Armenian media is spreading information that a secret draft of a peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan has been drawn up at the instigation of the U.S
It is known for sure that special representatives of Yerevan and Baku are negotiating. If information on the content of the secret document is correct, the agreement can jeopardize Russia’s position in the South Caucasus. And ruin Armenia itself.
The scandal developed after Armenian Security Council Secretary Armen Grigoryan visited Washington, D.C., during a September 27 meeting with Presidential envoy Hikmet Hajiyev. The meeting was mediated by Jake Sullivan, the US president’s national security advisor. Before that, Grigoryan visited the CIA headquarters in Langley.
This was not Grigoryan’s first meeting with Hajiyev. Since the end of the last Karabakh war it is the only permanent channel of real negotiations between the leaders of the two countries. Grigoryan and Hajiyev have previously met in Brussels and the topics discussed are the same.
Firstly, mutual recognition of the territorial integrity of the two countries. Secondly, the delimitation of the border. Thirdly, the actual opening of what in Azerbaijan is called the ‘Zangezur corridor’ (in Armenia it is customary to say ‘Armenian crossroads’) – the construction of routes bypassing Lachin to Karabakh and from Azerbaijan to Nakhichevan. At the same time Grigoryan and Hajiyev are working on the possibility of a personal meeting between Nikol Pashinyan and Ilham Aliyev.
These talks are shrouded in secrecy. Grigoryan is uttering phrases so general that even the subject of the talks is not always clear from his words. Hajiyev is more precise in his formulations. In general, the positions of the sides are the following. Preliminary talks are necessary in order to approach the writing and signing of a large peace treaty, on which both sides agree. Yerevan maintains that the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan has already been recognised by Armenia in 1991 and is enshrined in law. If there is a need to do it again, please do so. But it should be about guaranteeing the security of Karabakh Armenians.
The issue of Nagorno-Karabakh’s status is removed from the negotiation process altogether. The Armenian side believes that the issue of border delimitation should be resolved first, without which there is no point in signing a peace agreement with Azerbaijan. Disputes over the border will always give rise to new military actions. The Azerbaijani side generally agrees with this, but insists that Yerevan should fulfil its obligations on the transport corridor to Nakhichevan as soon as possible. Overall, this is great progress in the negotiations, since the sides started with mutual ultimatums in January this year.
The Armenian side and Grigoryan do not personally give any explanations on the course of the negotiations. Nevertheless, the withdrawal of the Karabakh status issue from the negotiation process is causing a wave of negative emotions in Armenia. Commentators loyal to Pashinian and his team remind that this is the usual practice for this kind of negotiations and similar conflicts. The most difficult issue is left until better times. This does not always work in a strategic perspective, but it allows the issue of war and peace to be resolved, at least for the time being.
However, a less loyal part of society to Pashinian believes that Karabakh is in fact surrendered in this way in Yerevan. This is an emotional stance, linked to the tragic outcome of the last war; moreover, Yerevan has put itself in this awkward position by diplomatically distancing itself from Nagorno-Karabakh for almost 30 years. Now the Nagorny Karabakh Republic has actually lost its sovereignty and needs assistance, but “mother” Armenia continues to pursue a policy of Stepanakert’s independence. While the Nagorny Karabakh Republic may find itself completely outside the diplomatic sphere as a result of the signing of a peace treaty between Yerevan and Baku. The fate of Armenians living in Karabakh will be left entirely to the goodwill of Azerbaijan.
In other words, on the one hand, withdrawing the question of Karabakh’s status from the negotiation process seems to be a common diplomatic practice. On the other hand, ignoring Karabakh at all during the signing of the great treaty and after the delimitation of borders will lead to the loss of any legal basis for the existence of Karabakh Armenians’ autonomy, if not independence.
The Azerbaijani side is negotiating from a position of strength. As soon as Yerevan’s behaviour is found to be intransigent, the Azerbaijani tanks start firing up their engines. The last meeting between Grigoryan and Hajiyev in Washington was planned back in the summer, but something went wrong. Baku first postponed the meeting and then there was a new local conflict in Zangezur just on the ground of Armenian side’s default on commitments to build a new highway.
Conspiracy is booming in Armenia on this basis. A number of Armenian media outlets have leaked the contents of what exactly a draft peace agreement (the so-called Washington document) is being prepared between Armenia and Azerbaijan at the instigation of the United States.
The essence of the leak is that Pashinyan may publicly announce his readiness to sign a big agreement with Baku and finalize the delimitation of borders in the coming weeks. Karabakh’s status is withdrawn from the negotiation process, which means that Baku can appoint a certain “representative to work with a similar representative of the Armenian ethnic community of Nagorno-Karabakh to discuss the rights and security of the residents of Nagorno-Karabakh”.
Thus, the Karabakh Armenian community becomes legally one of several national minority communities of Azerbaijan and nothing more.
The authors of the text mention Lankaran, which is home to the Talysh, considered a national minority, as a comparable counterpart to the future of Karabakh. Accordingly, there will be no international obligations on Baku towards Stepanakert and the Armenian population of NKR.
Moreover, at any moment Baku can break off these negotiations as a failure and close the story altogether, because there will be no diplomatic and legal basis for further negotiations on Karabakh. Karabakh becomes ordinary territory of Azerbaijan with no special status. By doing so, the Armenian issue will be closed.
The paraphrase of the ‘Washington document’ claims that the sides, i.e. Yerevan and Baku, “will jointly discuss the role of international observers without prejudice to Azerbaijani sovereignty”. In fact, this could lead to a demand for the withdrawal of the Russian peacekeeping contingent for lack of need, as there is no such subject of protection – the NKR or even the Armenian ethnic community. This could then have a domino effect on Armenia’s withdrawal from the CSTO (Yerevan has already refused to participate in joint exercises in Kazakhstan) and the liquidation of the Russian military base in Gyumri as unnecessary.
The security of the Karabakh Armenians is out of the question under such an arrangement. The Western mediators (Washington and Brussels) are believed to be “closing history” and eliminating Russia’s real presence in the South Caucasus while all attention is focused on Ukraine.
There are reports that Washington and Brussels are pushing Yerevan to conclude the sought-after “grand” agreement before the end of this year, which is surprisingly quick for this kind of negotiation. On the other hand, Pashinian has repeatedly promised the Armenian people that Karabakh will remain Armenian and that friendship with Russia is as enduring as Mount Ararat. But the implementation of the scenario described above can lead to Armenia and the Armenian people being left alone with Azerbaijan and Turkey. This would put the very existence of the Armenian state in question.
Yevgeny Krutikov, Vzglyad