"Is the reason behind the scenes pressure or lack of political will for peace?’

In a region marked by decades of conflict, the prospect of peace negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia has once again captured international attention. Amidst ongoing diplomatic maneuvers and shifting dynamics, the anticipated meeting between the foreign ministers of both nations has sparked cautious optimism tempered by lingering skepticism.

Armen Grigoryan, Secretary of the Security Council of Armenia, has indicated that a discussion on a draft peace treaty will be on the agenda for the upcoming ministerial meeting. This follows the exchange of proposals between the two countries in recent years, underscoring a concerted effort to find a diplomatic resolution to the longstanding dispute.

The groundwork for this meeting was laid during a bilateral encounter between Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan in Munich, where an agreement to convene the foreign ministers was reached. However, the path to peace remains fraught with challenges, as evidenced by diverging perspectives and external pressures.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's remarks regarding "third parties" potentially impeding the peace process highlight the complex geopolitical dimensions at play. Similarly, the United States, through State Department spokesman Matthew Miller, has reiterated its support for peace efforts while acknowledging unresolved issues between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

Within Azerbaijan, opinions regarding the feasibility of a peace treaty vary. While official statements from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are awaited, voices within the ruling New Azerbaijan Party express skepticism about Armenia's commitment to genuine peace. Deputy Elshad Mirbashiroglu, in an interview with Turan, asserts that Armenia's dependence on external powers, particularly the West, complicates the negotiation process by introducing geopolitical agendas.

Contrary to this view, political commentator Arastun Orujlu offers a more pessimistic assessment, citing the history of stalled negotiations and fluctuating conditions. In an interview with Radio Azadlig, he highlights the propensity for additional demands and potential escalations, casting doubt on the likelihood of a successful peace treaty.

Indeed, the absence of direct bilateral negotiations and the influence of external mediators add layers of complexity to the peace process. While Armenian officials express interest in expediting the signing of a peace agreement, the mechanism and conditions for such negotiations remain subjects of contention.

Orujlu's skepticism underscores broader concerns about the lack of political will and underlying motivations driving the peace talks. Despite intermittent displays of willingness from both sides, the absence of sustained momentum and tangible progress raises doubts about the prospects for lasting peace.

As discussions continue and negotiations loom on the horizon, the road to peace in the South Caucasus remains fraught with uncertainty. While diplomatic overtures offer glimmers of hope, the enduring legacy of conflict and the intricacies of regional geopolitics underscore the formidable challenges ahead. Whether the anticipated meeting between Azerbaijani and Armenian foreign ministers will herald a breakthrough or merely serve as another chapter in a protracted saga remains to be seen.