Just one week after Armenia’s parliamentary elections, a meeting took place in Dilijan between Armenian Security Council Secretary Armen Grigoryan and Hikmet Hajiyev, an aide to the President of Azerbaijan. Although official statements contained only general language, the meeting raised numerous questions. Was it connected to post-election developments, new regional arrangements, or a broader agenda? International affairs analyst Armen Manvelyan shared his assessment.
According to him, the meeting was not aimed at reaching new agreements but at discussing the implementation of arrangements that had allegedly been agreed upon before the elections.
The Focus Is on the Enclaves Issue
Manvelyan argues that the discussion primarily concerns the so-called enclaves issue, particularly Tigranashen and several areas in Tavush Province claimed by Azerbaijan.
In his assessment, implementing such a scenario could have serious security and economic consequences for Armenia.
He believes that transferring control over Tigranashen could affect transportation routes connecting central Armenia with the country’s southern regions.
According to him, several communities in Ararat Province would face more difficult transportation conditions, while logistics costs would increase significantly.
Similar risks exist in Tavush, where any transfer of control over disputed territories would directly affect border communities and critical infrastructure.
“If we look at the map, it becomes clear that a change in control over these territories would place Azerbaijani positions in close proximity to Armenia’s key roads, railway infrastructure, and populated areas,” he said.
Border Communities Could Face New Pressures
The analyst believes that such developments could trigger population outflows from border regions.
According to Manvelyan, the presence of permanent Azerbaijani military positions near Armenian communities would create additional psychological and security concerns for local residents.
Soviet Administrative Borders Are Not International Borders
Addressing the legal dimension of the issue, Manvelyan argues that Soviet-era administrative boundaries cannot automatically serve as the basis for interstate borders.
According to him, the divisions between Soviet Armenia and Soviet Azerbaijan were administrative in nature and should not be treated as equivalent to the borders of independent states.
For this reason, he is critical of proposals to rely primarily on Soviet maps during the delimitation process.
Azerbaijan Is Pursuing Specific Objectives
Manvelyan believes that Azerbaijan is not interested in a comprehensive border delimitation process.
Instead, he argues, Baku views delimitation as a tool for resolving specific territorial and transportation issues that serve its own interests.
“Azerbaijan sees delimitation not as a comprehensive process but as an instrument for solving territorial and communication issues that matter to it,” he said.
New Demands May Follow the Enclave Issue
According to the analyst, once the enclave issue is addressed, Azerbaijan is likely to introduce a new set of demands.
These could include requests for roads with a special status designed to ensure permanent access to those territories within the broader logic of the TRIPP framework.
He believes such developments could further complicate communication between border communities and deepen existing security concerns.
Long-Term Consequences Should Not Be Ignored
Manvelyan also warns that these processes could contribute to a decline in the population of border regions.
In addition, future disputes may emerge over land use, pastures, and other territorial issues.
For this reason, he argues that border delimitation and demarcation should not be viewed merely as technical or cartographic exercises.
According to Manvelyan, their consequences could have a long-term impact on Armenia’s security, economy, and demographic situation.