War and Peace – Views from the South Caucasus on the prospect of a peace agreement being signed

Views from the South Caucasus on the prospect of a peace agreement being signed between Armenia and Azerbaijan

For many months one item has been at the top of the agenda in the countries of the South Caucasus and that’s the possibility and probability of a peace agreement being signed between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the near future. This is something that needs to happen, as our countries are still officially at war.

However, the topic inevitably raises questions. Why have the parties still not managed to sign a peace treaty, even though it’s almost four years since the end of the war? Who has an interest in a deal being signed and who might prefer it not to happen? What elements are involved and why?

If we look at each of the countries of the region separately, the overall picture becomes clearer. Despite previous concerns from the Armenian side, from surrounding states and from Western powers, the government in Baku has been able to demonstrate that it has no intention to attack Armenia to establish the Zangezur Corridor through Armenia’s Syunik province. Suspicions about this had been brewing for a long time, but the Azerbaijani leadership has shown persistence in pushing the peace agenda, as a result of which talks between the parties have intensified. This has even led to practical cooperation on the ground, with the demarcation of a 12-km section of the border at the point where the Qazax district meets the Tavush region.

Through its actions, Baku has signalled its desire to sign a peace treaty with Yerevan by the end of the year. Moreover, recently there have been regular hints that it might be appropriate for this to happen in Baku in November, when Azerbaijan will be hosting COP29, the prestigious global climate summit. In a word, the impression is that Azerbaijan’s objective is peace, that it is interested in peace and is taking action to achieve it.

In the opinion of numerous regional observers, the picture in Armenia is rather different. Certainly, the current government of Nikol Pashinyan also seems to profess the idea of peace and this is confirmed by Yerevan’s consent to intensifying the negotiation process and the work on the demarcation of the border. Furthermore, the rhetoric from senior leaders in Armenia demonstrates an intention to normalise relations with neighbours such as Azerbaijan and Turkey.

Yet the situation is viewed rather differently by the opposition, representing former leaders, ex-presidents Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan. Spokespeople from these camps also regularly assert that they are in favour of a peace agreement with Azerbaijan, but not at the price the current government is willing to pay. They believe that, on the path towards peace, Pashinyan’s team is making unjustifiable concessions to Azerbaijan.

Perhaps the most radical player in recent months has been the Armenian Apostolic Church (AAC). Protests have been taking place since late April, with Archbishop of Tavush, Bagrat Galstanyan, organising marches, demonstrations and rallies in different locations in Armenia. Notably, Galstanyan claimed to have received the blessing of the Catholicos of the AAC himself for these activities.

Thus the situation in Armenia appears to be that the government is focused on achieving peace while the opposition and the church have been acting in the name of war and continue to do so.

Finally, turning to the third neighbour, Georgia, no-one is likely to dispute the fact that peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan is important to both the government and the people of this country. Regardless of the regime in charge, Tbilisi has always maintained emphatically friendly relations with the two neighbouring countries, despite the difficult history between them. This is understandable. The transport and economic links in our region dictate that Georgia adopt this approach. This is why Georgia, probably more than any other country in the world, would welcome the signing of a peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan. After all, objectively speaking, peace would be very much in Georgia’s political and economic interests, since it would release the full potential of the region. This would be made possible through the restoration of all the communications links which previously existed between the three formerly allied republics of the Caucasus and the establishment of new transport and economic projects towards Turkey and Central Asia. Moreover, this economic development following the conclusion of peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan would lead to a situation where Georgia would become politically less dependent on its northern neighbour, the occupying power Russia.

Three well-known experts from the South Caucasus shared their views with Pressklub.az.

As explained by Baku Press Club director Аrif Aliyev, peace is important to Azerbaijan primarily from the point of view of the economic prospects.

“The leadership wants to turn the country into a kind of regional or even interregional trading hub. And there are objective reasons for that. At least from the perspective that, as things stand currently, access for the West to the rich natural resources of Central Asia is only possible through Azerbaijan.”

At the same time, the only overland route to the West for goods from globally important trading partner China is also through the territory of Azerbaijan. “However”, he continued, “there is one particular point about China which I learned from a European Commission official in Brussels – Beijing never invests in regions where it sees political instability or where there are unresolved conflicts. That’s why Azerbaijan is really keen to ensure a peace treaty is signed with Armenia as soon as possible.”

According to political analyst Hakob Karapetyan, Armenian society is definitely ready to move towards peace and the re-election of Nikol Pashinyan and his team in 2021 is evidence of this.

“Nevertheless, a lot of water has passed under the bridge since 2021 and people see that, after each subsequent retreat, Azerbaijan makes new demands, which exacerbates the sense of insecurity in Armenian society. I know people – public figures – who for years promoted the idea of peace and who were supporters of cooperation between Armenia and Azerbaijan at a time when the dominant view in Armenian society was that we should maintain the status quo. Today these people have a lot of questions about the peace process.

“On the other hand, the messages that periodically come from Baku remind me of the attitudes that prevailed in the Armenian political elite in the mid-1990s – to the effect that after the end of a successful war the victor should demand major concessions from their opponent in order to squeeze as much out of them as possible. We saw how that position didn’t bring peace to the region then and I don’t see why it should be any different today.”

Karapetyan believes that’s why a large proportion of Armenian society and the government it elected are striving for peace.

“As far as the crowds of protestors are concerned, it’s not necessarily the case that all these people dream of living in eternal conflict with Azerbaijan. They are very much at odds with Pashinyan’s domestic and foreign policy and are expressing their position through protest. Armenia has a rich history of street protests. Personally, I can’t remember a year when there weren’t mass demonstrations in Yerevan with one agenda or another, regardless of the external political climate. So it’s an integral part of Armenian public life.

“As for the leaders of the current movement and their rhetoric, I think they have their own internal political calculations, including in terms of clearing the field and positioning themselves for the elections in 2026. So the process between Armenia and Azerbaijan may just be a ‘media opportunity’ for them.”

Karapetyan continued: “Regarding the position of the AAC, I would say that, yes, it has traditionally played a specific role in political processes, reflecting the attitudes, broadly speaking, of a conservative and isolationist section of society. The fact that the Church is now taking part in political processes in the person of high-ranking clergy is, of course, something new, but there are nuances here too.

“Firstly, yes, Archbishop Bagrat says that he has the blessing of the Catholicos. I don’t have any reason to doubt what he says, but the fact remains that we haven’t heard any word of support from the mouth of the Catholicos himself. What’s more, just the other day the Church’s highest collegiate body issued a statement seeking, amongst other things, to distance itself from the movement led by Archbishop Bagrat.

“This could mean either that the Church and Pashinyan have reached a consensus about certain issues or that within the Church and the political forces that support it the view has taken root that the protest movement may be considered finished, at least at this stage, and that now is the time to prepare for the next phase in the internal political struggle.

“In addition to this, there are some external signals which suggest that this is a good time for both Yerevan and Baku to continue direct negotiations and to achieve tangible results – while the political will is there.”

For his part, Amiran Khevtsuryani, conflict analyst, international relations expert and professor at the Georgian Technical University, recognises that the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan was devastating and heart-breaking over many decades. He believes that attitudes towards the issue need to be considered separately – from the perspectives of the Georgian state, different political actors in Georgia and wider Georgian society.

“The Georgian state and Georgian society more broadly were always united in seeking a peaceful settlement of this conflict. And they invested great efforts to make a positive contribution, even in a small way, to this very difficult process. All the political parties in Georgia today and Georgian society as a whole have a vested interest in a final settlement of this conflict, because this is the path that will lead us together towards long-term peace and development. The end of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan could play a decisive role in the peaceful resolution of territorial issues in Georgia and so this historic process is important for us in that respect too.”

According to Khevtsuryani, the signing of a peace treaty between Azerbaijan and Armenia as soon as possible is so important because it is in the future interests not only of the two countries themselves but of the whole region.

He concluded: “Of course, we should also mention concerns about Armenia, where the active opposition is an obstructive factor in this critically important process. However, I am sure that Armenia’s discredited, revanchist opposition, which is directly controlled by the Kremlin, will not be able to halt this historic process and I believe its actions will be ineffective. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean we can relax – all three states of the South Caucasus must coordinate their actions on all the issues, including addressing political and economic questions, in order to take the greatest possible advantage of the opportunities created by the new geopolitical reality. But for this, the first priority is for the three countries to engage in intensive dialogue and to set a positive agenda.”

Rauf Orudzhev

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