"The goal is to pressure Azerbaijan into signing an incomplete peace agreement"

Armenia hopes to sign provisions of a peace agreement with Azerbaijan within the next four weeks. Armenian President Vahagn Khachaturyan told Reuters that Yerevan wants to sign the 16 provisions already agreed upon with Baku before the UN Climate Conference in Baku, scheduled for November 11-22.

Speaking at the Sustainability Conference in Hamburg, he said:
"If it were up to us, we would sign it right now, today. But we hope that sooner or later we will reach that point."

Last week, Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan stated in Warsaw that Azerbaijan lacks the "political will" to sign a peace agreement with Armenia and might be planning additional military operations against Armenia.
"For some reasons and certain calculations, they keep presenting new preconditions, and we see that Baku simply does not want to sign the document... We do not see political will from the Azerbaijani side," he said.

Mirzoyan also expressed serious concerns about Azerbaijan's potential additional military plans regarding Armenian territories:
"I can give an example. Currently, Azerbaijan is using the term 'Western Azerbaijan,' referring to Armenia's territory. We are assured that this is not a territorial claim, but unfortunately, the impression is entirely different."

The head of the Press Office of the Azerbaijani Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Aykhan Hajizadeh, dismissed Mirzoyan's statements:
"Mirzoyan made baseless comments against Azerbaijan at the Warsaw Forum."

Hajizadeh added that the Warsaw Forum aimed to incite anti-Azerbaijani sentiment, and the Armenian Foreign Minister engaged in disinformation and manipulation during his speech at the forum.

Political analyst Oktay Gasimov said in an interview with ASTNA that Armenia's statements about its readiness to sign a peace agreement are not genuine and instead are part of a broader strategy to create international pressure on Azerbaijan.

* * *

Question: Mr. Oktay, the President of Armenia, Vahagn Khachaturyan, stated that they are ready to sign a peace agreement with Azerbaijan. Is Armenia really prepared to sign the peace agreement, or is this just a bluff?

Answer: The statements made by Armenian officials about their readiness to sign a peace agreement are not sincere. These statements should be viewed as propaganda and manipulation. The intention is not to achieve peace but to create the perception that Armenia is a constructive party, thereby manipulating international public opinion and keeping pressure on Azerbaijan to change the situation in Armenia’s favor. The ongoing anti-Azerbaijani rhetoric from Armenia and its supporters in recent months indicates that this is a coordinated effort. It is worth noting the sharp increase in criticism from the United States, European institutions, and international organizations against Azerbaijan. The sudden intensification of these critiques, despite no significant changes in the human rights situation since the 1990s, raises questions. In my view, the goal is to pressure Azerbaijan into signing an incomplete peace agreement. The manipulation of the issue of Karabakh Armenians also serves this purpose.

Question: Last week, Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan claimed in Warsaw that Azerbaijan lacks the "political will" to sign a peace agreement with Armenia. How credible is this claim?

Answer: Mirzoyan's speech in Warsaw should be considered a blow to the process because it was entirely an accusation against Azerbaijan. This position should be seen as part of the aforementioned pressure campaign. Logically, a party seeking peace should avoid rhetoric that harms the process. However, in the case of Mirzoyan and the ministry he leads, we see the opposite. Recently, in various platforms, Mirzoyan has tried to accuse Azerbaijan of "ethnic cleansing." The Armenian Foreign Ministry's statement on September 19 is also detrimental to the peace process and is an unacceptable behavior. Azerbaijan's stance on the peace agreement is clear: provisions in the Armenian Constitution and other legislative acts that represent territorial claims against Azerbaijan should be abolished. Without resolving these issues, achieving lasting peace is impossible. At present, instead of demonstrating political will towards sustainable peace, Armenia is more engaged in manipulation.

Question: Mirzoyan stated that Baku has repeatedly rejected Yerevan's proposal to sign an "interim peace agreement" and that Azerbaijan continues to introduce new preconditions. Why doesn’t Azerbaijan want to sign an interim peace agreement, and what could be its conditions for signing the document?

Answer: This is simply demagoguery. A peace agreement either exists or it does not. If not all issues in the process are agreed upon, it means that the process is not complete. If real peace is desired, all issues should be agreed upon. Otherwise, suggesting to sign 80% of the agreement now and agree on the rest later is unacceptable. Who guarantees that Armenia will fulfill its promises on the remaining issues in the future? I do not believe it will. For example, the same Pashinyan, who signed the tripartite statement on November 10, now avoids fulfilling his commitments regarding the Zangezur corridor. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the promises made today will be fulfilled in the future.

It should be noted that Azerbaijan has been proposing a peace agreement based on 5 core principles to Armenia for more than 3 years. While Armenia initially accepted this proposal, it later started making amendments to it, which was an attempt to prolong the negotiation process. Particularly, the attempts to include provisions such as the "rights and security of Karabakh Armenians" in the text of the peace agreement aimed to place a separatist nest under international control, which was unacceptable. The deliberate prolongation of the process has resulted in the document undergoing its 10th revision. The fact that Armenia responded to the last revision after 70 days can also be seen as an indication of its intention to prolong the process. Moreover, Armenia seeks to sit at the negotiating table only with the involvement of mediators, which allows for external interference and prolongation of the process. Azerbaijan, on the other hand, proposes a bilateral direct negotiation format, which can be considered the most optimal option. The effectiveness of this format has already been proven. Currently, Azerbaijan's main demand is that Armenia amends its Constitution and that a joint request is made to legally terminate the activities of the OSCE Minsk Group, which Armenia is avoiding.

Question: Mirzoyan mentioned that Azerbaijan is planning new military operations against Armenia. Could this be possible?

Answer: Mirzoyan is trying to accuse Azerbaijan of premeditated actions. In reality, Armenia's current policy is based on provoking Azerbaijan into retaliatory actions by instigating incidents on the borders. The rapid armament of Armenia and the so-called "civilian" mission of the EU, which cooperates with Armenian military personnel, should be seen as indicators of potential future revenge attempts and upcoming tensions. If the obstacles to signing the peace agreement are not removed and Armenia's intensive armament continues, the possibility of military confrontation becomes real.

Question: They claim to be concerned about the term "Western Azerbaijan." Could Azerbaijan have such a plan?

Answer: Issues regarding the rights of Western Azerbaijanis have been on the agenda, in one way or another, since they were subjected to ethnic cleansing in Armenia. However, in recent years, the prominence of the term "Western Azerbaijan" is linked to Armenia's revanchist policy. The Armenian stance on mutual recognition of territorial integrity, one of the core principles of the peace agreement proposed by Azerbaijan, should be deemed unacceptable. Armenia's attempts to hinder the process by manipulating the issue of Karabakh Armenians and creating an uncontrolled gray zone in the region prompted Azerbaijan to take appropriate steps, and rightfully, this issue was brought to the negotiation table.

Question: Deputy Foreign Minister of Armenia Vahan Kostanyan stated that there is no clause in the draft Armenia-Azerbaijan peace agreement concerning the return of Azerbaijanis to Armenia. Does this mean there is no clause regarding the return of Armenians to Azerbaijan either? How should these issues be resolved?

Answer: Although this issue is not included in the document, its discussion is an undeniable fact. After the trilateral meeting in Brussels in July 2023, facilitated by EU President Charles Michel, it was evident that this issue was discussed. The same issue was reiterated during the foreign ministers' meeting in Moscow a week later. I believe that Azerbaijan’s position is that the issue should be approached comprehensively and conducted in parallel. Either both, or neither. Azerbaijan's position on Karabakh Armenians is clear: meetings have been held with their representatives, a reintegration plan has been presented, and it has been declared at the highest level that those who accept Azerbaijani citizenship and abide by its laws will be guaranteed fundamental rights. However, they voluntarily decided to relocate to Armenia instead of accepting this. In contrast, is Armenia willing to allow the return of Azerbaijanis? No. On the contrary, they claim that such a process would threaten Armenia’s security and try to prevent it. Even the Speaker of the Armenian Parliament crossed the line and suggested that we should return to Altai.

Question: What are your proposals for the swift signing of the peace agreement?

Answer: If external mediators do not interfere in the process, peace could be achieved in the region in a short period of time. Therefore, a bilateral negotiation format is necessary. However, it is difficult to say whether this will be realized. Armenia does not want to sit at the table alone with Azerbaijan under any circumstances. It believes that its position would significantly weaken in such a scenario. Therefore, it is trying to involve the US or other Western institutions in the negotiation process. This stance currently leads the process to a deadlock. To exit this deadlock, political will must be demonstrated. Will Armenia show such political will in the near future? While the probability is low, it is still possible.