"Postponing the issue of opening communications until peace is concluded is in the interests of Iran and Russia"

"Postponing the issue of opening communications until peace is concluded is in the interests of Iran and Russia"

Armenia confirmed Baku's official statement that the article on regional communications was mutually agreed to be excluded from the draft peace agreement. On August 7, the head of the Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs' press service, Ani Badalyan, spoke about this.

However, she mentioned that the unblocking of routes remains an important part of Armenia’s vision and agenda for achieving peace and economic development in the region.

Notably, the special representative of the President of Azerbaijan, Elchin Amirbekov, stated that both sides agreed to exclude the article on transport communications from the peace treaty project, including the route connecting the western part of Azerbaijan with Nakhchivan.

It was agreed that this issue would be addressed at a later stage.

Armenian political analyst Sergey Melkonyan stated at a conference in Yerevan that during the last meeting in Washington, Armenia and Azerbaijan, at the foreign ministers' level, discussed the possibility of handing over control of future communications to an international private company for security purposes. According to him, this international company should control the sections of communications in both Armenian and Nakhchivan and Azerbaijani territories. This includes border and customs control.

Melkonyan believes that Tehran perceives this development as a threat to its interests in the region.

It should be recalled that during a meeting in Tehran between Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Khamenei openly stated that the Zangezur corridor is not in Armenia’s interests.

It seems that the Zangezur corridor was one of the topics discussed this week by Russia's Security Council head Sergey Shoigu during his visit to Baku and Tehran. An indirect confirmation of this is Shoigu’s statement after his meeting with Ilham Aliyev that "the West should not be allowed into the South Caucasus."

International affairs expert Elman Fattah answers ASTNA's questions on this topic.

Question: Armenia has confirmed Baku's statement that, by mutual agreement, the article on regional communications was excluded from the draft peace agreement. What does this mean?

Answer: First and foremost, it means that the trilateral statement signed on November 10, 2020, can be considered obsolete. Most of the issues contained in this statement have either been resolved or there is mutual agreement to abandon them. The announcement of Azerbaijan and Armenia’s intention to sign a new communication agreement in the future also removes the last remaining topic from this statement.

At the same time, postponing the question of opening communications between the two countries, particularly restoring the land connection between the main territory of Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan, which historically existed through Armenia, clarified two points: First, if such a communication line opens in the future, it will in no way be an unimpeded corridor. We will be able to travel to Nakhchivan as part of a general communication route, passing through Armenia under customs rules. Secondly, communications between the two countries will not open until a peace agreement is signed.

Question: Is this a good thing?

Answer: It's hard to say. At first glance, it seems good. This was one of Baku's tough demands on Yerevan and was hindering the peace agreement. On the other hand, postponing the resolution of this issue until peace is established delays the opening of communications indefinitely, meaning that the best tool that could contribute to the normalization process between the two countries is abandoned.

Question: An agreement was reached that this issue will be resolved at a later stage. Does this mean that, although it is not in the draft peace agreement, it will be discussed and agreed upon bilaterally after the peace agreement?

Answer: Yes, that is precisely what is meant. However, given the current inability to sign a peace agreement, postponing this issue until peace is concluded has made the restoration of communications between the two countries practically impossible.

Question: Armenian political analyst Sergey Melkonyan said at a conference in Yerevan that during the last meeting in Washington, Armenia and Azerbaijan discussed the possibility of transferring control over future communications to an international private company for security purposes. According to him, the international company should control sections of communications both in Armenian and Nakhchivan and Azerbaijani territories, including border and customs control. Is this possible?

Answer: Of course, if the countries come to a mutual agreement. The main issue here is that interstate borders are a matter of these countries' sovereignty. If such a rule is applied by an international commission, based on an agreement between the countries on an equal basis, it occurs within the framework of sovereignty. The political analyst's statement suggests that it must be based on mutual consent between the countries.

Question: During a meeting in Tehran, Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei openly stated that the Zangezur corridor is not in Armenia’s interests. How will Iran react if an international private company controls communications in both Armenian and Nakhchivan and Azerbaijani territories?

Answer: Iran is interested in regulating relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia, but it is not a country that can dictate its terms. If the two countries show the will for such an agreement, Iran will only be left to protest. However, there are other aspects that strengthen Iran's objections and raise doubts about the possibility of such an agreement in the future. The fact is that the world is currently at war between democracies and autocracies. In the region under consideration, Russia, Iran, and Azerbaijan, being countries ruled under a strict authoritarian regime, are seeking forms of joint resistance to the democratic waves that could come from the West. In this context, Baku itself may not be enthusiastic about opening this line for the planned creation of an authoritarian alliance in the Caucasus involving Russia, Iran, and possibly Turkey. In my opinion, postponing this issue until the distant and unlikely conclusion of peace also serves the interests of Iran and Russia. In other words, viewing Baku's removal of the demand for the "Zangezur corridor" from peace negotiations as a concession to Yerevan is a half-measure. The corridor issue was at least as much a red line for Tehran as it was for Yerevan. For the government, the primary task at the moment is not progressing towards a corridor or peace, but creating a new authoritarian alliance in the expanded Caucasus. To do this, it was necessary to consider Iran's red line.

Question: Could this be related to the statement by Russia's Security Council head Sergey Shoigu after his meeting with Ilham Aliyev, who arrived in Baku last week from Tehran, that "the West should not be allowed into the South Caucasus"? Because the corridor issue was included in the trilateral agreement. Did Shoigu mean that the West is disrupting the Russian project? What could Russia do in this case?

Answer: Of course, these issues are interconnected. Unfortunately, Baku currently aligns its regional problem-solving clock more with Russia and Iran than with the West. From this perspective, postponing the supposed agreement reached in Washington until peace is concluded not only doesn’t offer hope for its resolution, which I have repeatedly pointed out but actually serves to remove the issue from the agenda.

Question: How, in your opinion, should this issue be resolved?

Answer: There is a vast amount of international experience in resolving such issues. Political history is full of international agreements on how warring countries normalize their post-war relations. Azerbaijan and Armenia are no exception. Currently, the normalization of relations between these two countries is tied to their orientation toward different geostrategic directions. As I mentioned earlier, the world is divided into two sharp poles: democracies and autocracies. Armenia and Azerbaijan are in a difficult situation not only as historically hostile countries. At the same time, they are located on two sharp international poles: Armenia is on the front line of the democratic front, while Azerbaijan is on the front line of the autocratic front. Under such conditions, it is very difficult to reach an agreement.

Just today, I noticed a video circulating on social media. The Azerbaijani state television broadcasted the national anthem of the Irevan Turkish Republic performed by the state orchestra. Currently, the only reason preventing the signing of peace between the two countries is Armenia's territorial claims against Azerbaijan, still preserved in its constitution. Official Baku rightly insists on this issue. But, do you think broadcasting the anthem of a so-called state named after the capital of Armenia, performed by a state orchestra on Azerbaijani state television, serves peace or makes peace impossible?! In other words, the international conditions I mentioned earlier, especially the actions of the authorities on the autocratic front, dictate not the normalization of relations between the two countries but tension.