Azerbaijan - Armenia: Good news on the horizon? Expert opinions on Caliber.Az

Good news about the signing of a peace agreement may be forthcoming. This was recently stated by Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan in an interview with Radio Free Europe. When asked whether negotiations are ongoing with Baku, and if so, what is known about Azerbaijan's preliminary conditions, the foreign minister replied: "Everything has already been said; at this point, there is no new information. Just as we were ready to start consultations a minute ago, we are ready now. Unfortunately, we hear different statements from the Azerbaijani side, there is no progress yet, but discussions are ongoing, and as in any negotiations, let’s be patient; perhaps good news will come in the near future."

By the way, almost at the same time, Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov told journalists: "The negotiations on the text of the peace agreement were concluded in March. However, at present, the Azerbaijani side has certain expectations from Armenia. These expectations are related to the exclusion of territorial claims to Azerbaijan from Armenia's Constitution, as well as the abolition of the OSCE Minsk Group."

How can Mirzoyan's statements be assessed against this backdrop? Are his expectations of "good news" achievable without the implementation of what Bayramov mentioned?

Well-known experts have shared their opinions on this matter with Caliber.Az.

Russian political scientist, director of the Centre for Strategic Studies of the South Caucasus countries, Yevgeny Mikhailov, stated that he does not actually expect the peace agreement to be signed soon.

"Mirzoyan’s statement that 'good news is coming soon' is unsubstantiated. One of the main obstacles is, of course, the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia. But considering that the Armenians are only thinking about raising this issue for discussion in 2027, I don’t think it's worth talking about a positive outcome during the negotiations. In other words, any negotiations without changing the Armenian Constitution will be futile. If Armenia retains a constitutional clause stating that Karabakh should be part of its territory, then what's the point of discussing any peace negotiations on this matter?

The fact that the peace agreement has been 'somewhat agreed upon'—well, yes, it's been agreed, but we’ve been hearing about this for quite some time. Again, I would compare this situation with the one between Russia and Ukraine. We say we're ready for negotiations, but there are nuances," the expert noted.

The same situation, according to him, applies to Azerbaijan and Armenia.

"Azerbaijan is ready to sign a peace agreement, but there are nuances. And the nuances are precisely that Armenia is constantly trying to put pressure on the stronger side and push its own interests, which are not substantiated by anything. Azerbaijan is a strong state, with a powerful regional economy, and a strong army, so I don’t think Baku will sign a peace agreement that deviates drastically from the preliminary agreements of 2020. For now, it's all talk.

If real changes happen, and Azerbaijan and Armenia sign a peace agreement, I will be happy about it because there will be at least some stability in the South Caucasus. But I have serious doubts. The discussions on the peace agreement have been ongoing for several years, and all the time the main trigger for contradictions, the primary factor preventing the agreement, has been the Armenian side. How things will unfold this time, I don’t know. But if Azerbaijan has questions, it means we're still far from signing the agreement," Mikhailov believes.

An expert on international affairs, the head of the political scientists' club "South Caucasus," Ilgar Velizade, stated that it is currently difficult to say anything concrete about the ongoing negotiations.

"At least, we don’t know the details. Most likely, some agreements are being worked on. At a minimum, this concerns not only the implementation of the conditions that Azerbaijan has presented to Armenia but also the location for the signing of this agreement. This is also a very important and fundamental issue. And most likely, there could be certain shifts on this matter regarding the agreement on the location itself.

Right now, we can propose various versions. The location could be the border between the two countries—a demarcated and delimited section. It could be Tbilisi, or other locations," the political scientist explained.

According to him, this is, in fact, very important because it could indicate that there is some common understanding on this issue.

"As for the conditions for signing the peace agreement, they have not changed and will not change—the Armenian constitution must be amended. I find it hard to assume that the Azerbaijani side will alter its conditions. Therefore, with a greater or lesser degree of certainty, it must be said that this condition must be fulfilled. Most likely, without it, the agreement will not be signed.

And if we’re talking about shifts, it's possible that some have occurred regarding the cessation of the activities of the OSCE Minsk Group. As we know, the Armenian side is generally not opposed to this, but it conditioned its decision by saying that the peace agreement must first be signed, and only then will it approach the OSCE Secretariat, together with Azerbaijan, to have this group cease its existence.

I believe this is not such a fundamental issue for the Armenian side, so Yerevan may agree to submit a statement together with Baku, doing so synchronously, before the peace agreement is signed.

Such shifts may be expected in the near future. At least, the cautious optimism present in the statements of the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan could indicate that it is possible to reach a consensus on these issues," concludes Velizade.