Armenian PM's empty rhetoric against upcoming Washington talks Yerevan says one thing, does another

Expressing his opinion on the agenda of the upcoming talks of the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers in Washington, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said that Yerevan's position remained the same and that every effort should be made to achieve peace and sign a peace treaty.

It is noteworthy that during their previous talks in early May, which were also held in Washington, the ministers met twice with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and the American side saw the results of those talks as significant progress of the two countries on the way to signing a peace agreement.

Whether significant or not, it has to be recognised that there has indeed been some progress, but unfortunately, it has not been followed up in practice, as has been the case many times before.

This time too, Pashinyan's traditionally pathos-filled rhetoric about "the need for a peace agreement and peace in the region as a whole" does not inspire much confidence and, as always, is purely declarative in nature. The actions of the Armenian leadership, alas, often radically contradict their statements.

How can one trust Yerevan's assurances of commitment to peace when provocations by the Armenian military on the border continue? The ceasefire is violated almost daily, and lies about "ethnic cleansing" allegedly planned by Baku against Armenians in Karabakh remain the "main argument" in the rhetoric of Armenian figures.

This time, according to Pashinyan, Yerevan intends to demand to "unblock the Lachin corridor" and "ensure the rights and security of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh” at the US negotiating table.

"The decision of the International Court of Justice of February 22 to unblock the Lachin corridor must be implemented, and this is a matter of international agenda, including the UN Security Council, as it is the body authorised to enforce the decisions of the court. The international mechanism of the Baku-Stepanakert [Khankandi] dialogue must be involved, within which the rights and security issues of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh will be solved," the Armenian prime minister stated.

That is, as evidenced by Pashinyan's latest, very recent statements, Armenia's position really has not changed - the Armenian authorities still intend to prevent progress in the negotiations and the conclusion of peace with Baku. This means that at a meeting in Washington between Ararat Mirzoyan and his Azerbaijani counterpart Jeyhun Bayramov, the Armenian minister will once again voice those notorious demands about the Lachin checkpoint and the safety of the "unfortunate Karabakh Armenians”.

So, there is probably no point in counting on any progress towards peace. At least not this time and not with such an attitude on the part of the Armenian side.

Obviously, during all the time of the Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations on three different platforms - in Moscow, Brussels and Washington - Armenia has not made the correct conclusions and continues to demonstrate its obstinacy, aimed primarily at torpedoing both the negotiations and the peace agreement.

In support of this policy, Armenia carries out a large-scale information war against Azerbaijan, operating with information that does not correspond to reality in order to smear the country and mislead the international community. This is also evidenced by the heartbreaking propaganda articles in the Yerevan media with loud and provocative headlines about Baku's alleged "humanitarian blockade" and its consequences for the Armenians of Karabakh.

Meanwhile, given that Armenia does not officially dispute Karabakh's belonging to Azerbaijan, the rhetoric about the "blockade of the Lachin corridor" looks foolish, to say the least. That is, on the one hand, Pashinyan talks about the recognition of Karabakh as a part of Azerbaijan, but, on the other hand, issues of "rights and security of Karabakh Armenians" are on the agenda of Yerevan, contrary to the principles of international law.

First of all, this is contrary to the principles of international law. And secondly, as for the use of so-called international mechanisms of dialogue between Baku and Karabakh Armenians, on which the Armenian side is so insistent, it is also nothing but Armenia’s interference in Azerbaijan’s internal affairs.

So, a repetition for those who haven't heard or understood the warning: Baku doesn't need an order from the outside and doesn't intend to speak with the proxies, say, in the person of Ruben Vardanyan or other separatists, but can conduct a dialogue directly with the representatives of the Armenian population of Karabakh, in its native territory and within the framework of the Azerbaijani Constitution.

Hence, despite Yerevan’s efforts, Azerbaijan will deal with the problem only through dialogue, i.e., out of the framework of the negotiation process, be it in Washington, Moscow or Brussels. Moreover, the main and indisputable argument of Baku is that its position does not contradict the laws of international law, and is therefore fully legitimate.

So, before groundless claims to Azerbaijan, Armenia should thoroughly get acquainted with the articles of international law, which it used to violate during all years of occupation of foreign territories.

And one more point. During the government conversation in question, Pashinyan stressed that Armenia had proposed to Azerbaijan to hold a commission meeting on border demarcation and security between the two countries, assuring that there was a willingness in principle on its part to do so.

"Armenia is also ready to unblock the region's transport economic routes based on the principles of sovereignty, jurisdiction and reciprocity of the parties," Pashinyan said.

But given the Armenian side's subsequent pretentious attitude, the possibility of advancing this issue, at least on the Washington negotiating platform, does not inspire optimism. And the Armenian prime minister's maxims are at odds with the US' main thesis, which states that direct dialogue between Baku and Yerevan is the key to solving problems and achieving a lasting and dignified peace, and makes this possibility even more remote.