"Georgian gambit" by Azerbaijan in Davos Baku no longer satisfied with "as is" situation

Within the framework of the World Economic Forum in Davos, the President of Azerbaijan was asked about the current relations of his country with Armenia while speaking at a panel devoted to the transport project of the “Middle Corridor”.

Austrian pass

Let us dare to assume that the atmosphere of distrust towards Armenia reigned a priori within the walls of Davos. This was also felt by Aliyev, prefacing his response with the following words: “ Commissioner Hahn [European Commissioner for Budget and Administration, Austrian politician Johannes Hahn] hinted at the absence of Armenia. He said that there are two countries of the South Caucasus, but there are at least three of them. I know who he meant”.

This preamble, as well as the European Commissioner’s remark quoted therein, may be worth highlighting in greater detail. After all, if you think about it, European politics have no desire to mock the weak. Rather, he could not hide his natural irritation, but by what? Is it the absence of the Armenian leader? Frankly, the presence of the Armenian Prime Minister would have caused more displeasure among the forum delegates than his absence. Well, imagine this picture: serious people gathered, discussing a serious agenda, allowing themselves to smile, joke at times, that is, the atmosphere is casual business with the spirit of sloppy luxury reigning over it. And then, like a character from an Armenian poem, a hunched unshaven man comes in with an uncertain pace and sad eyes. This is a really hard test for the business-like participants of the forum. Without criticizing the truth, it is possible to define this situation even as a problem of «excess person» in European politics.

It is possible that the Commissioner was irritated not so much by the absence of the Armenian prime minister as by Western pro-Armenian politicians. Mr Hahn started not as a career politician, but with successful activities in the sphere of business and industrial concerns. And being a representative of the strict business circles, a strong economist, Hahn, probably on an existential level, does not understand the pseudo-ideological work set up by his fellow humanists around the “rights of the Armenian people”, which form an obstacle to establishing healthy business relations with Azerbaijan. So the Austrian’s display of trolling against Pashinyan was a kind of signal of protest to the nomenklatura Euro-politicians against their hypocrisy in matters that do not tolerate ambiguity. European business circles, interested in strengthening relations with Azerbaijan against the background of its absolute right, call politicians to stop this farce as soon as possible. And, for a moment, an opaque hint towards the pro-Armenian lobby was made on the very day when the European Parliament adopted the anti-Azerbaijani resolution.

Was it possible to doubt that President Aliyev, having received this sign, would not duplicate it for those that have weak hearings?

Azerbaijani response

Having sorted out the introduction, let’s turn to the essence of the question and analyze Ilham Aliyev’s answer to the constituent parts to better understand the essence of his goals.

President Ilham Aliyev: “We have reached a deadlock because, unfortunately, Armenia has not responded to our proposal to sign a peace agreement, which will be very simple and based on the fundamental principles of international law”.

The message here is simple. We want a speedy peace, the truth is on our side, and you yourself admit it. We are not putting any obstacles in the way of peace, quite the opposite, we desire a healthy business environment for cooperation.
Next, the most interesting thing: “But why isn’t Armenia? Because Armenia has rejected our proposal with Georgia to launch a trilateral cooperation format. I appreciate the efforts of my friend, Irakli Garibashvili [Prime Minister of Georgia], who organized a meeting of the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia, which was joined by his Georgian colleague. Our proposal was to organize a meeting of leaders in Georgia, as Georgia has historically always been a place where all neighbours met”.

This part of the statement is remarkable in several respects. First, it demonstrates once again our readiness for peace negotiations and concrete steps in that direction. Against the backdrop of a chorus of screaming about the breakdown of negotiations due to activism on the Lachin road, this is especially important.

Secondly, it sets out an acceptable format for negotiations: without any patronage, by ourselves. Azerbaijan no longer wants to bear the damage of inaction from “big” mediators, whose purpose is to talk about the process and prevent peace.

And, finally, thirdly, Aliyev’s statement focuses on Georgia. The leader of Azerbaijan transmits the idea that Baku is against manipulative mediation, but not against mediation in general. There is a state in the world that we respect and that maintains good-neighbourly relations with both conflicting countries. And most importantly, this state is predominantly Christian and stands in close relations with the European Union, a state that Europeans themselves call the most European in the Caucasian triangle. That is, you can be a European and Christian state and make friends with Muslim Azerbaijan. This is how civilized societies behave. If one does not know how to do it, and someone is indulging in it, it is a problem of their intelligence and education. For those who have not yet understood the message, Aliyev concludes with the counterpoint, “But Armenia is not ready for this...”.

The result follows: “If the three Caucasian countries unite their efforts in the field of energy, transport, security, stability, and border delimitation, the region will become much safer”.

And here everything is clear and simple: if you look into what Azerbaijan says, it is a call and an opportunity to turn the South Caucasus into a safe region, and thus a reliable guarantor in providing Europe with many things - from gas to gadgets in the form of a transit territory.

What will Armenia say?

Enough has already been said, including on our website, about what peace and the unlocking of communications could bring to the South Caucasus region. This is so obvious that there is no need to dwell on it. If we speak specifically about Armenia, peace in the region will allow the Armenian state to enter new markets, attract investment, and earn money from transit. These revenues will enable the country to undertake much-needed structural economic reforms and achieve prosperity.

The only question is why Yerevan is not moving toward peace.

It must be understood that Armenian society has recently lost the war, the memory of its victims is still too vivid, and it is not easy for the ordinary consciousness to accept the idea of peace with yesterday’s perennial opponent, even if you are not a revanchist.

Secondly, even if Armenian society matures for peace, the very logic of the development of Armenian statehood, tied to external assistance, denies it the possibility of making an independent decision. Armenia became dependent not only on the strength of its protectors, but also on their weakness. Simply put, if, at some point, a conditional France acts in the South Caucasus against its interests, this action or inaction, the results of which are not very visible to France itself, causes a cascade of catastrophic consequences for Armenia. Sometimes another impression emerges: Armenia is of no special geopolitical interest to anyone, and the presence of more important agenda items to the patron countries encourages them to leave everything “as is” indefinitely. It is a closed cycle.

The inexorable growth of the power of the Azerbaijani state not so long ago, just two years ago, broke out of a similar cycle, showing that “as is” does not suit it. Nothing lasts forever, not even closed circles. When the external pressure, dictated by the need of an increasing number of players to unlock the roads of the South Caucasus, reaches a critical mass, it will wipe out not only the dreams of the (Armenian) “Miatsum” ideology, but even the very appearance of statehood of the Republic of Armenia. There is not much time left.