Securing just peace between Baku, Yerevan
The United Nations has declared September 21 as the International Day of Peace. This date was chosen at the 57th session of the UN General Assembly. From the perspective of peace-seeking countries, resolving conflicts through peaceful political negotiations is the best way to establish peace and tranquility. The establishment of peace in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was one of the pleasant events of 2024 and is considered to be the result of the wills of the top officials of Azerbaijan and Armenia to resolve their differences and achieve lasting peace. The two countries, on the eve of the new year, signed a bilateral statement without the presence of external mediators, expressing their readiness to establish lasting peace. Regarding the importance of this event, the following points should be noted:
By Mohsen Pakaein
Iran’s ex-envoy to Azerbaijan
1
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, in a message on the occasion of the new year, announced Yerevan’s decision to deepen its relations with neighboring countries and said, “All my decisions and actions must be based on the state interest of the Republic of Armenia. This is the reason why I consider it a priority to find formulas for the normalization and deepening of relations with our neighbors in our region.” Political observers considered the message to be addressed to Azerbaijan and Turkey and saw it as a green light from Armenia to establish peace.
Subsequently, Hikmat Hajiyev, assistant to the president of Azerbaijan and close to Ilham Aliyev, told the TRT news network that Pashinyan and Aliyev’s informal conversations on the sidelines of the CIS summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, were “constructive,” and the Azerbaijani side considers this meeting a step toward establishing peace between the two countries. “We don’t see any major obstacles to the completion of a peace treaty,” Hajiyev said.
Elchin Amirbayov, assistant to the first vice-president of Azerbaijan, expressed hope that the next round of peace talks would be fruitful as Azerbaijan had prepared a draft peace treaty and presented it to Armenia. The wills of Baku and Yerevan to hold direct and unmediated talks, which showed their confidence, strengthened the likelihood of a final agreement for peace.
2
Given the willingness of both sides to accept the territorial integrity of the other side and agree on the establishment of international borders, which led to the return of Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan, the main obstacles to achieving peace were removed. The parties also decided to discuss border disputes and the return of military forces, as well as the security of Armenians and their relationship with Armenia. The issues of prisoner exchange and mutual access to transit routes will also be discussed at peace talks.
It was predicted that, given the likelihood of prolonged negotiations, the parties would first sign a peace treaty and continue the rest of the talks in a peaceful atmosphere. At the same time, the unprecedented agreement to support each other’s candidates in international forums confirmed Yerevan and Baku’s will to overcome this era of hostility.
3
The possibility of interference by third parties, especially extra-regional countries, to disrupt the peace process was one of the worrying points that Armenia and Azerbaijan had to consider.
France’s interference in the South Caucasus and its desire to sell arms to Armenia, as well as provocative actions such as joint military exercises with this country, were among the concerns. France, which had taken no constructive action on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict during its presidency of the Minsk Group, adopted a policy contrary to most EU member states on the eve of the Baku-Yerevan peace talks, trying to disrupt the peace process.
The United States, the other passive leader of the Minsk Group, aimed to isolate Russia under the pretext of supporting Armenia through intervening in the South Caucasus. That was why the US Senate passed the Armenian Protection Act of 2023, which would have halted military aid to Azerbaijan. Yerevan and Baku wisely monitored the situation and were aware of the competition between major powers in the Caucasus, which naturally clashed with the peace process and the interests of these two countries.
4
Meanwhile, the Islamic Republic of Iran took the initiative and held a meeting of foreign ministers of Iran, Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Armenia in the 3+3 format, titled “The Turn of Peace, Cooperation, and Progress in the South Caucasus,” in Tehran. There, the Islamic Republic tried to persuade Russia, Turkey, and even Georgia to contribute to bringing Azerbaijan and Armenia’s views closer together through constructive actions.
Iran believed that establishing just and lasting peace in the Caucasus would lead to stability on Iran’s northern borders and discourage extra-regional countries from interfering in the Caucasus, while also ending unconstructive regional competitions and inspiring friendly cooperation.
At the same time, the wise statements of the Leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolution and his emphasis on the need for a just peace was principled and decisive. One of the discourses of the Leader has been just peace. He believes that peace without justice is not sustainable, and no land can be occupied justly. When the foremost problem, i.e., occupation, is resolved, negotiations become meaningful.
Another notable aspect of the Leader’s speeches was the security of minorities. He stressed that Azerbaijan must ensure the security of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh. Highlighting the inviolability of international borders, Ayatollah Khamenei also referred to the need to combat terrorists who have entered the region. The Leader’s statements were grounded in human, moral, and accepted international principles. The peace plan proposed by Iran was based on these statements, which greatly contributed to establishing peace in the Caucasus.