By Anton Evstratov
The skirmish of the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan in the fields of international forums gives reason to make forecasts about changes in the format of the Karabakh settlement.
The words of the Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev at the Valdai Forum held in Sochi “Karabakh is Azerbaijan!”, as response to the resonant statement of the Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan “Karabakh is Armenia,”caused resonance in the society of both countries, and soon led to the development of this discussion.
So, for example, the Azerbaijani political scientist Tofig Abbasov said that with these words Aliyev “nullified” the political balance of Armenia. According to the expert, the indicators of the Russian-Azerbaijani cooperation revealed a significant advantage in favor of Baku, which means that Yerevan has lesser chances to keep Nagorno-Karabakh in its de facto jurisdiction. Gulnar Mammadzade, deputy head of the Baku Network, agrees with this point of view, according to which Aliyev’s statement was another illustration of the fact that “Armenia will not win” in the Karabakh conflict.
At the same time, the Armenian side, both in Armenia and in Nagorno-Karabakh itself, took Aliyev’s words with undisguised irony. In particular, a researcher at the Center for Caucasus Studies of the University Mesrop Mashtots Hovik Avanesov noted that this speech is nothing more than another confirmation of the anti-Armenian discourse reigning, both in domestic and foreign policy of Azerbaijan.
Moreover, the scientist said that Aliyev’s wording is a marker of Baku’s ongoing aggression against the people of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh), which is a criminal offense even from the point of view of the Criminal Code of Azerbaijan itself – in particular, its 101st article.
Also, a number of Armenian resources (for example, Infoteka24) noted that the Azerbaijani leader made a statement about Karabakh at the same time that protests were held in Baku, which were dispersed by the police. In this regard, Aliyev’s words (far from the first time) were perceived in Yerevan as a completely obvious attempt to distract the Azerbaijani society from pressing domestic problems and turn its attention to the foreign policy agenda, which can be played back with such statements, accusations and claims, if not endlessly, then a very long time.
Aliyev himself, who obviously believed that he spoke out insufficiently or not as strongly as he could in Armenia, continued the dialogue with the Armenian prime minister on the sidelines of the meeting of the CIS heads of state in Turkmen Ashgabat. There, the President of Azerbaijan accused Armenia of supporting fascism and honoring Garegin Nzhdeh as a national hero, whose monument was erected with scandal several years ago in the center of Yerevan.
These reproaching words to Armenia, should also be considered as a curtsy towards Russia, where one of of the main vectors of historical science and foreign policy is the condemnation of the crimes of German Nazism and its allies, as well as the preventing of the revival of Nazi and fascist ideas. Thus, the Azerbaijani leader made an attempt to drive a wedge into the already complicated relations between Russia and Armenia ( arrest of pro-Russian politicians – Kocharyan and others, contradictions in the Collective Security Treaty Organization, as well as the refusal of the Russian Federation to extradite the fugitive General Migran Poghosyan to Armenia, the increase in gas prices, etc.).
Instead, Aliyev made … a real gift to his opponent, Nikol Pashinyan. The latter responded harshly and categorically directly to the President of Azerbaijan, saying that Nzhdeh fought against the Turkish occupation of the Armenian lands together with Russian officers, and his death in the Vladimir prison should also not be taken as a consequence of anti-Russian acts – after all, there, as in the GULAG system in general , and many prominent Russian political, public and military figures were killed.
If we recall that it was the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918 that was an ally of the Turks and, thus, fought both against the same Nzhdeh and against Russian officers who fought on its side, it becomes obvious that historical facts were put in place by Pashinyan. However, the main consequence of the words of the Armenian prime minister was, of course, the political dividends that he received from them in his homeland, where Nzhdeh’s personality is traditionally popular.
Nikol Pashinyan was endorsed not only by his supporters, but also by part of the Armenian society, which had previously criticized him on various issues. Even the leaders of the overthrown Velvet Revolution and personally Pashinyan of the Republican Party Armen Ashotyan and Arpine Hovhannisyan noted the state thinking of the head of government. Thus, Nikol Pashinyan once again established himself as a nationwide leader.
It is worth noting that for the year and a half of his leadership in Armenia, Pashinyan has been speaking and acting more competently and confidently at major international forums, which is an eloquent demonstration of improving the professional and leadership qualities of the Armenian Prime Minister. Meanwhile, it was precisely his lack of experience as the top leader who was criticized by political opponents.
Despite the verbal skirmish mentioned, the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan were still forced to sit at the negotiating table and spend two hours behind it. The meeting in Ashgabat was held behind closed doors, so it is difficult to talk about its specific content, but after it the media appeared that the negotiation process on Karabakh could undergo some changes. For Armenia, this means, first of all, the appearance at the negotiating table of representatives of the Artsakh Republic itself, as it was until the end of the 90s. XX century.
Earlier, Russian speakers announced a change in the format of negotiations on Karabakh. So, after Pashinyan’s words mentioned in Stepanakert (“Artsakh is Armenia, that’s the point”), one of the leading Russian experts on the issues of Armenia and the South Caucasus, Modest Kolerov, accused the Armenian prime minister of the lack of thought and impudence of his statements, because they allegedly threaten to cross out all the many years of work of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs.
In this context, Kolerov had in mind that there was no such wording on the agenda of the Minsk Group and should not be, because the established principles and format would be disavowed in this way.
Summing up, it should be noted that, despite the popularity of the point of view that “Aliyev answered Pashinyan” at the Valdai Forum and the loud corresponding headlines of the media, in fact the answer was from the Armenian prime minister.
The fact is that the words of Ilham Aliyev did not bring anything of new – this is part of the official rhetoric of Baku over the past 30 years. A similar message has repeatedly sounded in much more rigid and radical formulations (up to “Irevan – an Azerbaijani city”, etc.). The words of Nikol Pashinyan are a categorical and clear answer to this kind of rhetoric.
Moreover, just the statement of the Armenian Prime Minister introduces something new into the Karabakh discourse – he was the first of the leaders of Armenia to formulate its actual position on the Karabakh issue, the one that it was originally from the time the Karabakh movement began. Armenia brought the issue of reunification to Nagorno-Karabakh up to date not accidentally – at the same time, the idea of Miatsum (Armenian “reunification”) is gaining popularity again in the territory of the most unrecognized republic. New parties are already being created with it as the main one (for example, “Tomorrow Artsakh”).
In this regard, the desire of the Armenian authorities to integrate Artsakh with Armenia even more and its reflection on the foreign policy arena is quite explainable and logical.
(The views expressed in this article belong only to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of World Geostrategic Insights)