Azerbaijani MFA denounces Armenian claims of peacefulness as deceptive manipulation

Aykhan Hajizada, Spokesperson for the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry, criticized the Armenian MFA Spokesperson's claims regarding Armenia's commitment to peace.

In his commentary, Hajizada asserted that such remarks are misleading, particularly as Armenia continues to equip itself with offensive weaponry and uphold territorial claims against Azerbaijan in its constitution and legal documents, Caliber.Az reports.

"Interestingly, now the Armenian MFA Spokesperson refers to the recent decision of the Constitutional Court of Armenia on compliance of the regulations governing the joint activities of the Armenian and Azerbaijani border delimitation commissions with the Armenian constitution as a “confirmation” that their constitution “does not contain territorial claims against its neighbours,” he stated.

Hajizada noted that fact-checking this claim recalls how the Armenian side justified its constitutional court ruling regarding the conformity of protocols for normalization with Türkiye back in January 2010, when a detailed statement elaborating the grounds of its decision did not renounce the claims to so-called “Western Armenia.”

The same logic and approach were applied during the adoption of the court’s decision on September 26, 2024, regarding the regulations of the border commissions between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Although the court ruling enumerated the regions that currently belong to Armenia, it emphasized the importance of the preamble as an inalienable part of the constitution, referencing the Declaration of Independence of Armenia with its claim to territories of Azerbaijan. In the court ruling, the preamble and indirectly the Declaration of Independence were characterized as “basic principles of Armenian statehood,” noted to be immutable (unchangeable) provisions, which increases the threat emanating from Armenian claims against the territories of Azerbaijan.

Regarding the Almaty Declaration, Hajizada pointed out that the provisions concerning respect for territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders, as stipulated in the December 8, 1991 Agreement on the Creation of the CIS and the December 21, 1991, Almaty Declaration, do not address the actual borders between CIS member states or the territories included within each state. Thus, the Almaty Declaration cannot be considered a confirmation of the “good intentions” of Armenia.

It is also noted that Armenia ratified the CIS founding agreement on February 18, 1992, with reservations. Moreover, Armenia officially announced its intention to make reservations as early as December 26, 1991, when the Supreme Council of Armenia ratified the Protocol to the CIS founding agreement. Clause 10 of the Supreme Council’s decision on the ratification clearly indicates that the Republic of Armenia considered the so-called “Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh to be an independent state with the right to join the CIS.”

Following this decision, Armenia has never recognized “Nagorno-Karabakh” as part of Azerbaijan, a stance reaffirmed in the Decision of the Supreme Council on July 8, 1992, and further solidified in the Constitution of Armenia on July 5, 1995. Regardless of whether it was necessary to submit the reservation to other contracting parties or not, the reservations are part of Armenia’s legislation and cannot be denied.

Accordingly, considering the existing claim in the constitution of Armenia against the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, Armenia excluded the recognition of “Nagorno-Karabakh” as part of Azerbaijan upon joining the Almaty Declaration. Therefore, statements that Armenia recognizes the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Azerbaijan have no legal ground until Armenia amends its constitution and renounces all legal and political acts reflecting its claim to Azerbaijan.

Furthermore, given Armenia’s history of aggression against Azerbaijan, while joining the Almaty Declaration, it is time to ask for clarification on what is meant by the “recognition of each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty along the administrative borders of the former Soviet republics” for Armenia both in 1992 and now.

In this context, due to the unpredictable nature of Armenian policy, Hajizada described arguments regarding self-defence as a justification for mass militarization as both fictitious and dangerous.

Moreover, the Spokesperson noted that the Armenian MFA’s false propaganda asking to refrain from visiting Azerbaijan for COP29, claiming that Azerbaijan is using the COP29 as a “smokescreen” for alleged preparations for an attack against Armenia, is regrettable.

The logic of the Armenian side that these problems can be ignored demonstrates that this country is not interested in sustainable peace and appears to be positioning itself for potential future aggression against Azerbaijan.

Hajizada concluded by urging Armenia to refrain from contradictory statements and provocative actions, calling for respect for the norms and principles of international law through tangible actions.

By Tamilla Hasanova