Outcomes of the high-level meeting in Brussels and its possible influence on the course of the negotiation process between Armenia and Azerbaijan – Mikayel Zolyan & Ahmad Alili

The high-level meeting in Brussels on 5 April between Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen focused on discussion of economic and humanitarian issues in Armenia. According to official sources, it didn’t touch on the topics of security or conflict. However, it nevertheless provoked strong reactions, not only from the West’s chief adversary, Russia, but also from Azerbaijan.

Why economic and humanitarian support for Armenia from the West should be a cause of concern in Baku and how the outcomes from the Brussels summit may influence the negotiation process between Armenia and Azerbaijan were the subject of a discussion on the CivilNet channel organised as part of a joint initiative by the Yerevan and Baku Press Clubs. Political analyst and historian Mikayel Zolyan (Yerevan) and Director of the Caucasus Policy Analysis Center Ahmad Alili (Baku) shared their views.

In Brussels Nikol Pashinyan, Ursula von der Leyen and Antony Blinken agreed to further strengthen and develop their partnership, with the aim of improving Armenia’s stability. The European Union and the United States pledged financial support for Armenia totalling €270 million (over four years) and $65 million (for the 2023 fiscal year). The funding is for reforms and economic development and to address the humanitarian needs of residents of Nagorny Karabakh who came to Armenia following the mass exodus in September 2023. Judging by the communique issued at the end of the Brussels meeting, the matter of security, which is of crucial importance to Armenia due to its tense relations with neighbouring Azerbaijan, was not discussed. Nevertheless, Moscow, Baku and Ankara argue that such meetings do nothing to improve the situation in the region.

During the CivilNet discussions, Ahmad Alili noted that Azerbaijan is one of the states that objected to the meeting. Despite the fact that Antony Blinken and Ursula von der Leyen both phoned Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev prior to the talks between Armenia, the EU and the USA, seeking to reassure him that the meeting was not aimed against Azerbaijan, the comments from Baku indicate that the phone calls didn’t have much effect on the Azerbaijani position.

“Unlike Russia, which sees Armenia’s growing proximity to the EU and the USA through the prism of geopolitical competition with the West, Azerbaijan is concerned that future cooperation by Yerevan with Washington and Brussels could be directed against it. And the resources Armenia may receive as a result of this meeting might in future be used against Azerbaijan”, explained Ahmed Alili. At the same time, he conceded that the messages conveyed from President Aliyev to his European colleagues “could have had an influence on the course of events” in relation to the Brussels meeting.

Armenian political analyst Mikayel Zolyan described the expectations of the Brussels meeting as overstated. Moreover, in his opinion, in the Armenian media landscape these expectations were positive in nature, whereas in Azerbaijan and Russia they were negative. “Yet the statements made at the end of the meeting were quite restrained. Which is understandable, since when it comes to relations with the EU, nothing ever happens straight away. Instead, obviously, the conversation is about the process which some people describe as diversifying Armenia’s foreign policy but others see as the country turning towards the West.”

As Mikayel Zolyan pointed out, Armenia is effectively restructuring its security system which cannot operate in isolation from other countries and this will entail changes to socio-economic structures and foreign relations, in terms of Armenia being part of certain new integration frameworks, for example.

Zolyan suggested looking at the West’s greater involvement in the South Caucasus from a different angle. This change is something both Yerevan and Baku have regarded with apprehension to date, especially if a strengthened partnership would bring real dividends for one of the conflicting parties.

Viewed from the different perspective put forward by Zolyan, “the more the two countries are integrated into the Western political, economic, military and political systems, the more predictable they will be for each other. There will be more likelihood of building trust between our two countries and of achieving peace”. Setting out his idea, Mikayel Zolyan called on the Azerbaijani side not to see the outcomes of the Brussels meeting as a “zero sum game”.

Azerbaijani political analyst Ahmad Alili countered this by saying that it is Armenia drawing suddenly much closer to the EU and the USA that is a concern for Baku, rather than the greater involvement by the West in the region’s affairs. He noted that Azerbaijan itself cooperates quite closely with the West, especially economically, by supplying it with energy. “The question is how to respond – wait until Armenia becomes stronger economically, rebuilds its military capabilities, stakes new claims and only then take action? Why? This is really important for Azerbaijan”, Alili explained.

A comprehensive peace agreement would represent an important means of addressing the fears held by Yerevan and Baku regarding potential future claims against one another. The value of such an agreement is recognised by both sides, yet three and a half years after the second Karabakh war, they are no closer to signing it. Furthermore, the many attempts to revive the negotiation process between Yerevan and Baku, based either on the Western platform or on the Russian one, have failed to yield real results.

Meanwhile, bilateral contact in the form of ‘online diplomacy’ is ongoing, albeit not very actively. The foreign policy agencies of Armenia and Azerbaijan are continuing to work on a draft peace agreement and are engaged in exchanging comments on the document.

In addition, the bilateral commission on delimitation and border security has also resumed its work, particularly in recent months. Yerevan and Baku recently reached an agreement on local delimitation issues in Tavush Province, as a result of which the border which existed during the Soviet period will be restored and control of a number of border villages will be transferred to Azerbaijan.

At the same time, the parties have considered in some detail issues which were hampering dialogue between the two countries. These include the mutual hostility which is the legacy of the wars and the many clashes on the line of confrontation, the wounds that are still fresh in the minds of the people, the mistrust due to previous unsuccessful attempts to resolve the conflict, and the ongoing information war.

Ahmad Alili explains that the delay in the process of concluding the peace treaty is due to disagreements that lie in the details of the document. In addition to this, according to Alili, the issue currently of concern to Azerbaijan is to be found in Armenia’s Constitution, or more specifically in the preamble, which contains a reference to the provision of the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic on the reunification of Nagorny Karabakh with Armenia.

“I understand that this is a sensitive issue for the Armenian side, but Azerbaijan is concerned that in the event of a change of government in Armenia, the new administration could invoke the Constitution in order to terminate the peace treaty with Baku. In this case it wouldn’t be beneficial to Azerbaijan to sign the treaty”, explained Alili, citing as an example the controversial debate in Armenia about the legality of the Alma-Ata Declaration.

“Armenia’s chaotic position creates the impression in Baku that matters need to be resolved in such a way that no-one can come out later and say it should all be reversed”, the Azerbaijani expert added.

In contrast, in Armenia, as Mikayel Zolyan noted, there is a feeling that Baku constantly defers signing the peace agreement because it’s waiting for the geopolitical situation to change. “For example, what will be the result of the upcoming US elections? From a realpolitik perspective, it’s understandable – Baku is currently in a strong position, so it’s in no hurry to sign an agreement”, he said.

On the other hand, as he sees it, it’s also impossible to ignore the factor of the trauma caused by the first Karabakh war which influences the actions of the Azerbaijani elites.

Mikayel Zolyan summed up the situation: “In Armenia, especially since 2020, we don’t really understand quite how much Azerbaijan continues to fear us. It seems that the trauma from the first Karabakh war is so deep-seated that in Azerbaijan there is just an irrational fear of Armenia and the Armenians. So there is an exaggerated perception of the power, for instance, of the Armenian diaspora, or of the extent to which the Christian world is prepared to help the Armenians and so on. Moreover the geopolitical situation can change very quickly and dramatically.”

Translated from Russian by Heather Stacey. Read the original article here.