trying forward, it’s clear that whereas the Kazan talks have been an
essential step, they’re removed from the ultimate vacation spot. A posh
and tough path nonetheless lies forward, one that can require each
sides to exhibit not solely diplomatic agility but in addition firmness
in defending their core nationwide pursuits. For true peace to take
maintain, each Azerbaijan and Armenia should transfer past political
posturing and interact in a significant and sturdy settlement.

Conclusion: Peace or Pause?

The Kazan assembly would possibly supply a glimmer of hope, however whether or not
this marks a real shift towards peace or just a brief pause
in hostilities stays to be seen. Whereas the worldwide
group is watching carefully, the success of this course of
finally hinges on whether or not the important thing unresolved points —
significantly Armenia’s constitutional claims and border questions —
might be adequately addressed. For now, the way forward for peace within the
South Caucasus hangs within the stability.

The Function of Exterior Gamers

Exterior involvement within the peace course of between Azerbaijan and
Armenia performs a posh, twin position. On one aspect, Western
powers—significantly america—are pushing for an expedited
decision, in search of to stabilize the South Caucasus by means of the
formalization of a peace treaty. This diplomatic strain is
meant to speed up negotiations, creating the looks of
progress. Nevertheless, on the opposite aspect, Russia stays a essential
mediator and geopolitical participant. The Kazan assembly underscored
that Russia, with its historic and strategic ties to each
nations, nonetheless holds appreciable sway within the area. The success
of negotiations on the Russian platform—in comparison with comparable Western
efforts—raises questions on Armenia’s sincerity in aligning with
the West and its readiness for real cooperation within the peace
course of.

Baku’s Cautious Strategy

Azerbaijan, for its half, will not be dashing towards any untimely
agreements. A hasty peace deal, significantly one constructed on momentary
compromises or unresolved constitutional disputes, might show
destabilizing in the long term. Baku’s method stays cautious,
prioritizing substance over kind. The purpose will not be merely to signal
paperwork however to make sure their full implementation, grounded within the
ideas of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and
sovereignty.

The negotiations in Kazan, whereas a promising step ahead, are
seen as preliminary. The trail to lasting peace would require extra
than diplomatic maneuvering; it’ll demand agency dedication to the
core pursuits of each nations. Azerbaijan is aware of
this, choosing a affected person however resolute diplomatic stance.

The Complexities of the Peace Course of

The talks between Azerbaijan and Armenia, centered round a
potential peace treaty, proceed to be probably the most vital
and complicated challenges within the South Caucasus. Regardless of
Azerbaijan’s clear victory within the Second Karabakh Struggle and its
intent to resolve the battle inside the framework of
worldwide regulation, Armenia—led by Nikol Pashinyan—has been
methodically delaying the method. By introducing synthetic
obstacles and making absurd calls for that contradict authorized norms,
Pashinyan demonstrates a reluctance to acknowledge the legitimacy
of Azerbaijan’s place.

Azerbaijan’s Constructive Strategy vs. Armenia’s Delay
Ways

Azerbaijan has constantly demonstrated its dedication to
peace. President Ilham Aliyev has reiterated on quite a few events
that Baku is able to signal a peace treaty primarily based on the universally
acknowledged precept of territorial integrity. The nation seeks a
secure and affluent South Caucasus, the place good-neighborly
relations can thrive. But, this constructive stance meets
persistent resistance from Armenia, which refuses to compromise and
as a substitute creates new obstacles to significant progress.

Yerevan’s delay ways are exemplified by its insistence on
ensures for the Armenian inhabitants in Karabakh—calls for that go
past the norms of worldwide regulation. Azerbaijan has repeatedly
acknowledged that it’s going to shield the rights of all its residents,
together with ethnic Armenians, below equal phrases. But, Armenia
continues to politicize this problem, weaponizing it as a strain
level in negotiations.

Synthetic Calls for and Absurd Situations

Nikol Pashinyan’s unwillingness to interact in actual peace-building
is obvious in Armenia’s ongoing efforts to border Azerbaijan’s
rightful reclamation of territories as “unlawful.” This narrative is
in direct contradiction to worldwide regulation and the clear rulings
of the UN Safety Council, which affirm Azerbaijan’s sovereignty
over Karabakh. Pashinyan’s rhetoric serves primarily to create an
phantasm of political strain on Baku, fairly than fostering
real dialogue.

Armenia’s inconsistent stance is additional revealed in its
altering positions on key points, corresponding to border demarcation.
Initially, Yerevan signaled readiness to interact in talks, solely to
later introduce new, unrealistic circumstances. This demonstrates a
technique of stalling—not aiming for decision however creating the
look of engagement whereas sidestepping any actual
commitments.

Geopolitical Maneuvers and Western
Affect

One of many main components enabling Armenia’s stalling ways is
exterior assist, significantly from Western nations. Diplomatic
backing from worldwide organizations permits Pashinyan to
preserve a extra assured posture in negotiations. That is
particularly evident in his portrayal of Armenia as a “sufferer” of
Azerbaijani aggression, a story that conveniently omits the
incontrovertible fact that Baku’s positions are aligned with worldwide regulation.

Western assist, nevertheless, doesn’t exert the decisive affect
Pashinyan would possibly hope for. Most worldwide actors, together with key
Western powers, acknowledge Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity,
limiting Yerevan’s means to sway the broader geopolitical
calculus. Pashinyan’s makes an attempt to leverage Western backing usually
appear extra aimed toward appeasing his home viewers than genuinely
altering the course of negotiations.

Conclusion: A Delicate Path Ahead

The negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia stay fraught
with challenges, lots of that are manufactured by Armenia’s
present management. Whereas exterior actors, from each the West and
Russia, are deeply concerned, the final word success of the peace
course of is dependent upon the willingness of each nations to interact in
good religion. Azerbaijan continues to exhibit its readiness for
peace, guided by worldwide regulation and a dedication to its
territorial sovereignty. Armenia, then again, should resolve
whether or not it’s really keen to desert its delaying ways and
interact in a course of that may convey long-term stability to the
area.

Till then, the way forward for peace within the South Caucasus stays
precarious, with each side navigating a posh net of
geopolitical pursuits, home pressures, and historic
grievances. It should take greater than diplomatic gestures to beat
these hurdles—it’ll take political will, real compromise, and
a dedication to a shared future.

Pashinyan’s Use of Worldwide Platforms

Nikol Pashinyan has strategically leveraged worldwide
platforms just like the UN, the European Union, and the OSCE to advocate
for Armenia’s place, crafting a story that paints Azerbaijan
as unjust. This method permits Yerevan to sidestep real
progress towards battle decision, inserting the onus on Baku and
diverting consideration from Armenia’s position within the stalemate. By
in search of assist from Western allies, Pashinyan seemingly hopes that
worldwide backing will strain Azerbaijan into making
concessions.

But, in actuality, the affect of Western gamers on the peace
course of is proscribed. Most nations acknowledge Azerbaijan’s
territorial integrity, which diminishes the influence of Pashinyan’s
efforts to achieve sympathy on the worldwide stage. His makes an attempt to rally
Western assist are extra tailor-made to his home viewers, serving to
him preserve political credibility at residence fairly than bringing
about significant modifications within the negotiations.

Double Requirements and Diplomatic Maneuvering

Armenia’s diplomatic method is rife with double requirements. On
the floor, Pashinyan publicly professes a dedication to peace and
negotiations. However behind the scenes, his authorities continues to
stall, presenting circumstances which might be clearly unacceptable to
Azerbaijan. These ways are designed to keep up the established order,
retaining the battle unresolved fairly than shifting towards a last
settlement.

A transparent instance of Armenia’s double normal is the problem of
rights for Armenians residing in Karabakh. Azerbaijan has
constantly pledged to make sure the safety and equal remedy of
all its residents, together with ethnic Armenians. Nevertheless, Yerevan
continues to politicize the problem, utilizing it to problem
Azerbaijan’s sovereignty. This tactic undermines the core
ideas of the negotiations, turning them right into a platform for
Armenia to exert political strain fairly than search a real
decision.

Overcoming Obstacles to Peace

The continuing negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia are
riddled with challenges, lots of that are artificially constructed
by Armenia’s management. Pashinyan and his authorities have proven
little real curiosity in pursuing peace. As a substitute, they’ve
chosen to delay the method by introducing unreasonable calls for and
erecting new obstacles. Whereas Azerbaijan adheres to the ideas
of worldwide regulation, Armenia continues to govern each home
politics and exterior components to keep away from committing to a peace
settlement.

It’s clear that reaching lasting peace within the South Caucasus
would require extra than simply willingness from each side to interact
in talks. Armenia should exhibit the political will to halt its
provocative maneuvers and undertake a extra constructive method. The
peace course of can’t advance whereas one social gathering is actively blocking
progress. In the long run, true dialogue and the abandonment of those
delaying methods might lay the groundwork for a sturdy peace
and prosperity within the area.