"Geography of the world and geography without Russia are synonyms in international politics"

After the end of the 44-day war between Azerbaijan and Armenia, negotiations on a peace agreement continue. But from time to time we are witnessing some kind of clashes, losses on the border.  If there are peace talks, who is not interested in peace and causes bloody clashes between the two countries?

International Affairs Expert Elman Fattah answered questions from ASTNA.

***

Question: Who do you think hinders the peace talks - Azerbaijani side, Armenian side, Russia, Iran, West, or..?

Answer: The fact is that negotiations for a peace agreement after 44 days of war, as you mentioned, do not go beyond rumors. The absence of a systemic nature of peace negotiations can be explained by several aspects: on the one hand, the existing international conditions, political centers that, in your opinion, impede peace, on the other hand, the rational and emotional state of the political elite of Azerbaijan and Armenia, on the third, the complexity of the path to a peace treaty and objective reasons why the conclusion of peace between the two countries is virtually impossible in a short time. If we start with the latter, we can content ourselves with an example without multiplying the number of anologies. For example, the final peace treaty between the USSR and Germany (FRG) was signed only in 1970 - 25 years after Germany's surrender, despite Germany's unconditional surrender in 1945 at the end of World War II. That is, I want to say that the expectation of the signing of a peace treaty between Azerbaijan and Armenia in such a short time, less than two years after the 44-day war, is inappropriate. This is not a reasonable amount of time for signing peace. On the other hand, the psychological state of various political players of the Armenian elite (authorities, opposition, diaspora, churches, Karabakh Armenians, Armenians of Armenia) does not allow signing peace with Azerbaijan.

For more than 100 years, the Armenian elite, under the influence of the slogans “Great Armenia”, “Miatsum”, has become a prisoner of psychopolitical politics. It was this sick thinking that kept the Azerbaijani lands in occupation for 30 years. Unfortunately, they are still unable to make rational political decisions. Imagine that for a peace treaty, Armenia has to hold a referendum, abandon the declaration of “annexation of Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia”, which it noted in its constitution with reference to the act of independence of 1989. During all these talks about peace, have you ever encountered the fact that constitutional changes in Armenia were at least discussed?! Such ideas have not yet been voiced by any political force.

If we approach your question "Iran, Russia, the West", then let's move on to the details after we note in general the views of the parties on the world as a whole:

1. Iran is not interested in the process of normalization of relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia. At least, because in this case, the third player, Turkey, will enter the Caucasus with all its might.

2. Russia as a whole is against peace in the Caucasus. Because the geography of the world and geography without Russia have become synonymous in international politics.

3. The West is interested in peace in the two Caucasian countries. Because such conditions would tie the hands of the geographical rivals of the West, would create favorable conditions for a deeper penetration of the West into the Caucasus.

Going into details, two tables are currently prepared for the normalization of relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia and negotiations leading to peace: Moscow and Brussels. The idea of ​​the Moscow table is an integral part of Russia's Caucasian policy, and this is a process that does not lead to peace, but deepens the impossibility of peace. The Brussels table is the only way to peace, as I mentioned a little earlier. But it is still impossible to achieve real results along this path. As a decisive reason, I noted that the Armenian elite is very far from preparing for peace. The  situation in  Azerbaijan does not look at all like the power of Azerbaijan is the -peace-bird,  and Armenia does not allow it to spread its wings and take off.

The fact is that the current government of Azerbaijan, as an active member of the international authoritarian coalition, cannot show so much enthusiasm for a peace process that runs counter to the interests of a strategic ally in the region - Putin's Russia. Therefore, the authorities enthusiastically join the military provocations committed by Armenia, citing the absence of a delimitation process as an argument, even trying to justify that the borders with Armenia are unclear, and the outbreak of hostilities in any part of the territory is normal. Although the delimitation commission between Azerbaijan and Armenia was established before the USSR, in 1920, immediately after the Bolshevik occupation. During the Soviet era, in 1930, the commission completed its work. The last boundary clarifications were completed in 1969. On behalf of Azerbaijan, this agreement was signed by Heydar Aliyev. After the collapse of the USSR, both countries were admitted to the UN with maps of these borders presented by them.

Thus, since there is no real desire to sign peace between the two countries, one should not hope that these negotiations will go beyond rumors in the near future.

Question: We see that the Zangezur issue is being raised too. To what extent do you think these claims are justified? Besides, how correct are such insulting steps regarding these claims from the point of view of international law?

Answer: What do you mean by the Zangezur issue? If you mean the corridor, then the Azerbaijani side is completely right in this matter. The corridor requirement is based on historical practice and is a desire that is also protected and even welcomed by international law. This would also contribute to the intensive cycling of communications in the region. If you talk about taftalogies about the forced annexation of Zangezur to Azerbaijan, then this is impossible. Moreover, it is contrary to the principle of the UN Charter on the forcible change of borders, that is, international law. This territory is an internationally recognized territory of Armenia.

Question: But there is one more question. Speaking of peace, the Azerbaijani side declares that it is ready to take under its jurisdiction the Armenians living in Karabakh. However, when the conflict began, all Azerbaijanis living in Armenia were expelled from their ancestral lands. There is not a single Azerbaijani left in Armenia. Although historically they lived there compactly. What will be the fate of these Azerbaijanis? Should their fate also be taken into account in the peace agreement? If yes, in what form?

Answer: This same question clearly shows how difficult it is to sign the final peace treaty. The Azerbaijani side has repeatedly stated its readiness to grant Azerbaijani citizenship to Armenians living in the territory of the former Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as to ensure their security. It would be good if a detailed document on the normative solution of this issue was prepared and presented to both the local and international community. Is the Armenian side ready for the return of Azerbaijanis expelled 34 years ago to their homeland? What do you think about it? These are open-ended questions. However, under the Kars Treaty of 1921, all three Caucasian republics recognized that the ethnic groups living on their territory have equal rights and guaranteed their security. However, now there are no Azerbaijanis left in the territory of Armenia. Armenia has actually turned into a mono-ethnic state, which also contradicts the principles of the Kars Treaty. The Azerbaijani side demonstrated its commitment to the Kars Treaty in the Shusha Declaration, signed 100 years later with Turkey. That is, one of the conditions of a detailed peace agreement should be the question of whether the Azerbaijanis will return to Armenia.

Question: The other side of the issue. The Azerbaijani government granted citizenship to Azerbaijani refugees from Armenia in accordance with a decision taken in 1998. How can the Azerbaijani side now prove that they were once citizens of Armenia, moved to Azerbaijan from Armenia?

Answer: Yes, this is a very unfortunate decision, contrary to the state interests of Azerbaijan. If you remember, in 1997 the peace talks within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group also intensified. Heydar Aliyev made this step as another concession in order to induce Armenia to peace. However, the Armenian side did not make any attempts to move closer to peace. A year later, an armed coup took place in Armenia, and the peace talks were buried. Is the fact that these persons are citizens of Azerbaijan a factor preventing their return in the current negotiations? Yes, a factor, but not a decisive one. For example, in recent history, Georgia has created conditions for the return of the Meskhetian Turks, who were expelled from the country, regardless of which country they were citizens of. If Armenia is interested in normalizing relations, wants to demonstrate that it refuses to hate Azerbaijanis, then it can take the same step.

Question: If the Azerbaijani side proves this, will it be able to return these citizens to the homeland of their ancestors and raise the issue of their security?

Answer: No special evidence is required. This event took place just 34 years ago. Both countries have archival documents. The whole world also knows that these people were forcibly expelled from Armenia.

Question: What do you propose? What steps need to be taken to conclude a peace treaty between Azerbaijan and Armenia, as well as to return Azerbaijani refugees from Armenia to the homeland of their ancestors, as well as for a comfortable, prosperous and peaceful life for Armenians living in Azerbaijan?

Answer: Throughout the interview, I argued that the signing of a peace treaty between the two countries on the current terms is not a matter of the near future. As for the steps to be taken towards peace, first of all, both countries must demonstrate a clear political will in this regard. As for the first steps towards peace, both countries must mutually recognize territorial integrity. First of all, the Armenian side must constitutionally confirm that it renounces territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Only then can real steps be taken. If this fundamental issue is resolved, only then the issue of the return of Azerbaijani refugees to Armenia and the security of the Armenians living in Karabakh will become the subject of negotiations. However, the Azerbaijani side, without waiting for the end of the peace talks, must take care of its territorial integrity, restore its sovereignty in Khankendi and adjacent settlements. This process must necessarily include ensuring the security of the local Armenian population.