Yerevan: The campaign that emerged within Armenia's political, religious, and diaspora circles following the latest visit by representatives of the diplomatic corps accredited in Azerbaijan to Karabakh and Eastern Zangezur has once again raised serious questions about the sincerity of Yerevan's position in the peace process with Azerbaijan.
According to Azeri-Press News Agency, the reactions are not merely the positions of individual politicians, members of parliament, experts, religious figures, and diaspora representatives, but they reveal a broader political picture. The fact that representatives of the Armenian authorities are also using similar rhetoric indicates that this campaign cannot be completely separated from the policies of Nikol Pashinyan's government.
On September 11-12, a visit to Karabakh and Eastern Zangezur was organized for 150 representatives from 58 countries and nine international organizations. Azerbaijan facilitated this visit by foreign diplomats to its sovereign territory, which caused concern in Armenia and across Armenian circles, with threats and insults directed at the diplomats. Armenians appear unwilling to accept that Azerbaijan does not need the consent of any third country to invite foreign diplomats to Khankendi, Shusha, Aghdara, Kalbajar, or any other part of the country. This is Azerbaijan's exclusive sovereign right and an internal matter.
The reactions from Armenia show that the issue is approached from a different perspective. The diplomats' visit to Karabakh is being questioned, accusations are being made against them, and narratives such as 'Artsakh,' 'ethnic cleansing,' and the 'expulsion of Armenians' are being circulated. Discussions surrounding the Gandzasar and Khudavang monasteries are being used to turn Azerbaijan's sovereignty over Karabakh into a subject of political dispute.
A statement by Aram I, Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia, exemplifies this tension. He criticized the visit to Shusha by diplomats from countries he described as Armenia's 'friends.' The Armenian Apostolic Church condemned remarks by Hikmet Hajiyev, Assistant to the President of Azerbaijan, regarding Gandzasar and Khudavang and called on the Armenian authorities to respond and take action.
The campaign is not limited to the Church, the diaspora, or individual representatives of the Armenian opposition or parliament members. Representatives of the Armenian authorities have also expressed views on the issue. Ruben Rubinyan, a representative of the ruling Civil Contract party and a senior member of the Armenian parliament, described Azerbaijan's position as 'unfounded' and said it did not contribute to the peace process.
Rubinyan's position is significant. As a senior parliamentary official and a leading member of Pashinyan's governing team, his statement reflects the position of the Armenian authorities. This brings Nikol Pashinyan's political responsibility into focus.
On one side, Pashinyan acknowledges Azerbaijan's territorial integrity and recognizes Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan. On the other, within the political system he leads, Azerbaijan's activities in Karabakh continue to be debated and protested. These two approaches create a contradiction between Yerevan's peace rhetoric and its political conduct.
If Armenia recognizes Azerbaijan's territorial integrity unconditionally, then Azerbaijan's decision to take foreign diplomats anywhere within its territory, whether to Khankendi, Shusha, or Kalbajar, is not a matter for Armenia to debate. Any approach to the contrary amounts to interference in Azerbaijan's internal affairs.
Another important point is the Pashinyan government's presentation as a political force adopting a different approach to the Karabakh issue, recognizing Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, and leading the country toward peace. However, reactions of a similar nature emerge from within the government, the Church, diaspora organizations, and various political circles after every development concerning Karabakh. This raises questions about the extent to which these claims are being translated into practice.
Peace requires recognizing a state's sovereign rights over its territory. Otherwise, statements about recognizing territorial integrity remain formal. The reactions to the diplomatic corps' visit demonstrate why the issue of Armenia's Constitution is a matter of principle for Azerbaijan. Baku demands the elimination of legal foundations for territorial claims against Azerbaijan in Armenia. The continued reference to the Declaration of Independence in Armenia's Constitution remains a point of contention. That document refers to the 1989 decision concerning the 'unification' of the Armenian SSR and the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast.
Yerevan may argue that this does not constitute a territorial claim against Azerbaijan. However, the resistance within Armenia's political and public sphere to treating Karabakh as Azerbaijan's internal matter, particularly involving members of Pashinyan's team, indicates Baku's concerns are not unfounded.
For Azerbaijan, the issue is not just what Pashinyan says today. The central issue is eliminating the legal and political grounds that could allow territorial claims against Azerbaijan to be raised again in the future.
If Nikol Pashinyan genuinely seeks lasting peace with Azerbaijan, he must assume responsibility for making that peace a reality. Recognition of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity should be reflected in the Armenian authorities' political conduct regarding Karabakh.
For now, the campaign surrounding the diplomatic corps' visit to Karabakh and Eastern Zangezur suggests the opposite. Yerevan speaks of peace but demonstrates an attitude toward developments within Azerbaijan's sovereign territory that amounts to interference.
The political responsibility for this contradiction rests with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. The sincerity of the peace process must be demonstrated not only at the negotiating table but also in the day-to-day political approach toward Azerbaijan's sovereignty and territorial integrity.