Good afternoon, Chairman Ehsassi and distinguished members of the committee. I am deeply honoured to have this opportunity to address you and to discuss the ongoing issues between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Both nations' leaders are making positive public statements, signalling readiness for a peace treaty, suggesting that an agreement is near. The major stumbling blocks in the negotiations are now much less prevalent, particularly since Azerbaijan's retaking of Nagorno-Karabakh seems to bring an end to the decades-long conflict over the enclave. However, while Karabakh was the most contentious issue between Armenia and Azerbaijan, it is not the only one. Other issues like connectivity, border demarcation and delimitation remain to be addressed, requiring the resumption of talks.
First of all, although both sides indicate readiness to sign a peace agreement soon, talks have not yet been resumed. While we cannot claim that there is no process—as both sides are exchanging drafts of the peace agreement, with Armenia having shared its response to the draft with Baku on November 21—there is an expectation of a response from Baku. This exchange keeps the peace momentum going, but further actions are required. The foreign ministers responsible for the agreement's details need to engage more visibly. As we know, Baku's decreasing interest in western negotiation platforms is noticeable. It prefers bilateral talks without third party mediation, especially after tensions with Washington and the European Union. A strong push is necessary to resume talks and finalize the peace agreement.
Second, connectivity has been a contentious issue, sparking various speculations that Azerbaijan could forcibly establish connectivity through Armenian territory. Baku has repeatedly denied such accusations. At present, it appears that progress is being made in defining the principles of connectivity, which include respect for sovereignty, jurisdiction, equality and reciprocity. These could be integrated into the peace agreement, but an interstate agreement is necessary to work on connectivity and its practical implementation.
Furthermore, regional players' interests cannot be overlooked. In the Azerbaijan-Armenia talks, external influences often complicate matters. Russia, interpreting the 2020 ceasefire agreement, seeks control over Armenian connectivity routes, which Yerevan opposes as infringing on its sovereignty. Meanwhile, Iran opposes Azerbaijan-Armenia connectivity through Armenia's southern borders.
Another issue is the unresolved security concerns over the state border, which is not demarcated and remains a real front line with numerous military positions, often only metres apart. While it is understood that border delimitation and demarcation will be a long-term process, agreeing on principles, resolving contentious issues such as enclaves and exclaves, and reaching consensus on procedural matters and the use of maps is crucial.
While the focus on these key issues is pivotal, I also think that, before and during the process of the signing of a peace agreement, more steps must be taken by the respective governments to address the humanitarian and other issues. A starting point is the release of the detainees held by both sides—two Azerbaijanis in Armenia and over 30 Armenians in Azerbaijan. Within this framework, prioritizing the issue of missing persons should be central to the collaboration between the sides.
Another humanitarian issue is the problem of land mines. Land mines affect both sides to various degrees, but it is more severe in Azerbaijan, where a majority of mines prevent the safe return of displaced Azerbaijanis to their homes. In this respect, both sides need to take action. The first action should be joining the Ottawa convention. At the same time, the international community should offer significant international aid as an incentive for joining this convention.
The last issue is that, when discussing this peace agreement, there is also a need to end the diplomatic, media and court wars between the sides. Signing a peace agreement is crucial, but continuing diplomatic and media wars is problematic. Ending ongoing court cases and pledging to not initiate lawsuits against each other at the state level should be integral to the peace agreement.
Last, there's a need for peace incentives for both sides from the international community. Given the region's unfamiliarity with peace as a pathway to prosperity, the initial step should be to redefine peace as prosperity for both populations by associating it with financial assistance. Very clearly, there is a need, which might be organizing a donor conference upon the signing of the peace agreement.
My final point is that we should acknowledge the conflict's long historical background, which still resonates in the thinking of the parties today. The solution will require a graduated series of steps, beginning with a peace agreement. This agreement should ensure most people feel safe in assuming that another war is not an option, marking the first step towards peaceful coexistence in a regionally sovereign and secure environment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and distinguished members of the committee.