2024-07-18 12:08:54
Author: Elchin Alioglu
Source: Trend
US Deputy Secretary of State Uzra Zeya met with Armenian Security Council Secretary Armen Grigoryan in Yerevan and held talks. At the meeting, the strategic partnership between the USA and Armenia, the relationship between human rights and security, and the USA’s support for the democratic reform program in Armenia were discussed.
“The United States firmly supports a decent and lasting peace that will lead to unprecedented prosperity, security and integration in the region,” U. Zeya said.
A while ago, the press secretary of the US State Department, Matthew Miller, while answering the question about whether there has been any progress in the negotiation process regarding the final peace talks between Azerbaijan and Armenia, said: “An unprecedented situation is observed in the process. Both sides have come to this situation after a long journey. Every There are opportunities for an agreement that requires hard choices and radical concessions from both sides. The US President’s Administration will continue its efforts until development and progress are achieved in this process.”
In the statements of U. Zeyan and M. Miller, there is no concrete idea or sign about the negotiation process regarding the peace agreement.
What “efforts” the White House is talking about, what specific tactics – it is not said.
What do the White House members mean when they talk about the “progress achieved in the process of signing the peace agreement”? And in general, what are “difficult, fundamental concessions” for Azerbaijan and Armenia?
At first glance, this is a fairly abstract statement and quite a general statement. But it is only at first glance.
While emphasizing the “necessity of concessions”, Washington officials address Baku, not Yerevan.
Azerbaijan is very experienced in solving such verbal riddles. In the period from the 1990s to the 44-day Second Karabakh War, that is, in the 30 years when 20 percent of our territories remained under Armenian occupation, the collective West, especially the United States and France, offered Baku to acknowledge and recognize the status quo formed at that time. Describing this as a “necessary compromise, an inevitable compromise”, Washington and Paris were actually trying to make Baku agree with the Armenian occupation.
Almost the same scenario is repeating itself now. When Washington says “necessary concessions”, it most likely means the signing of the final peace agreement without making the necessary amendments and changes to eliminate the statements in the Constitution of Armenia that establish territorial claims against our country.
What do the White House and State Department mean by “development”? Armenia’s recent rapid arming, India and France’s continuous supply of offensive weapons and military equipment to Armenians in large quantities? Maybe the joint military exercises in Armenia with the USA?
U. Zeya and M. Miller did not say anything about it.
U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has repeatedly emphasized in his statements and statements that Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, border inviolability and independence are fully supported by Washington.
If so, what concessions and compromises is Washington talking about?
Official Baku addressed five conditions to Yerevan for the signing of the final peace agreement and the formation of stable stability in the South Caucasus.
Let us recall the 5 basic principles necessary for the normalization of relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia:
1. Mutual recognition of each other’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, inviolability of international borders and political independence of states;
2. Mutual confirmation of the absence of territorial claims against each other by the states and taking a legal commitment that such a claim will not be raised in the future;
3. Refrain from threatening each other’s security, threats and use of force against political independence and territorial integrity in interstate relations, as well as other situations inconsistent with the goals of the UN Charter;
4. Delimitation and demarcation of the state border, establishment of diplomatic relations;
5. Opening of transport and communications, establishment of other relevant communications and establishment of cooperation in other areas of mutual interest.
Official Baku then announced its conditions regarding the Constitution of Armenia and declared that if the Armenians do not cancel the provisions of their basic laws containing territorial claims against Azerbaijan, the peace agreement will become only a framework agreement, and the Armenians will not comply with the terms of the document. In this case, no one can guarantee that revanchism will strengthen in Armenia, that new calls for war against Azerbaijan and demands for occupation will not come up again.
The points we are talking about are simple, understandable and concrete. Azerbaijan does not intend to withdraw from these principles, ignore its interests and make any concessions to Armenia. If the collective West, that is, the USA, France and the European Union, wants to activate the process aimed at signing a peace agreement, to establish stability in our region, and most importantly, if they want Armenia’s state status to change from the current objectivity to subjectivity in global geopolitics with international law, they must take Baku’s conditions into account. On the contrary, it is a new escalation in the region, an artificial increase of tension and the strengthening of calls for war by the Armenian side with revanchism.
If the US State Department, which talks about concessions, envisages the return of Armenians from Karabakh to Azerbaijan, Baku’s position on this issue has not changed and is not changing at all. Karabakh Armenians who left Azerbaijan voluntarily (! ) and went to Armenia can return only under one condition: they accept Azerbaijani citizenship and live within the requirements of the current Constitution and legislation of the country. The opposite is impossible.
Armenians from Karabakh continuously declare that they will not accept Azerbaijani citizenship under any circumstances and that they intend to establish a separatist-terrorist regime in Khankend.
Can Azerbaijan allow the citizens of another country to live compactly in its territory as illegal migrants, as well as in a group that is trying to create armed gangs and engages in extremism? Of course not, and this is not just the position of the official Baku, but also points arising from the terms of agreements with the international documents signed by Armenia, and the principles of international law.
A new, artificial obstacle in the process of signing the peace agreement was created by the United States itself: the State Department ordered the “independent investigation” of “Freedom House” and a number of non-governmental organizations regarding Karabakh Armenians, and the work was carried out under the control of the White House.
“Freedom House” and other international NGOs published a report accusing Azerbaijan of “ethnic cleansing”, “crimes against humanity” and “war crimes”. “Why are there no Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh?” A special report was published. The document states that, apart from this organization, other international NGOs also participated in the preparation of the report: “Open Society Foundations”, “International Partnership for Human Rights”, Ukrainian NGO that prepared the questions. “Truth Hounds”, “Democracy Development Foundation”, “Helsinki Citizens Assembly”, “Protection of Rights without Borders” NGO, “Development of Law and Protection Foundation” (Law Development and Protections Foundation).
Let’s take a look at just one quote from the report: “A combined analysis of the actions and rhetoric of the Azerbaijani authorities and what happened to the ethnic Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh provides logical grounds for concluding that their forced migration from Karabakh was deliberate. The evidence points to the existence of a coordinated, long-term plan aimed at clearing Nagorno-Karabakh of its ethnic Armenian population. Accordingly, the documented actions of Azerbaijan meet the criteria of ethnic cleansing understood in the context of the former Yugoslav conflict: extrajudicial executions, torture, arbitrary arrests and detentions, restriction of access to food and life-saving medicines, forced removal and deportation of civilians. carried out through deliberate military attacks or threats of attack on the civilian population and civilian areas and the destruction of property.The fact-finding mission found that these actions, as well as the other acts described in this summary, are in violation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, including Article 7 of that Statute ( crimes against humanity) and articles 8 (war crimes), as well as the concept of deportation or forcible transfer of population”.
There is no doubt that the report was prepared under the direct instructions and order of the US State Department: this is not an assumption, but a conclusion reached as a result of the analysis of Washington’s policy and position regarding the South Caucasus region in recent months.
It is also assumed that the process is under the direct control of James O’Brien, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. It is enough to recall O’Brien’s speech at the hearings in Congress in November 2023 and what he said in an interview with the Armenia service of “Azadlig” radio in June of this year.
The mentioned report was later prepared as one of the sources to be used against Azerbaijan in various courts, international organizations and legislative bodies.
In this case, the official Baku can make the necessary changes to the Constitution of Armenia, as well as stop the preparation of reports with subjective, biased and one-sided investigations about Karabakh Armenians, and request that the State Department stop financing and managing this activity.
As for the process of signing the peace agreement, Baku and Yerevan can solve the problem even without the intervention of those trying to mediate.