Small steps to greater peace? Arsen Kharatyan and Farhad Mammadov on the negotiations between Baku and Yerevan

After almost every round of talks Armenia and Azerbaijan announce that their positions are converging. Yet the deadline for the conclusion of a peace agreement which could put an end to the conflict between the two countries is repeatedly postponed. What’s more, the negotiating process brings up new issues and demands which dampen hopes for the establishment of long-term peace in the South Caucasus. Experts have even started to talk about the possible preservation of the status quo, meaning de facto peace with no peace treaty being signed.

The negotiation process for the conclusion of a peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the factors influencing this process formed the topic of a recent discussion on CivilNet between Armenian conflict analyst Arsen Kharatyan and Azerbaijani political scientist Farhad Mammadov. It was organised as part of the ‘Line of Contact’ initiative run by the Yerevan and Baku Press Clubs. During their dialogue, the experts explored the reasons behind the points of contention between Yerevan and Baky and how they might be resolved.

The momentum of the multi-focus negotiations taking place between Armenia and Azerbaijan fluctuates. Periods of active progress are followed by delays and stagnation. The experts have diverging opinions on this fluctuating momentum and their views may be characterised by the classic ‘glass half empty or glass half full’ analogy.

Nevertheless, they are in agreement that the overall level of intensity of the negotiations remains high. A wide range of participants are involved, including almost all the relevant state institutions on both sides. Contact is happening at the level of the ministries of foreign affairs, the offices of the heads of state, the speakers of the parliaments and the security services.

These multilevel interactions are evidence of the adoption of a complex problem-solving approach, despite the difficulties that periodically arise during the negotiating process. A particular feature of the ongoing dialogue between Armenia and Azerbaijan is the absence of an exclusive intermediary. Although the USA and the EU from time to time step up their mediation efforts, this doesn’t necessarily lead to significant breakthroughs.

Farhad Mammadov notes the existence of a number of bilateral platforms where discussions are taking place about the drafting of a peace treaty, border delimitation and demarcation issues and the unblocking of transport links. He singles out two key achievements of the current bilateral format: the agreement from 7 December 2023 on freeing prisoners of war and on Armenia’s support for Azerbaijan’s bid to host the UN COP29 climate conference, and the 19 April 2024 agreement on the delimitation of a 12-km section of the border.

In both these cases the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia expressed cautious optimism about the prospects for a peaceful settlement. In one of his speeches President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev noted that, following the restoration of his country’s territorial integrity and the effective dismantling of the Nagorny Karabakh Republic, no major obstacles to a peace agreement remain. Meanwhile, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan declared that his country was willing to sign a peace treaty as soon as possible.

Farhad Mammadov would also include in the list of achievements the withdrawal of Russian peacekeepers from Nagorny Karabakh after the mass exodus of the Armenian population following Azerbaijan’s military operation in September 2023. In his opinion, this allowed Armenia to close the Russian peacekeepers’ logistics centres in the Syunik region, limiting the Russian presence in this area.

Armenian conflict analyst Arsen Kharatyan also sees the delimitation of a small section of the border as a positive step. However, despite active work on the text of the peace treaty and the existence of multiple channels of communication, Kharatyan doesn’t expect a peace agreement to be signed before the end of 2024. He calls for more openness from the governments of both countries in discussions about the draft peace agreement, suggesting that some details of the document should be disclosed to the public so that people have an idea about what sort of peace is being prepared.

“There’s no serious, detailed conversation about it in the public arena”, Kharatyan explained. As evidence of the stalling of the negotiating process he points out how much time has passed since the last meeting between the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan. They last discussed the settlement of the conflict, at the invitation of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference in February 2024.

One factor hindering the negotiation process which was mentioned by both experts is the issue of amendments to the Armenian Constitution requested by Baku. This would involve the removal from the preamble of references to the reunification of the Armenian SSR and the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast.

The experts disagree about the reasons for Azerbaijan’s insistence on amendments to the Constitution of Armenia as an essential condition for signing the peace treaty. According to the Armenian side, the draft peace agreement already contains an agreed clause committing both sides not to invoke their national legislation as justification for not fulfilling the obligations of the treaty.

Farhad Mammadov explained that Baku is concerned that Yerevan’s position might shift following a change of government in the country. He believes there is a risk that a new leadership in Armenia might have a different interpretation of the peace treaty, based on the Constitution. In addition, surveys show that there is a persistent belief in Armenian society that Nagorny Karabakh should be returned to international control and this is also a cause of disquiet for Azerbaijan.

Because of the presence in the Armenian Constitution of a clause on reunification with Nagorny Karabakh, Baku sees the potential for the Armenian side to raise the issue again at a time of its choosing. In contrast, removing this clause would be perceived as a symbolic gesture after which any return to the issue would become virtually impossible.

Arsen Kharatyan, however, believes that this question of constitutional change should not be a key condition for negotiating the peace treaty. To illustrate his view he cites the example of the reference in the Azerbaijani Constitution to ‘Musavat Azerbaijan’ and poses a rhetorical question: “Does this represent an assertion of territorial claims towards Georgia?” In his opinion, this shows that settling the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan is possible, provided both parties have the political will.

Although Kharatyan doesn’t yet see any prospect of a full peace treaty being signed, he thinks it’s probable that a roadmap including specific dates will be developed. This could be an interim stage, through which diplomatic relations could be established and the bilateral negotiation format institutionalised.

The Armenian expert also highlights the importance of discussing the issue of the Karabakh Armenians who were forced to leave their native lands in the middle of September 2023. In addition, he thinks it would be possible to look at the issue of the Azerbaijani refugees who lost their homes in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

During their discussion, the two experts identified three possible scenarios for the future development of the negotiating process:

1. the conclusion of a comprehensive peace treaty, which is unlikely in the near future;
2. the signing of a generally worded framework agreement, retaining the possibility of resolving contentious issues in the future;
3. the preservation of the status quo – de facto peace with no signing of an official treaty.

Farhad Mammadov underscores the importance of Armenia and Azerbaijan’s interdependence for ensuring stability in the region. He lists three key geopolitical outcomes from the 44-day war which should be fully implemented:

1. peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia;
2. a settlement between Armenia and Turkey;
3. the unblocking of regional communication routes.

Mammadov suggests that these goals could be reached through a step-by-step approach, emphasising the importance of independent action by Yerevan and Baku without the involvement of intermediaries which he believes could create additional obstacles.

However, Arsen Kharatyan believes that external intermediaries could play a positive role. He sees their involvement as having a stabilising effect, citing as an example Georgia’s successful mediation in the freeing of Armenian prisoners and the handover to Azerbaijan of maps showing minefields. He also highlights the importance as a stabilising factor of the EU’s civilian observer mission on the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan which has been operating since late 2022.

In conclusion, the Armenian expert agreed that in the current dynamic geopolitical situation, there is no point in investing much hope in an imminent conclusion of a comprehensive peace treaty. Instead he also recommends a tactic of ‘small steps’ towards the overall goal of a peace settlement

Translated from Russian by Heather Stacey.