Opinion from Baku: "Armenia's 6 responses to 5 proposals of Azerbaijan - what to expect next?"
Armenia adds six principles for peace talks
Yerevan responded to the five principles proposed by Baku for the start of peace negotiations with six of its own. Armenia agrees with the principles put forward by Azerbaijan, but considered it necessary to add to them the issue of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, which was not mentioned in the proposals from Baku. What to expect in such a scenario? According to political observer Agshin Kerimov, Armenia’s response is not fundamentally directed against the interests of Azerbaijan.
- Opinion from Baku: “Moscow is against bilateral negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia”
- “Peace agenda is not an agenda of defeat” – position of Armenian authorities on status of NK
- Legendary city 30 years later: a trip to Karabakh
Secretary of the Security Council of Armenia Armen Grigoryan stated that Armenia added a six more principles to the five that have already been put forward by Azerbaijan for the start of peace negotiations and adopted by official Yerevan. One of the points concerns the status of Nagorno-Karabakh.
According to Azerbaijani political observer Agshin Kerimov, Armenia’s response is not fundamentally directed against the interests of Azerbaijan.
“Apparently, the maps referred to by Azerbaijan in connection with the start of the process of delimitation and demarcation of the borders between the two states were accepted by Yerevan. Because Grigoryan noted in his speech that all the maps and historical facts are known and Azerbaijan can also get acquainted with them.
Of course, Grigoryan may be referring to distorted maps that are a product of the Armenian propaganda, but the fact that he used the word “everything” gives Azerbaijan great room for maneuvering during the negotiations.
Armenia announces that it recognizes the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Armen Grigoryan himself refers to the mutual recognition of the territorial integrity of the two countries within the framework of the CIS in 1992”, Kerimov says.
The political observer notes that one cannot but notice the efforts of Yerevan to put the issue of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh on the agenda, but “this time this issue is presented in a slightly different form”:
“Grigoryan speaks about the need to ensure the rights and security of the Armenians living in Karabakh, and sort of takes the issue of status to the background. But such a setting gives reason to say that Yerevan is still trying to catch fish in troubled waters. In fact, these statements can also be regarded as a method of playing on the internal audience. Under the current conditions, reassuring the people in the country is also on the agenda of the Armenian government.
Azerbaijan has repeatedly stated that it recognizes all the rights of the Karabakh Armenians under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan, and Grigoryan’s statement can in no way be reclassified as a thesis directed against the interests of Baku.
Despite all this, the Armenian proposal seems more like a question in the context of rights and security than a question of territorial conflict. This clearly shows that the authorities in Armenia began to adequately assess the existing realities.
Everyone, including Armenia, is well aware that Azerbaijan will not return to discussing the issue of status. Moreover, the entire territory of Karabakh has already found its reflection in the legal system of the country – it is divided into East Zangezur and Karabakh economic regions.
This, by the way, is based on international law, which recognizes the territorial-administrative system under the jurisdiction of the country that owns the same territory. In other words, such a territorial division does not contradict the principles of international law.
On the other hand, the balance of power in the region is far from parity, and any manifestation of revanchism is inappropriate.
There remains the issue of enclaves between the countries, which will become relevant in the course of peace negotiations, and will be resolved on the basis of their principles”.