Azerbaijan grabs a bigger piece of the pie
On Aug. 8, the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan held a U.S.-brokered meeting in Washington. The result of this supposedly “historic” summit was a series of statements we heard almost six months ago. Although the parties agreed to respect each other’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence, the published draft of a U.S.-mediated peace agreement appears to be one-sided. Moreover, no mechanisms for its implementation have been developed.
Despite Baku and Yerevan’s proclamation of noninterference in each other’s internal affairs, Azerbaijan continues to demand amendments to Armenia’s constitution. The question is: Why did Baku decide that attempts to force constitutional changes in another country are not considered interference? Moreover, the agreement requires Armenia to stop the activities of the EU Mission (EUMA), located on the border with Azerbaijan. This leaves Armenia isolated from its allies and surrounded by Azerbaijan and its partner, Turkey. While any agreement should account for the interests of both parties, in this case, all preferences appear to favor Azerbaijan.
Washington, which acted as a mediator in the peace negotiations, has once again presented itself as a “peacemaker.” As soon as it received the rights to develop the Zangezur Corridor, it completely lost interest in resolving the conflict. The Armenian-Azerbaijan agreement is clearly one-sided, and U.S. interest in resolving the issue appears entirely self-serving. However, this “progress” is presented to the global community as a diplomatic compromise and a significant step toward ending the long-standing conflict. In reality, Armenia is flooded with empty promises, while Azerbaijan and its allies reap the real benefits, persistently shaping peace on their terms.
Boghos Babayan is a student at the California Institute of Technology with a continuing interest in Armenian geopolitics.
