The Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan, hereinafter referred to as the “Parties,” guided by the principles of the United Nations Charter and relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs), and recognizing the need for lasting peace and stability in the South Caucasus region, hereby enter into this comprehensive peace agreement.

Article 1: Territorial Integrity and Borders

  1. The Parties reaffirm their commitment to the territorial integrity of each other, in accordance with UNSCRs 822, 853, 874, and 884.
  2. The existing international borders between Armenia and Azerbaijan shall be respected and maintained, with the exception of Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent regions, which shall be addressed through negotiations.

Article 2: Establishment of Diplomatic Relations

  1. The Parties establish full diplomatic relations at the ambassadorial level.
  2. Embassies shall be opened in the capitals of Yerevan and Baku within six months of signing this agreement.

Article 3: Nagorno-Karabakh Negotiations

  1. The status of Nagorno-Karabakh shall be addressed through negotiations, with the active participation of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, and BSEC.
  2. The Parties commit to engaging in good faith negotiations to find a mutually acceptable solution, taking into account the interests of all affected communities.
  3. Compensation for lost property and reparations for affected individuals shall be part of the negotiation agenda.
  4. The rights and security of minorities in Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding areas shall be guaranteed.

Article 4: Return of Displaced Persons

  1. The Parties shall facilitate the safe and voluntary return of displaced persons to their original places of residence, in accordance with UNSCR 874.
  2. The border commission shall consider the impact of population movements on territorial claims and address issues related to property rights.

Article 5: Areas of Cooperation

  1. The Parties shall promote economic cooperation, trade, and infrastructure development. Specific areas of cooperation include:
    • Telecommunications: Joint efforts to enhance connectivity and digital infrastructure.
    • Transportation: Collaborating on road, rail, and air transport projects.
    • Energy: Exploring joint energy initiatives and renewable energy sources.
    • Cultural Exchange: Encouraging people-to-people interactions and cultural programs.

Article 6: Dispute Mechanisms

  1. The Parties agree to establish a Dispute Resolution Mechanism to address any disagreements arising from the implementation of this agreement.
  2. The mechanism shall include mediation, arbitration, and consultation processes.
  3. The OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs may be invited to assist in dispute resolution when necessary.

Annex I: Border Commission

  1. The border commission shall consist of representatives from both Parties and international experts.
  2. Its mandate includes:
    • Demarcating the borders between Armenia and Azerbaijan, including Nagorno-Karabakh.
    • Identifying areas of dispute.
    • Proposing solutions for disputed territories.
    • Ensuring transparency and adherence to international norms.

This comprehensive peace agreement aims to address the complex issues surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh while fostering cooperation and stability in the region. Further negotiations and detailed agreements will be necessary to implement the provisions outlined above.

Zangezur Corridor

The Zangezur corridor is a concept that has gained prominence since the end of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. It revolves around the idea of creating a transport corridor that would connect Azerbaijan to the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic (an exclave of Azerbaijan) and, in a broader sense, link Turkey to the rest of the Turkic world through Armenia’s Syunik Province.

Here are some key points about the Zangezur corridor:

  1. Purpose and Controversy:
  2. Historical Context:
  3. Recent Developments:
  4. International Perspectives:

Gazakh Conflict

The Gazakh conflict is another historical dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Here are the key points:

  1. Background:
    • Gazakh is a region in northwestern Azerbaijan, bordering Armenia.
    • The conflict over Gazakh dates back to the early 20th century, with territorial claims and tensions between the two countries.
  2. Territorial Dispute:
    • Gazakh has been a point of contention, with both sides asserting historical and cultural ties to the region.
    • The collapse of the Soviet Union exacerbated the dispute, leading to clashes and territorial claims.
  3. Current Situation:
    • Gazakh remains a disputed area, and its status is yet to be fully resolved.
    • The conflict has implications for regional stability and relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

In summary, both the Zangezur corridor and the Gazakh conflict are complex issues with historical roots. Resolving these disputes requires careful diplomacy, cooperation, and respect for international agreements.

Resolving territorial disputes and historical conflicts between nations requires a delicate balance of diplomacy, cooperation, and goodwill. Here are some steps that can contribute to peaceful resolution:

  1. Dialogue and Diplomacy:
    • Engage in Constructive Talks: Both Armenia and Azerbaijan should commit to sustained dialogue. High-level negotiations, facilitated by international mediators, can help find common ground.
    • Track Record of Diplomatic Efforts: Build upon existing diplomatic efforts, such as the OSCE Minsk Group’s mediation role in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
  2. International Involvement:
    • Mediation and Facilitation: Involve neutral third parties, international organizations, and neighboring countries to mediate and facilitate negotiations.
    • UN and Regional Organizations: Leverage the United Nations and regional bodies (such as the European Union) to provide a platform for dialogue and dispute resolution such as EUSR Toovio Klar.
  3. Legal Framework and Agreements:
    • Refer to International Law: Base negotiations on established principles of international law, including respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and human rights.
    • Peace Agreements: Develop comprehensive peace agreements that address territorial claims, minority rights, and economic cooperation.
  4. Specific Measures for Nagorno-Karabakh:
    • Status Quo: Maintain the current ceasefire and avoid escalations.
    • Return of Displaced Persons: Facilitate the safe return of displaced individuals.
    • Joint Economic Projects: Explore joint economic initiatives that benefit both sides.
  5. Zangezur Corridor and Gazakh Conflict:
    • Zangezur Corridor: Address the corridor issue through negotiations, considering historical context and regional interests.
    • Gazakh Conflict: Engage in talks specifically addressing Gazakh, seeking mutually acceptable solutions.
  6. People-to-People Initiatives:
    • Cultural Exchange: Promote cultural exchanges, educational programs, and people-to-people interactions to build trust and understanding.
  7. Public Awareness and Education:
    • Inform the Public: Educate citizens about the importance of peaceful resolution and the benefits of cooperation.
    • Media Responsibility: Encourage responsible reporting to avoid inflammatory narratives.
  8. Long-Term Commitment:
    • Patience and Persistence: Understand that lasting peace takes time. Commit to sustained efforts beyond short-term gains.

Remember that peace is a collective endeavor, and it requires the commitment of governments, civil society, and individuals. By fostering understanding, empathy, and compromise, we can work toward a more stable and harmonious future in the region.

What is role of the Council of Europe ?

The Council of Europe (CoE) plays a crucial role in upholding human rights, democracy, and the rule of law across the European continent. Let’s delve into its functions and relevance:

  1. Mission and Goals:
    • The CoE, founded in 1949, brings together 46 member states with a combined population of approximately 675 million as of 2023.
    • Its primary objectives include promoting:
      • Human Rights: Ensuring respect for fundamental rights and freedoms.
      • Democracy: Supporting democratic institutions and practices.
      • Rule of Law: Upholding legal principles and justice.
  2. Distinct from the European Union (EU):
    • Although often confused with the EU, the CoE serves a different purpose.
    • No country has ever joined the EU without first belonging to the CoE.
    • The CoE focuses on broader European cooperation beyond economic integration.
  3. Key Bodies within the CoE:
    • European Court of Human Rights (ECHR):
      • Operates based on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) of 1953.
      • Individuals can bring cases against member states for human rights violations.
    • Committee of Ministers:
      • Comprises foreign ministers from each member state.
      • Coordinates policies and monitors compliance with CoE agreements.
    • Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE):
      • Composed of national parliamentarians from member states.
      • Discusses and debates various issues, including human rights and democracy.
    • Commissioner for Human Rights:
      • Promotes awareness of and respect for human rights within member states.
  4. Role in International Agreements:
    • The CoE cannot make laws but can advocate for the enforcement of select international agreements.
    • It provides a platform for member states to collaborate on legal, cultural, and social matters.
    • The CoE is an official United Nations Observer.
  5. Zangezur Corridor and Gazakh Conflict:
    • The CoE can facilitate dialogue and promote adherence to international conventions.
    • It encourages peaceful resolution of territorial disputes.
    • Azerbaijan’s willingness to compensate the Karabakhis aligns with CoE principles of human rights and reconciliation,i.e. Aliev is conscious about he is committing ethnic cleansing. Like in Kosovo, this pits Islam against Christianity.

In summary, the CoE serves as a vital forum for European nations to address shared challenges, protect human rights, and foster cooperation. Its work extends beyond economic considerations, emphasizing values that contribute to a stable and just Europe. The Council of Europe is still to pronounce itself on the dispute. Apparently the organisations’ General-secretary prefers to hub-nub with leaders. Do you have an opinion about that ?

What is the role of the BSEC ?

The Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) emerged as a distinctive and promising model of multilateral political and economic collaboration. It was established through the Istanbul Summit Declaration and the Bosphorus Statement, signed by the Heads of State and Government of the countries in the region on June 25, 1992. The organization aims to foster cooperation and development in the Black Sea region.

During the Turkish presidency, the BSEC has indeed witnessed efforts to enhance its role and impact. Turkey has actively supported initiatives aimed at ensuring peace and prosperity in the Black Sea area. President Erdoğan emphasized Turkey’s commitment to this cause during the 25th Anniversary Summit of the BSEC Heads of State and Government, where he stated that turning the BSEC into a worldwide organization is a collective achievement of its member states.

However, it’s essential to recognize that the BSEC faces challenges due to political disputes among some member states. These disagreements can hinder the organization’s effectiveness. President Erdoğan has emphasized the need to utilize the BSEC as a tool for problem-solving, avoiding unproductive political debates.

Regarding the situation in Gazakh, it’s crucial to consider diplomatic mediation. Comanescu, as a potential mediator, could play a significant role in facilitating dialogue between the parties involved. Turkey’s support for Gazakh underscores its interest in regional stability and cooperation. A diplomatic approach, backed by both Turkey and Comanescu, may contribute to finding peaceful solutions and promoting mutual understanding.

In summary, the BSEC’s authority has indeed been strengthened during the Turkish BSEC presidency, and diplomatic efforts, including mediation by Comanescu, could be valuable in addressing regional challenges. More could be done to strengthen the BSEC ahead of the policy review of the EU’s fledlging Black Sea strategy, which is not a mere prolongation of Turkey’s equivocation between Ukraine and Russia.

Peace and reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey could contribute to both unblocking the stalled negotiations betwen Azerbaijan and Armenia, and be conducive to a strengthening of the BSEC as a prealable to the forging of a unit in the EEAS endowed with more means to better lubricate the policy-machinery vis-a-vis the EU’s sub-regionals, included the BSEC. We want European policies not bilateral ones led by France, Germany and Turkey onto which scarce funds and disparate projects are grafted. I might add, while the Eu’s strategy towards the Middle East is not as comprehensive as I personally could wish for, the European Union have an inherent interest in a stable Middle East satisfying our energy supply interests and keeping Israel safe and secure. That is also to say, we are not into tripwires of the wrong sort and of tempting Teheran beyond reason in order to justify regional war for the tactical purpose of playing people out against each other at the expense of the Palestinean’s legitimate interests. Policy right now is to contain wider conflict through coordinated action in Gaza and the South Caucasus. Stronger and better coordination should follow. I note UNSCR2272 is sufficiently broad to allow for offensive action act against both challenges to peace and security and threats to navigational safety, athough it is unclear to which extent the force packages and will of the naval commandars and participating states in Operation Propserity Guardian and in the EU’s Aspidis are robust enough to weigh in on wider regional concerns to ensure effective crisis management.

In addition, better coordination between EUSR Klar and Turkey behind the scenes to steer a series of bilateral negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Moscow, Istanbul , Bucuresti, Paris and Bruxelles might come handy.

Having said that, I agree with that the EU and the US positions are converging on Iran, even if we dont have identical interests. The US want to prevent two-front war, the EU to deter authoritarian states from coalescing. The US is interested in shaping an international environment in the Middle East conducive to peace and the accession of Turkey to EU, while the EU is not curently capable of much more than enabling stabilisation and at the same time have interests of its own that are more intensive due to geography and its enlargement strategy. This begs the question: Should the EU and Israel talk more together about post-war security architectures and in whose peace a limited strike could be conducted after all avenues have been exhausted for the creation of a stable regional order, disrupted by the Iranian revolution and made worse by the Iraq war ?