Armenia and Azerbaijan agree to exchange minefield maps with detainees: wider picture
- Maria Jagodzińska
- 7 lip 2021
- 5 minut(y) czytania
Zaktualizowano: 2 maj 2022
On the 12th of June, Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced a deal reached with Armenia that considered the release of 15 Armenian detainees in exchange for the map of 97,000 anti-tank and anti-personnel mines planted by occupying Armenian forces in Azerbaijan’s Aghdam region during the last 30 years. Accordingly, the exchange took place on the Azerbaijan-Georgia border with the participation of Georgian representatives. It is to be noted that the Armenian side never acknowledged the existence of mine maps and went even further to blame Azerbaijan for misleading the international community by creating a fake agenda on this issue. Referring to interviews with officials in Yerevan and Khankendi (Stepanakert), the International Crisis Group claimed that there are no such maps in its latest report on Karabakh in early June. However, according to Armenia’s acting Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, those maps not only exist but the ones handed over to Azerbaijan were only a fraction of the total number of maps Armenia has. Pashinyan claimed that Yerevan is ready for further discussions with regard to similar exchanges in the future.
Azerbaijan regards the conflict with Armenia as ended for good after the signing of a comprehensive agreement on November 10th in 2020 and expects all parties interested in peace and stability in the region to actively contribute to the post-conflict reconciliation process. But the latest developments in Armenia indicate that achieving sustainable peace will be difficult at least in the short term as the major political forces strive for reanimating the conflict rhetoric for political purposes. Both the incumbent regime and opposition figures such as the former president Robert Kocharyan present the November 10 deal as a temporary ceasefire agreement before the inevitable next war that would hypothetically restore Armenia’s control over the territories Azerbaijan regained in 2020. Comprehensive efforts by both local actors and international mediators to create a new framework of negotiations for the future of the region has become hostage to diversionary moves of Armenian politicians. Azerbaijan on many occasions declared its willingness to cooperate on newly emerging issues ranging from the mine maps to the border demarcation and delimitation but Armenia still refuses to reciprocate that puts further strains on the already fragile reconciliation process.
What made the June 12th statement more interesting was the attention it garnered in foreign media and diplomatic circles as soon as it was published. To begin with, Azerbaijan hailed the role of Georgia, the United States, the EU, and the Swedish Chairmanship of the OSCE in brokering the agreement with Armenia. “We appreciate the support of the Georgian government headed by the Prime Minister of Georgia Irakli Garibashvili for the implementation of this humanitarian action. At the same time, we especially note the mediating role, first of all, of the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Philip Reeker, President of the European Council Charles Michel, and the Swedish Chairmanship of the OSCE for their contribution to the process”, the statement said. Taking into account that Georgia and the Western countries have been mostly sidelined in the Karabakh negotiations after the war in 2020, Azerbaijan’s pivot to the West to solve the minefield maps impasse has been a significant development in this regard.
In his part, Georgia’s Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili stated that he was proud of the role Georgia played in coordination with its strategic partner - the United States - to facilitate the exchange process between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Georgia has historically been one of Azerbaijan’s closest partners in the international arena and provided it vital access to global markets, hence alleviating the burdens of being landlocked in a geo-economically volatile region. At the same time, being part of the Azerbaijani-proposed regional energy and connectivity projects, Georgia gained significant economic benefits and emerged to be a crucial transit hub in the region. Economic interdependence and functional cooperation has had a spill-over effect to other policy areas as the two countries agreed to solve certain political and economic disagreements through negotiations. It should come as no surprise that in post-Karabakh War realities, Azerbaijan is interested in repeating a similar success scenario with Armenia and plans to tap into the huge potential of trilateral cooperation for building sustainable peace in the South Caucasus. Recently, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev noted that Azerbaijan is ready for cooperation with Armenia within the trilateral format with Georgia.
When it comes to the major power centers in the West - the US and the EU - Azerbaijan hopes that they will play a more active role in the post-conflict development and reconstruction. Reeker’s recent visit to Armenia and Azerbaijan just before the announcement of the deal shows that the US is keen on playing a proactive role in regional affairs. Reacting to Azerbaijani MFA’s announcement, Antony Blinken, the US Secretary of State, wrote on Twitter that “the US welcomes the release by Azerbaijan of 15 Armenian detainees. We are grateful to the Government of Georgia for its vital role facilitating discussions between the sides. Such steps will bring the people of the region closer to the peaceful future they deserve”. Although he omitted the issue of landmines in his remarks, prompting criticism for a biased approach, the US State Department statement did welcome Armenia’s decision to share information on landmines with Azerbaijan.
The EU also gradually increases its efforts to engage with the South Caucasian countries more actively, bolstering their resilience against internal and external challenges. It was best illustrated in Brussels’ successful mediation between Georgia’s political parties to end the long-standing electoral crisis. In the case of Karabakh, the EU provided 6.9 million Euros humanitarian support to address the needs of the most vulnerable people affected by the conflict. In May, Brussels mobilized an additional contribution of 10 million Euros in humanitarian relief to provide livelihoods so that conflict-affected people can rebuild their lives. Commenting on Azerbaijani MFA’s recent statement, President of the European Council, Charles Michel applauded Azerbaijan’s and Armenia’s parallel humanitarian gestures and reiterated that the EU will continue to offer assistance to enhance progress. Josep Borrell, High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy said that the EU will support stabilization and confidence building measures in Karabakh and called on Armenia and Azerbaijan “to re-engage in substantive negotiations under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs”. Although Azerbaijan expressed its readiness to continue discussions within the Minsk Group format, it expects the EU to play a more active role in the future negotiations. Baku has a strategic partnership agreement with 9 EU member states and is currently working on a new framework agreement that will upgrade bilateral relations to a new level. Strategic energy partnership with the EU has been the key node of Azerbaijan’s economic statecraft and it helps Baku to follow independent foreign policy in a restrictive geopolitical environment. In this context, Russia’s exclusion from the June 12th exchange shows Azerbaijan’s concerns about the Kremlin’s hegemonic ambitions in the region in general and in Karabakh in particular. The EU understands that it is vitally important to adapt its position to the new regional realities and therefore, it is high time for Azerbaijan and its Western partners to use recent success on the Armenia-Azerbaijan agreement to further extend it to the other policy areas that would balance negative influences and contribute to peace and stability in the region.
Sources:
Comments