How The West Can Leverage Azeri Influence

Kyiv Post, Ukraine
Feb 10 2022

In the late 1990s, the former Carter administration Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, characterised Azerbaijan and Ukraine as “geopolitical pivots” that were key nodes of regional power configuration, due to their strategic location on the post-Cold War European fault lines.

Today’s developments in and around the borders of these countries show they still continue to play a pivotal role in regional geopolitics, especially in the context of deterioration of the post-Cold War European security system. As Brzezinski argued, the future of Azerbaijan and Ukraine will be crucial in defining what Russia might or might not become, and thus the West ought to seek closer engagement with these two Eastern Partnership countries.

However, the Biden administration’s recent unbalanced approach to Armenia, a Russian ally, and Azerbaijan cast a shadow on the U.S.’ strategic partnership with the latter.

The American President’s invitation to Armenia to participate in the Summit for Democracy last December, while omitting Azerbaijan and Turkey, was viewed as a needless gesture at a time of a deepening security crisis in Europe, with Russia putting forward claims to spheres of influence and the West refusing to accept it. At the same time, U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s meeting with his Armenian counterpart Armen Grigoryan in Washington on December 15, to discuss developments on the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, provoked Baku’s ire as the Azerbaijani side was not offered a similar opportunity.

President Aliyev said pro-Armenian bias in Washington’s South Caucasus policy is its own business, but it could have repercussions for bilateral relations with Azerbaijan.  

A month later, ironically, it was Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan who jumped on the Russian bandwagon to send troops to Kazakhstan, as part of the Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) mission to clamp down on anti-government protests in major cities.

It should be noted that Pashinyan, who took power on the back of popular protests in 2018, characterised the civil unrest in Kazakhstan as externally orchestrated. According to Armenia’s leader, the unrest was sufficient to trigger Article 4 of the CSTO charter on mutual assistance.

By contributing to Russia’s efforts to prop up an authoritarian regime in the neighbourhood, Yerevan, on the one hand, showed its cards in the deepening divide between the democratic West and authoritarian Russia. As part of this “Holy Alliance” with Russia and Belarus, Armenia showed the lengths to which it is willing to go to preserve authoritarian stability in CSTO countries.

On the other hand, Armenia’s close involvement in the Central Asian nation – dubbed as ‘a mere pawn in Russia’s Kazakhstan strategy’ – amounted to nothing less than to serve Moscow’s neo-imperial ambitions in the post-Soviet space, that recently became much clearer in the Kremlin’s ultimatum to the U.S. and NATO.

Yerevan`s support to the Kremlin`s overseas adventures is not new: back in February 2019, the Armenian side dispatched military servicemen, as part of the broad Russian engagement, to Syria. Usually ignored by Western observers, that move, too, happened under Pashinyan, whose coming to power in 2018 was generally hailed as a new, more pro-Western and less pro-Russian direction in Armenia`s foreign policy.

Compared to Armenia, Azerbaijan’s Russia policy has so far been more nuanced, giving it a bigger margin of error with regard to its dealings with the northern neighbour.

With a relatively strong economy and multifaceted alliances, Baku proactively participates in the geopolitical transformation of the wider Black Sea-Caspian Sea basin, where its arch-ally Turkey has also recently been shoring up its economic and military profile.

In an interview to local TV on January 12, President Aliyev, hinting at Russia’s notorious security proposals, claimed Azerbaijan, based on its own strength, is ready for any possibilities in case the current international relations system collapses.

Two days later, amid growing tensions around Ukraine’s borders, he visited Kyiv on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of its independence and met with his counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky. In a joint statement after the meeting, the two leaders expressed mutual support on matters of sovereignty and territorial integrity and that both would work to protect their internationally recognized borders.

In this context, Azerbaijan’s calculated support to Ukraine gained a new meaning as the other pro-Western in-between countries, especially Georgia, has largely laid low amid the increasing uncertainty around Ukraine’s borders. Except for Foreign Minister David Zalkaliani’s tweet expressing solidarity with Kyiv, Georgian leadership has so far shied away from open support to Ukraine’s cause.

The resolution adopted by the Georgian Parliament on February 1 interestingly omitted “Russian aggression”, prompting opposition figures to accuse the incumbent regime of turning a blind eye to what is happening to Tbilisi’s alleged closest friend. 

Expectedly, Azerbaijan’s cautious support to Ukraine in a time of an acute security crisis and its capacity to play a pivotal role in the aftermath of a potential war – whether it be on energy supplies, connectivity projects or diplomatic linkages – have not gone unnoticed in Western capitals.

The EU has already started negotiations with Baku for potential emergency gas deliveries, in case Russia restricts gas supplies to Europe as a punitive measure against Western sanctions.

On January 30, EU foreign policy chief Joseph Borrell said the EU was coordinating its actions with partners such as the U.S., Qatar, and Azerbaijan to enhance its resilience against possible supply shocks emanating from Russia.

On February 4, EU Commissioner for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Oliver Varhelyi and Commissioner for Energy Kadri Simson visited Baku to discuss the possibility of ramping up gas deliveries to Europe. Attending the annual Southern Gas Corridor Corridor Advisory Council meeting, Commissioner Simson called the project “a continuing success story”, contributing to the EU’s energy security in increasingly uncertain market conditions.

In his meeting with Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov, Commissioner Varhelyi said the EU counts on Azerbaijan as a reliable partner on energy supplies and wishes the latter will consider increasing the amount of gas deliveries to the EU and Western Balkans in the near future. 

Azerbaijan has started to directly send its natural gas to European markets since December 2020. The Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) as part of the Southern Gas Corridor brought more than 8 billion cubic metres of Azerbaijani gas from the Shah Deniz-2 field in the Caspian Sea to Greece, Italy, and Bulgaria in 2021, offering an alternative and reliable source of supply for EU members.

According to President Aliyev, Baku will export about 19 billion cubic metres of gas in 2022. More than 8 billion cubic metres of that amount will be directed to Turkey and a little more than 7 billion cubic metres will be sold to Italy.

In an interview  given to Spain’s EFE news outlet in October, Azerbaijani President reiterated Baku is ready to boost natural gas exports to the EU but needs to negotiate a new agreement because “you must first sell gas and then produce it”.

Although the amount the Azerbaijani side could offer is in no way enough to fill the demand gap on its own, it could still provide a meaningful alternative for the EU’s energy diversification policy.  

Against this background, the EU’s decision to allocate a financial package worth €2 billion to Azerbaijan to keep the parity with the amount of investments in Armenia within the recently declared Economic and Investment Plan, was a crucial step forward and similar moves by the U.S. administration would add a positive tone to U.S.-Azerbaijan relations in hard times for European security.

 

Rusif Huseynov is the Director of the Topchubashov Center, a think tank in Baku, Azerbaijan. He tweets as @RusifHuseynov2.

Wes Mahammad Mammadov is a research fellow at the Topchubashov Center. He tweets as @im_mammadov.

Ombudsman visits Gegharkunik province

Save

Share

 14:51,

YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 10, ARMENPRESS. Human Rights Defender of Armenia Arman Tatoyan and his staffers visited Geghamabak, Jaghatsadzor, Kut, Norabak and a number of other villages in Gegharkunik province, his Office said in a news release.

During the visit additional facts about the incursions of the Azerbaijani armed forces, the problems caused by criminal acts to the people will be collected.

Actor Ruben Karapetyan dies from COVID-19

Save

Share

 13:16, 9 February, 2022

YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 9, ARMENPRESS. Actor Ruben Karapetyan died from COVID-19 complications, the H. Ghaplanyan Drama Theater’s Artistic Director Armen Khandikyan told ARMENPRESS.

Karapetyan was 74 years old.

Aside from a number of appearances in film, he was an actor at the H. Ghaplanyan Drama Theater since 1972.

He was bestowed with the Merited Artist of Armenia title in 2004.

New Vice Mayors of Yerevan appointed

Save

Share

 14:58, 8 February, 2022

YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 8, ARMENPRESS. Three new Vice Mayors of Yerevan were appointed by the City Council at the February 8 session.

By law, Vice Mayors are appointed by the City Council at the nomination of the Mayor.

Gevorg Simonyan was appointed Vice Mayor with 51 votes in favor, 0 against and 2 present (53 registered city councilors took part). Simonyan will coordinate the healthcare and sports areas.

Suren Grigoryan was installed with 50-0-1 votes (53 registered city councilors took part), he will be in charge of the legal, trade and advertising sectors.

Stepan Machyan was appointed with 52-0-2 votes (55 registered city councilors). Machyan will be in charge of urban development.

Mayor Hrachya Sargsyan said the City Hall doesn’t have a position of chief architect anymore, but he believes that the office must be restored.

Azerbaijani schoolbooks promote hate towards Armenians, warns Ombudsman

Save

Share

 14:00, 4 February, 2022

YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 4, ARMENPRESS. Human Rights Defender of Armenia Arman Tatoyan presented an evidence-based emergency report on the new developments and dangers of the Azerbaijani state-sanctioned Armenophobic policy in the post-war period.

“The Azerbaijani authorities are advocating hate towards Armenia and Armenians,” warned Tatoyan.

He said that this Azerbaijani state-sanctioned policy of hate is based on two fundamental pillars: studies show that religious-fuelled hate is now added to the ethic-based hatred.

“Azerbaijani schoolbooks advocate hate and animosity against Armenians. They display their superiority against Armenian people. Their authorities even change the affiliation of churches, falsely claiming that they are Albanian,” Tatoyan said.

The Ombudsman also presented the dangers of this policy in other countries, and between the two peoples in other countries around the world. He warned that this Azeri strategy is dangerous for other countries as well.

“During the war, Azerbaijani and Turkish groups were attacking Armenians in the United States, in France and elsewhere around the world, several buildings were vandalized and there is undeniable evidence proving this,” he said.

“After the 44-day war the poet Vahid Aziz, who holds the title of People’s Poet of Azerbaijan, said that ‘Armenians can’t create anything other than chaos, they are immoral nation’. This is concrete evidence that Azerbaijan finds these kinds of statements commendable,” Tatoyan said, presenting the Azerbaijani authorities’ conduct promoting hate, which are virtually identically being displayed by cultural, sports and other public figures in the society.

Speaking on the peace-loving statements from the Azeri side, Tatoyan warned that these statements are just a cover for the outside world.

The delegation led by the Minister of Internal Affairs of Georgia visits Tsitsernakaberd Memorial and Police Troops

Save

Share

 18:50, 3 February, 2022

YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 3, ARMENPRESS. The delegation led by the Minister of Internal Affairs of Georgia Vakhtang Gomelauri, who is in Armenia on a working visit, visited the Armenian Genocide Memorial accompanied by the Chief of the Police of Armenia Vahe Ghazaryan and members of the Police Board on February 3 and laid flowers and paid tribute to the memory of the victims of the Armenian Genocide.

On the same day, the delegation led by Vakhtang Gomelauri visited the Police Troops. They got acquianted with the armament of the military units of the police troops, special means, armored vehicles, service vehicles, etc.

Gor Tsarukyan appointed Director of PMO’s Public Relations and Information Center

Save

Share

 19:46, 1 February, 2022

YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 1, ARMENPRESS. The Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister’s Office Arayik Harutyunyan appointed Gor Tsarukyan as Director of the Public Relations and Information Center.

The Public Relations and Information Center is a governmental agency (state non-commercial organization) under the Prime Minister’s Office.

The appointment was made based on the current legislation and the decision and conclusion issued by the commission which held a competition for the vacant position.

Artsakh factions of National Assembly draft bill on Artsakh occupied territories

  News.am  
Armenia – Jan 30 2022

The leaders of the five parliamentary factions of Artsakh jointly worked on a draft law “On the Occupied Territories of Artsakh” and on February 2 will present it for the first reading, Metakse Hakobyan, a member of the Justice faction of the Artsakh National Assembly, told NEWS.am.

“The main idea of the project is that no international organization or company has the right to take any action in the occupied territories of our homeland without the agreement of the Armenian side, and in case of any problems in the future these companies will not have the right to demand compensation or reimbursement from us if they have not coordinated their actions with us beforehand. The second point is that our enemy-occupied territories are not only the territories occupied in 2020. This is also the Shahumian region, which was left under Azerbaijani control after the first Artsakh war, as well as the villages of Martuni and Martakert. This is the essence of the draft, which will be put to a vote in the first reading at the February 2 plenary session and will be adopted in the second reading,” she said.

According to the deputy, 30 years ago the people of Artsakh self-determined and proclaimed itself a free and independent state, which is international law.

“Regardless of whether other states have recognized it or not, this is an international right and Artsakh self-determined 30 years ago, and no one can take that right away from the people of Artsakh and Armenians as a whole. This project is fully legal, it is important because now we agree to return not just pieces of land but our entire homeland, we are ready to fight for it,” she said.

The deputy said that the territories occupied by Azerbaijan include Kashatagh region, Shahumyan region, Martuni, Martakert, Hadrut, Shushi, Askeran and Getashen.

Armenia and Turkey: Rapprochement 3.0?

Valdai Discussion Club
Jan 27 2022


Given the post-war realities and the pressure coming from different capitals, the Armenian authorities must slow down, take into account the institutional realities and capabilities within Armenia, and correctly analyse the primary and secondary layers of the statements coming from Turkey, writes Dr. Vahram Ter-Matevosyan, Program Chair of Political Science and International Affairs program, American University of Armenia.

The defeat in the 45-day war of 2020 has challenged the foundations of Armenia’s security architecture. The trilateral ceasefire statement of November 9, 2020, followed by months of unnerving domestic turmoil, professed a guaranteed demise for Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and his government. However, the snap parliamentary elections on June 20 helped him emerge from what many had considered an unpreventable “political Armageddon”. Winning the elections, however, did not protect him from the need to face pressing issues like negotiating for the return of prisoners of war (POWs) from Azerbaijan, border security problems, rebuilding the tarnished army, starting the demarcation and delimitation of the border with Azerbaijan, restarting the negotiations on the status and security of Nagorno Karabakh, and containing Azerbaijan’s tough posturing vis-a-vis Armenia’s borders.

No less pertinent is the question of Armenia’s relations with Turkey, Azerbaijan’s pivotal ally in its recent war against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Turkey has refused to establish diplomatic relations with Armenia and has kept the border closed since 1991. Months after the 2020 war, Pashinyan stated that Armenia is ready to embrace an era of peace in the South Caucasus region. For months, there was no visible progress as Armenia received mixed reactions from Turkey, complete with a set of preconditions and demands. However, weeks ago, both countries appointed envoys who would work on the normalisation of relations. What is going on between Armenia and Turkey? Are they embarking on another process of rapprochement? What are the chances for it to succeed this time, considering the previous failed cases of rapprochement in 1992-93 and 2008-09?

Contrary to the constructive interpretations that Armenia’s government has recently advanced, Turkey’s position on its relations with Armenia has not changed since 1991. On the surface, Turkey ascertains the following condition: “in the absence of any improvement in Armenian-Azerbaijani relations, any progress to be achieved within the Turkish-Armenian normalisation process alone would remain insufficient and would not be lasting or sustainable”, implying that the pro-Azerbaijani resolution of the Karabakh conflict is the only precondition for normalisation. Armenia, meanwhile, has viewed the normalisation of interstate relations with Turkey from the perspective of the logic established in the early 1990s: a) relations should be normalised without any preconditions; b) the Karabakh conflict, involving Azerbaijan and Armenia, should be decoupled from the Armenian-Turkish relations.

For Turkey, the Karabakh issue was, indeed, the most discussed and voiced precondition over the decades, however, it remains only one of the preconditions. The shadow of history looms large over relation between the two nations. First and foremost, Turkey continues to view the normalisation of relations with Armenia from the point of view of unsettled historical-political legacies, followed by Turkey’s long-term interests in the Caucasus and geopolitical objectives. Hence, the Karabakh conflict lags behind several fundamental issues in the Armenian-Turkish and Armenia-Turkey relations that I have raised over the last 15 years and summarised in the recent academic article. 

Over the last decades, using various platforms and opportunities, Ankara has raised several preconditions for Armenia to comply with, which included but were not limited to the following:

  • the Republic of Armenia and Diaspora should halt the worldwide campaign to recognise the Genocide and renounce any claims to land and property compensations and reparations from Turkey;

  • Turkey periodically insists on Armenia acknowledging the existing border with Turkey according to the 1921 Kars treaty;

  • Armenia should recognise Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and, thereby, close the Karabakh chapter;

  • Turkey periodically entertains — sometime through Azerbaijan (Aliyev demanded that Armenia adopt a new constitution) — the idea that Armenia should revise its Declaration of Independence adopted in 1990 (and Constitution of 1995), as the document indicates that the Armenian Genocide was committed in Western Armenia, which is the present-day eastern region of Turkey;

  • Turkey occasionally demands the closing down of Armenia’s Metsamor Nuclear Power Station, which is located a few kilometers from the Armenian-Turkish border.

  • Turkey has recently started to reintroduce another precondition which it failed to achieve a century ago: establishing a corridor between the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic, an exclave of Azerbaijan, and mainland Azerbaijan through Armenia’s sovereign territory in the Syunik province in the south.

In essence, Armenia and Turkey continue to speak in different languages because the gap that has widened over the decades cannot be closed under the influence of suppositious claims about regional peace and stability. It is not accidental that Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan speaks about the gradual normalisation of relations, while Pashinyan is in a hurry to escape Armenia’s regional isolation as soon as possible. Turkey’s president insists on a lack of trust towards Armenia’s government and needs for the depoliticisation of history, while the Armenian prime minister speaks of Armenia becoming a crossroads in connecting the east to the west and the north to the south. Given the post-war realities and the pressure coming from different capitals, the Armenian authorities must slow down, take into account the institutional realities and capabilities within Armenia, and correctly analyse the primary and secondary layers of the statements coming from Turkey. Yerevan should learn from the achievements and slips of the last 30 years. Taking into account Turkey’s assertive ambitions in the South Caucasus and its plan to promote its 2020 “3+3” initiative, which was a slightly revised version of its own the 2008 Caucasus Stability Platform, it is unpromising to talk to Turkey with the expectation of becoming a co-author of peace in the region. Turkey has been blockading Armenia for 30 years and hindering its development without bearing any responsibility for its wrongdoings. Pashinyan, in turn, has crossed the point of no return in his policy of advancing “an era of peaceful development in the region”.  There are all the indications that he is eager to open the borders at nearly any cost. Turkey has spoken and will continue to talk to Armenia in the language of preconditions, as long as Armenia demonstrates haste in breaking the deadlock. Even if the parties make a breakthrough and establish diplomatic relations, Turkey’s policy of advancing preconditions will not cease, making it a difficult partner to work with. The aforementioned explicit and implicit preconditions will remain in Turkey’s foreign policy agenda. Those preconditions are too complex and firmly intertwined to untangle them with ease. In one form or another, they will feature in the future relations. To counteract, Armenia should advance the formula “normalisation first, reconciliation afterwards” and never repeat the mistakes of the Zurich protocols, which aimed at launching the two processes simultaneously.

There are serious doubts as to whether Armenia’s ruling party has sufficient resources to initiate parallel processes with Azerbaijan and Turkey, and many voices in the opposition and expert community question the wisdom of Pashinyan’s agenda. According to them, Armenia’s PM fails to grasp that the sporadic movements aimed at simultaneously embracing the agenda of peace with Azerbaijan and normalising interstate relations with Turkey without facing the political ramifications of the recent war and clarifying the questions of status and security of Nagorno-Karabakh are erroneous and risky. The fact of the matter is that the Russian peacekeepers in Karabakh and the joint Russian-Turkish Monitoring Centre do not have an international mandate and the prospects of peace remain fragile and elusive. Another pertinent question is whether, in addition to political ambitions and will, the Armenian government has sufficient professional-bureaucratic support — including from Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs — support advancing the process and withstand internal and external pressures? The question remains whether Pashinyan has pragmatically considered the anticipated gains versus the price Armenia will pay for embarking on this policy avenue. Does he clearly understand how his government will communicate Armenia’s grievances and accounts to the Turkish political elite and people? These questions beg for honest and open answers and this is where asking for advice and support will do no harm.

Russia’s stance on the Armenian-Turkish question is instrumental. Even though Moscow supports the Armenian-Turkish normalisation efforts and has made several statements and taken tangible steps, its assertions about a peaceful era in the region sound premature. With time, Moscow, slowly yet with tacit resistance, has shared various areas of strategic importance with Turkey. Turkey’s watchful posturing in the Caucasus and its control over certain economic, business, culture, infrastructure, and security sectors is slowly expanding and seems irreversible. How candid is Russia in supporting yet another display of Turkey’s expansion in the region if Turkey agrees to normalise relations with Armenia and open the border? The agenda of Russian-Turkish bilateral relations has become too diverse, yet the formula that both embrace – cooperation through competition or “frenmity” – continues to defy their complex relations in different parts of Eurasia and Africa. Armenia and the South Caucasus are no exceptions. Russia’s pre-conceived red lines in the post-Soviet space are becoming more and more blurry in the face of Turkey’s creeping geopolitical expansion. How long Russia can continue to counterbalance Turkey’s encroachment in the South Caucasus, Central Asia, Ukraine, and elsewhere remains a principal question among both politicians and policy experts.

The European Union, on the other hand, is a yet another primary stakeholder in the process of normalising relations between Armenia and Turkey. Brussels will be able to restore its tarnished reputation in Armenia in the face of its underperformance during the 45-day war and its aftermath, as well as the tolerance it has showed towards the forms of transgression of Pashinyan’s government since 2018. Washington, too, is in a position to extend its support to Yerevan, should the normalisation process go forward. The American government has constantly advocated for the normalisation of bilateral relations and the opening of the border. Secretary Blinken has also reaffirmed the US stance; however, Armenia’s government needs lasting support to overcome existing and potential challenges when talking to Turkey.

Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club’s, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Kristinne Grigoryan passes confirmation vote to become next Human Rights Defender of Armenia

Save

Share

 16:47,

YEREVAN, JANUARY 24, ARMENPRESS. Kristinne Grigoryan will officially assume the duties of Human Rights Defender of Armenia after incumbent Human Rights Defender Arman Tatoyan’s term in office ends on February 23.

Grigoryan passed a confirmation vote in parliament on January 24.

Out of the 107 MPs, only 68 took part in the vote, all of whom voting in favor. The opposition boycotted the vote.

Grigoryan, who most recently served as First Deputy Minister of Justice, was nominated for the position of Human Rights Defender by the ruling Civil Contract Party.