Category: 2022

By Orkhan Amashov 

As Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan struggles to probe and penetrate the most peace-resistant stratum of Armenian society to gain its support, his detractors are continuing to foment resistance against what they believe is nothing but “inglorious peace”. 

The present phase of the confrontation between the government and opposition is not the height of the nationwide schism, and the incumbent PM is not in the throes of the most violent despair of his tenure – he faced a greater threat in the past, yet managed to ride supreme in the face of the slings and arrows of his detractors.

Prior to the 2021 June snap election, the prospects for Pashinyan’s government were far more lamentable and the danger of the loss of power was potentially imminent. Back then, the question sullying the minds of Armenians was whether Pashinyan would be able to maintain electoral support after the disastrous 2020 war, and the answer to that critical question was given affirmatively. The result was perceived as a vote of confidence and the offering of a fresh mandate to pursue a peace agenda. 

However, there is no guarantee he will survive unscathed on this occasion, for nothing is unthinkable and the resilience of the disgruntled opposition, coupled with the deep-entrenched and seemingly intractable paranoia within Armenian society, form a continuous source of implacable vexation. 

The ongoing ferment should not be underestimated. Although a sufficiently potent critical mass has not been established to enable the opposition to overthrow Pashinyan and his government, it is possible that such a mass could transmogrify into an irresistible force within a short space of time. 

Revenge is a strong poison, and Armenian society has not come anywhere near overcoming the inextinguishable allure of the fatally toxic ambition that once governed it to the fullest extent. The political spectrum in Yerevan is not monolithic, of course. Those who call for the removal of the incumbent government do not currently have an upper hand yet the eventual growth of the present discontent to something disproportionately massive cannot be excluded.  

It is in this context that the emergence of Armenia’s six-point counter-proposal to Azerbaijan’s original peace offer should be evaluated. The exact content of the former is not known, but one is given to understand that it entails the provision on the rights and security of Karabakh Armenians and makes references to certain terms and constructs that Baku finds inadmissible – specifically “the final status of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Oblast” and “the OSCE Minsk Group” that has long been viewed “de facto dead” by Azerbaijan.

The counter-proposal may, at first glance, appear to be a meagre attempt to consolidate Yerevan’s negotiating position by placing emphasis on what is important to Armenia. However, on closer inspection, once the timing and circumambient circumstances are taken into account, it seems to have been designed to placate the disaffected and pander to the opposition’s prejudices. 

The Armenian opposition has become more image-conscious. In some quarters, the term “revenge” seems to be, if not detested, certainly undesirable. Its regressive connotations are fathomed by some Pashinyan opponents to the extent that they offer a different lexicon.

For instance, Armen Gevorkyan from the Republican Party claims that what should drive the opposition today is not revanchism, but a desire to protect the nation’s dignity within the clearly delineated red lines. Yet the gist is the same – bemoan the loss of national self-confidence and hopelessly stick to the idea of reversing the consequences of the Second Karabakh War by refusing Baku’s peace agenda.

Pashinyan is far from being forced to resign. The present state of affairs does not necessitate such a compulsion. Avetik Chalabyan of the National Agenda Party believes that in order for Pashinyan to be constitutionally removed, around 20 members of his party in the Parliament should denounce him so as to create the basis for “no-confidence”. 

Once it is clear that Pashinyan, as PM, does not command the confidence of the National Assembly, there will be a new election. This, of course, entails a great deal of wishful thinking, yet it is noteworthy to acknowledge that the opposition is considering all sorts of routes. 

Pashinyan now is vacillating and undertaking a great deal of prevarication so as to appease his disparagers. Renouncing the peace agenda may provide for him some momentary respite which would be detrimental to his course in the long run. 

One aspect that should be borne in mind with unmistakable clarity is that the revanchist opposition is unlikely to be won over or convinced of the futility of the pro-war venture. It is improbable that the inflexible obduracy will be eschewed. However, it is possible is that the revenge-driven segment could be overpowered. 

In the meantime, Baku must brace itself for all sorts of eventualities. The prospects for a peace deal will not be bolstered by the demise of Pashinyan and rise of the former elites, yet such a political change will primarily be negatively consequential for Yerevan, not Baku. 

To recapitulate, the ghastly return of the Karabakh clan to the top of Armenian politics is not perceived as a likely possibility, as the circumstances on the ground are not sufficiently conducive for such an after-the-bell comeback.

Yet, the current opposition is able to exert sufficient pressure on the government to derail the peace process. The present ambiguity over the terms of the peace negotiations between Baku and Yerevan seems to have been engendered by Pashinyan’s attempts to fend off the attacks of his denigrators.

The Armenian prime minister’s ungrounded accusations against Azerbaijan cast serious doubts on the country’s desire for peace, Spokesperson for Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry Leyla Abdullayeva said.

During his speech at the Clingendael Institute of International Relations in the Netherlands, Pashinyan accused Azerbaijan of not taking humanitarian steps to return people of Armenian origin in detention in Azerbaijan.

Commenting on the issue, the spokesperson reminded that Azerbaijan has liberated its territories from occupation and that Armenia has purposefully planted mines in the occupied lands during nearly 30-year-long occupation, as well as after the signing of the tripartite statement.

Later, Abdullayeva noted that Armenia initially denied the existence of minefield maps in general, and only after facing international pressure, they presented minefield maps with only 25% accuracy.

The spokesperson added that it would be wrong to describe Armenia’s submission of mine maps as a humanitarian gesture, as it was Armenia’s obligation under international humanitarian law after the signing of the tripartite statement.

Abdullayeva stressed that since the signing of the statement, some 219 people, mostly civilians, have been killed by landmines. Furthermore, she added that 10 people were injured in nine mine blasts in April.

“Unfortunately, our citizens regularly fall victim to landmines, even after Armenia submitted minefield maps,” she added.

In the statement, the spokesperson added that Azerbaijan is currently rebuilding and restoring the liberated territories that had been destroyed by Armenia. For decades, the work has been done day and night to ensure the return of the IDPs to their homes, she added.

However, a huge mine problem in these areas poses a serious threat to the early return of IDPs. The only reason for this is Armenia’s 30-year-long aggressive policy and its destructive results.

The spokesperson stated that considering all these, the accusations of the Armenian prime minister are inappropriate and unfounded. She stressed that the Armenian leader should first recognize the reasoning behind the detention in Azerbaijan of Armenian saboteurs, who illegally entered the country.  

Moreover, Abdullayeva stated that humanitarian issues are an important part of the peace agenda, which is why, Azerbaijan is always guided by the principles of humanism in its activities, even during the 44-day war and after, it took unilateral humanitarian steps. However, she noted that Armenia must finally understand that for peace, it is necessary not only to talk but to act.

To recap, about 1,500 mines and unexploded ordnance were found and defused on Azerbaijan’s liberated territories on April 1-30, the Mine Action Agency said.

ANAMA, along with the partner countries, carries out demining activities on the liberated territories. Moreover, the State Border Service and the Defense Ministry are also demining liberated lands.

Armenia submitted to Azerbaijan all mine maps of liberated territories as a result of talks held through the mediation of the Russian Defense Ministry on December 4, 2021.

On December 12, 2021, Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov told reporters that mine maps, provided by Armenia, are not so far fully accurate.

In an address to the 6th Eastern Partnership Summit of the European Union in Brussels on December 15, 2021, President Ilham Aliyev said that about 200 people had been killed or injured in mine explosions to that date. In this regard, he stressed the importance of the EU and member states providing technical and financial assistance to Azerbaijan to eliminate the mine problem.

Armenia deliberately and constantly planted mines on Azerbaijani territories, in violation of the 1949 Geneva Convention, thereby being a major threat to regional peace, security, and cooperation.

On June 12, 2021, Azerbaijan handed over 15 Armenian prisoners in exchange for a map detailing the location of 97,000 mines in Aghdam.

On July 3, 2021, Armenia submitted to Azerbaijan maps of about 92,000 anti-tank and anti-personnel mines planted during the occupation of Fuzuli and Zangilan regions.

Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a Russia-brokered peace agreement on November 10, 2020, to end 44 days of fighting and work toward a comprehensive peace deal.