Lachin Road conundrum unwrapped Contemplations with Orkhan Amashov

In the latest edition of “Contemplations with Orkhan Amashov”, the author argues that, although the complementarity principle concerning the utilisation of the Lachin and Aghdam-Khankandi Roads, agreed between Azerbaijan and Armenia in Brussels on 15 July, is ambiguous and requires clarification, its logic tilts towards the latter’s usage for transportation of the vast majority of humanitarian supplies, with the former remaining indispensable for medical evacuations and deliveries. Mr. Amashov explains what has caused the present situation, and the objectives of the sides and alludes to a probable outcome of the conundrum. In the author’s view, so long as Azerbaijan is ready, at a moment’s notice, to provide convoys of humanitarian supplies via the Aghdam-Khankandi Road, its moral stance on the issue will remain eminently justifiable.

"The circumstances enveloping the Lachin Road situation are of some complexity. It is not a simple case. However, it should not be over-complexified. We have to understand what has caused the present state of affairs surrounding the Lachin border checkpoint, the sides' arguments, and which measures could resolve the conundrum.

So, let us try to look at the situation objectively. The Lachin Road is operational within the scope of its practicable utilisation in conformity with Azerbaijani sovereignty. What does this mean? It signals that it is open for medical evacuations and deliveries. To be precise, the border checkpoint is operational in the context of the transfer of Armenian residents of Karabakh requiring medical assistance and necessary supplies for this purpose, in both directions, through the facilitatory role of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

Baku believes that the majority of humanitarian convoys should proceed from Aghdam. Why? There was an agreement reached in Brussels on 15 July, when President Ilham Aliyev met Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan via the good offices of EU Council President Charles Michel, stressing that there should be complementarity between the Lachin and Aghdam-Khankandi Roads.

The principle in question is not set in stone, of course, and is undeniably ambiguous. Baku and Yerevan understand it differently.

In a tweet, posted on 26 July, Prime Minister Pashinyan stated that he “cannot turn a blind eye to the situation” facing the Armenians of the area and that the “360 tonnes of vitally important foodstuffs” sent to the residents of the region are “exclusively for humanitarian purposes”.

The response came from Hikmet Hajiyev, Assistant to the Azerbaijani President, stating: “As agreed in Brussels, the Aghdam-Khankandi Road is operational for delivering all kinds of goods. But not allowing to use this road, exploiting local inhabitants as a hostage and organising imitative deliveries of goods is nothing but political speculation, manipulation, and blackmailing”.

Indeed, the Aghdam-Khankandi Road is not an alternative to the Lachin Road, as yet, and this cannot be the case for the time being, as the latter is indispensable for the transfers of those in need of medical assistance. This has, so far, been ensured by Baku.

But if “complementarity” is to be put into practice, both routes should be functional. The Lachin Road is operational within a certain framework. However, the Aghdam-Khankandi Road, despite the Azerbaijani side’s expressed readiness to ensure its utilisation for the transportation of humanitarian supplies, remains regrettably unused, due to being effectively blocked by the illegal separatist entity in Karabakh.

By sending convoys of so-called ‘humanitarian’ supplies - the content of which is doubted in Baku - Yerevan wants to deliver a clear message to the world that Azerbaijan is unreasonable, aiming to “suffocate” and besiege the Armenians of Karabakh by obstructing the passage of innocuous cargo, thereby violating its obligations emanating from Article 6 of the 10 November 2020 tripartite declaration.

Let us try to understand Azerbaijan’s perspective. First of all, the Lachin Road is Azerbaijan’s sovereign territory and the establishment of the border checkpoint is in line with its sovereign rights. In addition, this is confirmed by the decision of the International Court of Justice.

According to Article 6 of the 10 November 2020 declaration, the Republic of Azerbaijan is required to “guarantee the safety of citizens, vehicles, and goods” travelling along this route in both directions. Here, there is no mention of unobstructed movement which, by the way, applies to the Zangazur route, connecting mainland Azerbaijan with Nakhchivan, referred to in Article 9.

Therefore, since Baku is the guarantor for the safety of movement along the Lachin Road, it should also be able to define its responsibilities to ensure passage is safe. In light of the incident that took place on 15 June, when a member of the Armenian Armed Forces fired at Azerbaijani soldiers during a flag-raising ceremony at the Lachin border checkpoint, and the foiled smuggling attempts via vehicles displaying emblems of the ICRC, Baku is of the opinion that there is a well-substantiated case that this constitutes a security risk and that the road in question is deemed no longer suitable for the transfer of the majority of humanitarian convoys.

Secondly, since Karabakh is Azerbaijan, the question is as to why humanitarian supplies to the area should come from Armenia and why the ICRC’s Yerevan office is playing an active role, with its Baku office being sidelined.

Thirdly, the Aghdam-Khankandi Road is ready to operate at full capacity, its logistical potential being sufficient, not to mention the absence of a security risk.

Fourthly, if the humanitarian situation in Karabakh is truly dire, then why are supplies from Aghdam blocked by the separatist junta and why is Armenia, which claims to care for the well-being of the Armenian residents of the region, not exerting pressure on the self-declared illegal entity, instead of dramatising the whole affair by demonstratively sending convoys, despite the full knowledge that this contradicts what was agreed in Brussels on 15 July and the logic of the reintegration process.

Leaving legal and logistical aspects aside, let me add that there is also a moral dimension to this. It is crucial to evaluate the way Baku treats the Armenians of Karabakh.

Due to the security risk, even if large humanitarian convoys are allowed to pass through the Lachin border checkpoint, temporary suspensions of movement will be inevitable in the future, for it is highly probable that incidents and smuggling attempts will not cease. In contrast, supplies from Aghdam could be provided regularly, with no interruptions. This will ensure stability and confidence in the future for the anxious locals.

Consequently, my conclusion is that, so long as Azerbaijan is ready, at a moment’s notice, to provide convoys of humanitarian supplies via the Aghdam-Khankandi Road, its moral stance on the issue will remain eminently justifiable."