Political analyst Boris Navasardyan has identified three issues that complicate the peace process between Armenia and Azerbaijan. According to him, the fact that the peace agreement was only initialed, not signed, in Washington is entirely logical given the current situation.
“Azerbaijan set preconditions for signing the peace agreement, and since these were already stated, expecting Baku to back down would be naive. However, to achieve the implementation of other decisions, these concessions had to be made,” he emphasized, adding that many preconditions could have been avoided.
He recalled that in March 2022, Azerbaijan proposed six principles for peaceful resolution. At that time, there were no demands regarding constitutional changes, the dissolution of the Minsk Group, or several provisions of the initialed agreement that are now considered undesirable. Armenia then introduced its own preconditions, the process stalled, and over the past three years, numerous issues have accumulated, now reflected in both the preconditions and the seventeen points of the draft peace agreement. According to Navasardyan, three points in the initialed agreement pose certain risks to the process.
Point Seven: Presence of Third Parties at the Border
“Point seven excludes the presence of third parties at the border. I believe this is an internal matter for each state—how it organizes its border security. If assistance from third parties is needed, a country should have that right within its sovereignty,” Navasardyan explained.
According to his assessment, this point was included in the document because the presence of EUMA observers caused irritation in Azerbaijani society, with Baku convinced that observers would shift responsibility for any incidents onto them. Now that it has become clear that EUMA does not engage in such behavior, the irritation has subsided, but this entirely inappropriate point remains in the text of the document.
Point Eight: Combating Extremism, Hate Rhetoric, and Discrimination
“Point eight calls for combating manifestations of extremism, hate rhetoric, and discrimination. The interpretations of these terms differ in Azerbaijan and Armenia, making this point conflict-prone,” Navasardyan noted.
He emphasized that the term “separatism” is included in this point alongside criminally punishable acts. However, under international law, separatism cannot be criminally punishable unless it takes an extremist form. Including such a term in the agreement could cause friction, which should be avoided. The expert cited examples from Europe—Scotland, the Basque Country, South Tyrol—where separatism exists, but a civilized approach by metropolitan authorities allows for resolving and mitigating issues without conflict.
Point Fifteen: Withdrawal of Lawsuits and Potential Amnesty
“Point fifteen concerns the withdrawal of lawsuits. The logic is clear: the peace process between countries and peoples in deep conflict should not be fueled by legal actions. But why include this in the agreement if there is mutual understanding in Yerevan and Baku?” the expert remarked.
He added that private individuals can still file lawsuits, which creates the potential for escalations and contradictions. Moreover, it is unclear whether the point implies amnesty for all war crimes. If amnesty is intended, it should be explicitly stated. Otherwise, a selective approach is created. According to the expert, these three issues complicate the peace process.
Navasardyan emphasized that despite this, he remains tolerant of the situation, as recent weeks have shown that both sides understand the risks and will strive to prevent these problematic points from manifesting in practice. Everything will depend on maintaining the goodwill that was clearly present at the Washington meeting.