Armenia and the United States have issued a joint statement regarding the Trump initiative and the project presented within its framework. Although the statement is relatively brief, it nevertheless contains a number of important nuances that have caused serious concern within society.
According to political analyst Tigran Grigoryan, the need for such a document had been discussed for several months. The statement of August 8 laid out general principles, but left key questions unanswered—namely, how these principles would be implemented in practice and, in particular, who would carry out customs and border control.
The “Front Office – Back Office” Model: An International Practice, but Not Without Problems
In the document presented, he notes, a mechanism is proposed that is already widely used around the world, particularly in a number of European Union countries. This refers to the “front office – back office” model, under which direct contact with passengers and cargo is handled by representatives of private companies, while control and authority remain in the hands of the state.
In Grigoryan’s assessment, this approach formally meets the requirement of the President of Azerbaijan that Azerbaijani passengers should not have direct contact with Armenian border guards. Despite the fact that the document clearly states that Armenian border guards and customs officials will be present at checkpoints and will exercise oversight, from a formal standpoint the interaction with passengers and cargo will be carried out by employees of a private company—namely TRIPP or a company selected by it.
Simplified Procedures and Selective Inspections
The document, the political analyst continues, explicitly states that customs and border procedures will be simplified. This had long been a subject of discussion, as on the one hand there was Azerbaijan’s demand for unhindered transit, and on the other Armenia’s insistence on preserving its sovereignty and authority.
The text indicates that modern technical solutions will be applied: advance submission of electronic declarations, the use of scanners, and selective physical inspections based on risk assessment. In other words, physical inspections of trucks, vehicles, or trains will be conducted only in suspicious cases, rather than across the board. This is an internationally recognized practice and, in itself, contains nothing extraordinary.
The Issue of Authority: Formal Clarity, but with Risks
Grigoryan considers it important that the document clearly stipulates that authority in the field of customs and border control, as well as the right to make final decisions, belongs to the Republic of Armenia. The private company is presented as a supporting actor rather than a decision-making entity.
However, in the political analyst’s view, the most problematic issue remains the principle of reciprocity. A major question remains as to how similar or comparable mechanisms would be applied on the territory of Azerbaijan. According to Grigoryan, it was clear from the outset that Azerbaijan would not agree to such regulations on its own territory. Baku is unlikely to allow Armenian cargo to pass under a simplified regime or Armenian passengers to avoid contact with Azerbaijani border guards.
The Lack of Reciprocity and Its Practical Consequences
The current situation may have not only symbolic but also very practical consequences. If conditions are created for Azerbaijani passengers under which they do not interact with Armenian border guards or customs officers, such conditions will not be provided for Armenian passengers and cargo carriers.
As Grigoryan notes, no matter how much one speaks about peace, the human factor cannot be ignored. People may experience psychological discomfort when traveling through Azerbaijani territory, especially in the absence of any third party or mediation mechanism.
Although other solutions are theoretically possible—for example, through the involvement of foreign companies—the political analyst observes that on this key issue the principle of reciprocity has, in fact, not been upheld. This stands in particular contradiction to earlier statements by the Armenian authorities regarding mutual benefits and the principle of reciprocity enshrined in the Washington Declaration.
The Factor of the Lack of Political Will
At the same time, Grigoryan emphasizes that in practice ensuring such reciprocity was almost impossible. Azerbaijan is not inclined to take such steps, and external actors lack both effective leverage and the political will to compel Baku to agree to balanced and symmetrical solutions.
In the political analyst’s view, this circumstance should be examined not only in technical terms, but above all in a political and strategic context.