On the eve of the press conference, the Prime Minister of Armenia expressed confidence that the process of unblocking regional communications is showing positive momentum. The head of government displayed clear optimism when discussing the prospects of restoring transport communications within the framework of the proposed “American” scenario. However, this stance has sparked skepticism among members of the expert community. According to several analysts, despite Armenia’s apparent willingness to abandon the principle of reciprocity on this issue, Baku and Ankara may not limit themselves to the proposed framework and could demand additional concessions. Interestingly, this skepticism is shared even by experts who cannot be accused of being pro-opposition. Among them is political scientist Tigran Grigoryan, who is difficult to fault for baseless criticism of the government or criticism for its own sake.
According to Grigoryan, the most significant aspect of the Prime Minister’s statements on the unblocking of communications was the absence of any mention of the principle of reciprocity. “Previously, the principle of reciprocity was always emphasized. It was assumed that the regulations applied on Armenian territory would also apply on Azerbaijani territory,” he noted. According to him, it became clear during the meeting in Abu Dhabi that Azerbaijan would not agree to any solutions that could, even to a slight degree, be interpreted as limiting its sovereignty. “The very fact that the Prime Minister did not mention the principle of reciprocity even once during four and a half hours suggests that the Armenian side has effectively accepted Baku’s approach,” Grigoryan believes.
During the press conference, Pashinyan repeatedly emphasized that the implementation of the American scenario for unblocking communications could be carried out by a joint Armenian-American company. However, the expert is convinced that Azerbaijan will not agree to this, and if Yerevan insists, Baku, together with Ankara, will demand the participation of Turkish and Azerbaijani businesses. The expert also considers it doubtful that Baku would agree to a scenario where customs and border control are conducted by the Armenian side.
Although Pashinyan stated at the press conference that security responsibilities would not be delegated, adding that this does not prevent the company from having an “internal security” service, the expert is certain that the security of the route itself will indeed be delegated. “Despite the Prime Minister’s statement that no territory will be restricted for the operations of Armenia’s law enforcement agencies and that Armenian laws will apply on this territory, his comparisons to other facilities, such as an airport, are inappropriate,” the expert stressed.
“As long as the final document has not been published, it is premature to draw any conclusions. They will only be possible once the details become clear, particularly regarding who will practically control this route. It is obvious that all parties will formally recognize Armenia’s sovereignty and jurisdiction over this territory, but the key question remains: who will actually carry out the critical functions of management and control? This will largely determine how the document should be evaluated. Another potential threat is that, having achieved its goals in this direction, Baku may freeze the process, leaving the unblocking of communications on other sections unrealized,” he concluded.