By adopting the Alma-Ata Declaration as the basis of the peace process, Armenia and Azerbaijan no longer needed to carry out delimitation because the border had already been defined. Former Prime Minister Khosrov Harutyunyan has made this argument.
According to him, the Alma-Ata Declaration establishes that the former Soviet republics recognize each other’s territorial integrity and the former administrative borders of the USSR as interstate borders.
“If we are talking about Azerbaijan and Armenia, then we should state that the administrative border that existed as of December 21, 1991 should have been accepted as the border recognized as a result of delimitation between Armenia and Azerbaijan,” he said.
The Border Had Already Been Described in 1984–1988
Harutyunyan argues that the administrative border between Armenia and Azerbaijan was the result of specific work carried out during the Soviet period to clarify it.
According to him, in 1984–1988, on the instructions of the USSR’s central authorities, an Armenian-Azerbaijani inter-republican commission was established to clarify the administrative border between the two republics.
The Armenian commission was headed by Vladimir Movsisyan, Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Armenian SSR.
According to Harutyunyan, during approximately four years of work, the commissions of the two republics jointly marked 938 kilometers of the administrative border.
As a result of this work, 198 protocols were drawn up in which individual sections of the border were described in detail, both in textual and topographic form.
In 1988, a final protocol summarizing the work was prepared on the basis of these documents and, according to Harutyunyan, was approved by both the Soviet Armenian and Soviet Azerbaijani governments.
“In other words, by the end of 1988 we already had a specific description of the administrative border separating the two republics,” the former prime minister said.
“Border Posts Had Also Been Installed”
Harutyunyan also emphasizes that the border was not only described in documents but had also been marked on the ground.
“There were not only descriptions, but border posts had also been installed along the entire border — along the administrative border,” he said.
According to him, this means that when the current delimitation and demarcation work began, both documents concerning the former Soviet administrative border and corresponding work carried out on the ground already existed.
Harutyunyan argues that if Armenia accepts the Alma-Ata Declaration as the basis of the process, it would have been logical simply to refer to the existing documents and recognize the Armenian-Azerbaijani border on that basis.
The Tigranashen Issue as a Security Problem
In the context of delimitation, Harutyunyan singles out the issue of Tigranashen and the so-called “enclaves,” viewing it not only as a territorial matter but also as an issue of Armenia’s security and communications.
According to him, if Tigranashen is transferred to Azerbaijani control, an Azerbaijani military position could be established there.
He stresses that the interstate road leading toward southern Armenia is directly connected to this section.
Harutyunyan also recalls the experience of a checkpoint being established in the Shurnukh area and asks what would prevent a similar situation from emerging in Tigranashen.
In his assessment, the road leading south could then come under Azerbaijan’s direct control, including military control.
Harutyunyan notes that in the event of possible fire from the directions of Tigranashen and Jermuk, traffic toward the south could stop altogether.
He believes such a development could lead to the gradual depopulation of Armenian communities in Syunik and Vayots Dzor.
An OSCE Document as a Possible Basis for a Solution
The former prime minister believes that disputed issues between Armenia and Azerbaijan could also be resolved on the basis of international documents.
He refers to a document adopted by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, or OSCE, in December 2017 concerning urgent issues of state-border delimitation and demarcation and ways of resolving them.
According to Harutyunyan, the document was developed specifically for delimitation and demarcation processes between post-Soviet states.
He notes that a number of post-Soviet countries have also conducted delimitation and demarcation work on its basis.
According to him, one of the document’s most important principles is that delimitation and demarcation should not be carried out under conditions involving the use or threat of force.
“Delimitation Cannot Be Carried Out Under These Conditions”
Harutyunyan links this provision to the current situation on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border.
“If Azerbaijani military forces are positioned above Jermuk, just meters from our interstate border, is that not a threat? Of course it is a threat,” he said.
In his assessment, the presence of Azerbaijani armed forces in areas bordering Armenia means that Armenia cannot make completely free decisions during the delimitation process.
“Under these conditions, delimitation and demarcation cannot be carried out because you cannot be unconstrained in the decisions you make. You will always be constrained by the threat of a possible enemy or adversary,” the former prime minister said.
According to Harutyunyan, this approach is not merely his own view; it is also established in the relevant OSCE document.
The Future Border Should Not Become a Source of Military Clashes
The former prime minister draws attention to another principle in the OSCE document: the border formed as a result of delimitation should not become a source of tension or military clashes.
He directly connects this provision to the possible transfer of Tigranashen.
“The future border, that is, the border resulting from delimitation, cannot become a source of tension or military clashes,” Harutyunyan said in describing the document’s principle.
In his view, precisely such a risk could emerge in the case of Tigranashen, because the status of the territory could directly affect Armenia’s southern roads and security.
“Artsvashen or the Security of the South?”
Harutyunyan presents the issue as a political choice, distinguishing between Artsvashen and the security of Armenia’s southern regions.
“We face a choice: Artsvashen or the security of my entire southern section? I would give priority to the security of the south — Vayots Dzor and Syunik,” he said.
He believes that if resolving the Artsvashen issue by transferring territory to Azerbaijan puts the security of southern Armenia at risk, such an approach cannot serve Armenia’s interests.
“If under the name of Artsvashen you give this away — for four thousand and some hectares of Artsvashen, you are putting this entire southern section at risk,” the former prime minister concluded.