Dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan over regional transit routes: Who is right?

Azerbaijan on Pashinyan’s article about transit routes

In Azerbaijan, there is critical commentary on Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan‘s policy article about potential transit routes through the South Caucasus, which he published on March 4 on the Armenpress website.

Azerbaijan’s official position: “Proposed routes are impractical, Armenia is just diverging attention‘

Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has responded to Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s article on transit routes.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Aykhan Hajizadeh stated that if Armenia is genuinely interested in opening regional transport links, it should not evade its obligations and must take practical steps to open communications in accordance with the new regional realities.

“It is well known that Armenia, having occupied Azerbaijan’s internationally recognized sovereign territories for nearly 30 years, and causing the blockade of Azerbaijan’s Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic, has not made a positive contribution to the real negotiation process for the opening of communications in the four years following the 44-day Patriotic War.“

The ministry’s representative emphasized that although Armenia is aware of written and signed commitments regarding transit routes linking Azerbaijan’s western regions with Nakhchivan, it has yet to fulfill them.

“Overall, Armenia putting forward proposals for essentially unnecessary, complex to execute, and practically lengthy routes serves to divert attention away from the process and obligations.”

JAMNews sought out alternative viewpoints on the issue.

Opposition believes that Pashinyan is wrong to ignore Russia’s interests and crucial question of who will control roads

Natig Jafarli: “What Pashinyan said in his article is addressed to Russia”

Chairman of the Republican Alternative Party, Natig Jafarli, believes that alongside Azerbaijan and Armenia, Russia also holds influence as a key stakeholder in the opening of transit routes and the signing of a peace agreement.

“Azerbaijan’s demands concern the rules governing how the road will operate and are entirely legitimate.

Cargo transported from Azerbaijan to Azerbaijan – that is, from mainland Azerbaijan to the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic – must transit without being inspected.

Pashinyan’s opinions in his article are addressed not only to Azerbaijan but also to the international community, including Russia.

The main issue is control over the road

Russia continues to insist that if the road is opened, it must be under its control. The Azerbaijani side is trying to convey through diplomatic channels that Armenia should address communication issues with Russia.”

The party chairman says that Azerbaijan has also stated that the peace agreement and communication issues are being discussed separately. The reason for this is to avoid obstacles in resolving both matters. Azerbaijan has demonstrated its normal and positive stance through diplomatic means.

“Azerbaijan must receive answers to its security guarantee questions”

A member of the Milli Majlis Committee on International Relations and Interparliamentary Ties, MP Elman Nasirov, says the Armenian side is not taking real steps to resolve the two unresolved points mentioned in the peace agreement.

“The absence of a third-party presence on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border and preventing such a presence remain unresolved issues. To put it more clearly, this refers to preventing the deployment of the European Union’s ‘civilian mission’ in the area.

Additionally, there are other demands Azerbaijan has made to Armenia that are not reflected in the peace agreement—one of them being the legal dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group.

Although Armenia’s Prime Minister has recently stated that he supports this idea, he has taken no concrete steps, merely expressing verbal support.”

According to the MP, one of Azerbaijan’s key demands to Armenia is the renunciation of territorial claims against Azerbaijan in its constitution. He states that since coming to power in 2018, Armenia’s Prime Minister has spoken about constitutional amendments and the adoption of a new constitution.

Now, the Armenian state wants to adopt a new constitution and likely hopes that if it does so, it will no longer have territorial claims against Azerbaijan:

“But when will this happen? When will the referendum take place? Considering that Armenia will hold parliamentary elections next year, this could happen at best in 2027. This also means that while the Armenian Prime Minister talks about peace, he does not intend to sign a peace agreement at least until 2027.

One of Azerbaijan’s demands is that there should be no third party at the Azerbaijani-Armenian border. However, Armenia has extended the mandate of the European Union’s ‘civilian mission’ until 19 February 2027. This means it has rejected one of Azerbaijan’s key conditions.”

The MP says that in this situation, the Armenian Prime Minister has no intention other than engaging in political manipulation until at least 2027, misleading the international community, creating the illusion of being interested in signing a peace agreement, and taking no actual steps in that direction.

“Azerbaijan also has a firm stance on the Zangezur Corridor issue. We will certainly ensure the construction of the Zangezur Corridor. Although we have an alternative—we can establish a land connection between mainland Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan through Iran—why should we do that? We must ensure this route passes through Armenian territory. It is only a matter of time, and Armenia will have to agree to it.

The opening of the Zangezur Corridor is as essential for Armenia as air and water, as it is the only way to lift itself out of economic blockade.

Azerbaijan’s state position is that there should be no obstacles in the Zangezur Corridor—no customs checkpoint, and Azerbaijani cargo must pass without inspection.

The transit from Azerbaijan to Azerbaijan must be ensured without hindrance. This is the firm position of Azerbaijan’s President.”

Nasirov says that Armenia has a different view and is also failing to fulfill its security commitments.

“This refers to the document signed on 10 November. According to this document, which Pashinyan himself signed, security in the Zangezur Corridor should be ensured by Russian troops. But today, Pashinyan denies this.

We will not accept Armenian police or security forces ensuring the safety of this route. Our position is firm—Armenia must take this into account, otherwise, signing a peace agreement will become difficult, communication links with Azerbaijan will not be restored, and Armenia’s borders with Turkey will remain closed.

And the biggest loser in this will be Armenia itself.”

Political context

In September 2020, the Second Karabakh War broke out between the armed forces of Azerbaijan and Armenia, lasting 44 days. As a result, Azerbaijan regained control over parts of Karabakh and seven surrounding districts.

On 19 September 2023, Azerbaijan conducted a local military operation in Karabakh. On 28 September, the separatist “President of Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh),” Samvel Shahramanyan, signed a decree dissolving the “republic,” citing the situation following 19 September 2023.

On 15 October 2023, President Ilham Aliyev declared in a speech in Khankendi that Azerbaijan had fully restored its sovereignty, the Karabakh issue was resolved, and the conflict was over.

Currently, 14 individuals are under arrest in Azerbaijan, including former separatist “presidents” of Karabakh Arkadi Ghukasyan, Bako Sahakyan, and Arayik Harutyunyan, former “foreign minister” David Babayan, “parliament speaker” Davit Ishkhanyan, and generals Levon Mnatsakanyan and Davit Manukyan. Their trial is ongoing in Baku.

However, a peace treaty between Azerbaijan and Armenia has yet to be signed.