Armenia’s corridor games Does Pashinyan’s signature mean nothing?

“Cargo passing through Armenia from Azerbaijan will be subject to control, just like at any other border. If we’re talking about unblocking [communications], opening borders, then we simply need to be prepared for various scenarios. We have the necessary equipment and tools that will allow us to adapt to any scenario and carry out our customs duties,” said Eduard Hakobyan, Chairman of Armenia’s State Revenue Committee (SRC), according to Armenian media.

He did not provide details about Armenia’s proposed “simplified” transit of goods from Azerbaijan’s western regions to Nakhchivan, noting that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have already disclosed all publicly shareable information.

A brief remark is warranted here: Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan is a striking example of a politician who, with complete sincerity, often contradicts himself. He was the one proclaiming in the formerly occupied city of Khankendi that “Karabakh is Armenia, period,” yet now regularly affirms full recognition of Azerbaijan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. There are numerous other instances of how easily and quickly he has flip-flopped, alternating between the roles of a “hawk” and a “dove of peace.” Therefore, taking his statements as absolute truth is, to say the least, unwise and even somewhat laughable.

All the more so since the Prime Minister is now deeply embroiled in a conflict with the Armenian Church and frequently criticises the Catholicos of All Armenians, Garegin II, accusing him of breaking his vow of celibacy and fathering a child. Trying to distract him from such scandals by reminding him of the contradictory statements he once made, as Eduard Hakobyan did, is hardly a humane or constructive approach. In this context, we feel compelled to remind the head of Armenia’s State Revenue Committee of a few important facts.

First, regarding the unblocking of communications and restoration of transport links in the region, such attitudes do not signal a step toward peace but rather serve as provocation—nothing less. This concerns primarily the routes connecting mainland Azerbaijan with the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. According to the trilateral statement signed on November 10, 2020, Yerevan committed to ensuring the free movement of goods and people between Azerbaijan’s western regions and Nakhchivan. That very document bears the signature of Pashinyan—the same leader referenced by the chairman of Armenia’s SRC—whose position here clearly reflects official Yerevan’s refusal to pursue a constructive path forward.

It is crucial to understand that the proposal for Armenian customs control over Azerbaijani cargo is far more than a mere bureaucratic formality. It represents an attempt to impose the status of an international border on a route that, in reality, constitutes internal transit within a single sovereign state.

This approach is unacceptable from legal, political, and practical perspectives. Customs control involves data collection, potential inspections, delays, and—most importantly—implies recognition of jurisdiction. By insisting on such control, Armenia is seeking to use the route as a political and economic lever, violating the fundamental principles of Azerbaijan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Hakobyan’s statement about being “prepared for various scenarios” only confirms that Yerevan has no real intention of fulfilling its obligations. Instead, it sees the border opening as an opportunity to impose new conditions on Azerbaijan. This rhetoric is not aimed at de-escalation but at sabotage. Rather than serving as a bridge for peace and regional integration, Armenia risks once again becoming a source of escalating tensions.

Azerbaijan has repeatedly expressed its readiness to ensure the security and transparency of transportation between Nakhchivan and the rest of the country through international monitoring mechanisms—without any Armenian interference or control. This is a balanced approach that excludes political speculation and guarantees stability.

But, as we see, this is yet another clear example of blatant duplicity by official Yerevan. This comes shortly after Nikol Pashinyan himself congratulated Azerbaijan on Gurban Bayrami (Eid al-Adha) and “wishing peace and prosperity to our countries and peoples”! Such statements only highlight the hypocrisy of the current Armenian leadership—neither the first nor likely the last.

All of this once again proves one thing: the words of official Yerevan cannot be trusted. However, holding them accountable to their commitments is both possible and necessary.