The United States is seeking to offer the world its own model for cooperation and peace between countries in conflict, based not only on political agreements but also on mutual trade and economic interests. This was stated by political analyst Boris Navasardyan.
Armenia-Azerbaijan Normalization Has Become Part of the U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda
According to Navasardyan, the United States has achieved some of the most significant results with this approach in the case of Armenia and Azerbaijan.
The normalization of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations has gradually become a direct component of U.S. foreign policy and an important area of Washington’s agenda.
At the same time, he stresses that the United States does not have such obvious economic interests in Armenia and Azerbaijan that would, by themselves, explain this level of active involvement.
Nevertheless, Washington continues to work consistently on the implementation of TRIPP and regularly sends messages to both Yerevan and Baku, emphasizing that it remains interested in Armenian-Azerbaijani normalization and is prepared to support the process.
According to Navasardyan, what matters in this context is not only intensive communication between Yerevan and Baku but also the emerging Yerevan-Baku-Washington triangle.
In his view, this demonstrates that the Armenian-Azerbaijani normalization model has acquired significance both for regional developments and for U.S. foreign policy.
Economic Interdependence Also Depends on TRIPP’s Success
At the same time, the analyst points to a major risk.
Navasardyan notes that the region remains unstable, and even if Armenian-Azerbaijani relations continue to develop positively, destabilizing factors in neighboring countries could affect TRIPP and other joint initiatives.
He points to Iran as one example, where tensions remain high. At the same time, he believes recent statements suggest that Washington currently does not intend to place its main emphasis on military action.
Navasardyan also highlights the Russian factor, arguing that Moscow is making considerable efforts to obstruct the implementation of TRIPP and other joint Armenian-Azerbaijani projects.
Yerevan and Baku Need Alternative Projects
The analyst believes Armenia and Azerbaijan should also be prepared for a scenario in which serious problems emerge during TRIPP’s implementation.
In that case, new projects will be necessary to preserve mutual economic incentives between Yerevan and Baku.
Navasardyan identifies two parallel priorities.
The first is to do everything possible to overcome obstacles facing TRIPP.
The second is to develop alternative or complementary trade and economic initiatives at the same time.
According to him, conditions may emerge in Armenia after the elections for such projects to be discussed and developed more intensively.
Expanding economic interdependence, he argues, could become a long-term driver of relations between Yerevan and Baku regardless of difficulties surrounding individual projects.
The Constitutional Issue Continues to Create Uncertainty
Another major issue remains in the Armenian-Azerbaijani normalization process: the prospect of signing an agreement on peace and interstate relations.
According to Navasardyan, Azerbaijan’s demand for Armenia to adopt a new Constitution creates significant uncertainty.
He stresses that Armenia’s current Constitution does not in itself obstruct peace in any way. Nevertheless, Baku’s demand has already become part of the bilateral agenda.
In his assessment, it is clear that Azerbaijan does not intend to abandon this demand.
For this reason, Armenia needs to build the broadest possible political and public consensus around any potential constitutional changes.
Navasardyan argues that Armenia’s political elite, including parties represented in parliament, must recognize the common national and state interest and work on a constitutional document whose provisions are acceptable at least to the country’s principal political forces and, ideally, to broad sections of society.
He sees this as serious political work that should be undertaken by the newly elected National Assembly.
At the same time, the government and the commission drafting the Constitution should prepare a high-quality document and organize a serious and constructive public discussion around it.
However, Navasardyan warns that even such a process would not guarantee enough votes to put the constitutional draft to a referendum.
Yerevan and Baku Could Consider an Interim Agreement
For this reason, Navasardyan has long proposed that Armenian and Azerbaijani political and expert circles consider an alternative process.
His proposal involves developing an interim document that would allow Yerevan and Baku to establish diplomatic relations without waiting for every outstanding issue surrounding the full peace treaty to be resolved.
The analyst believes ongoing developments in trade, economic cooperation and communications will eventually lead to a point where further progress will no longer be possible without formal interstate and diplomatic relations.
He envisions a more limited or “light” version of a peace agreement.
Such a document would not replace the main treaty but would include the core provisions necessary for normalizing relations between the two countries.
According to Navasardyan, it could allow Armenia and Azerbaijan to establish institutional relations without creating far-reaching commitments that might further complicate the process.
An Interim Agreement Would Not Replace the Peace Treaty
The analyst emphasizes that adopting such a document should not mean abandoning the agenda of a full peace agreement.
On the contrary, one of its first provisions should affirm Armenia and Azerbaijan’s commitment to a final peace treaty as the ultimate objective.
The interim document could then serve as a practical mechanism for removing the obstacles that currently prevent the two countries from establishing full relations.
According to Navasardyan, this would require difficult diplomatic and political work from both Yerevan and Baku.
The challenge is not simply to sign a document but to build a system of relations capable of transforming economic cooperation into stable interstate ties.
Armenia and Azerbaijan’s Experience Could Matter Beyond the Region
Navasardyan believes continued U.S. interest in the process is another important factor.
Washington wants the overcoming of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict to become an example of an effective model for achieving peace through cooperation.
In this sense, he argues, the responsibility of Armenia and Azerbaijan goes beyond bilateral relations.
If Yerevan and Baku succeed in moving from conflict toward economic interdependence, diplomatic relations and long-term peace, the resulting model could potentially be relevant to other conflicts around the world.
The Armenian-Azerbaijani process can therefore be viewed not only as an attempt to normalize relations between two neighboring countries but also as a test of a broader international model in which economic interests, open communications and mutual dependence become foundations for peace alongside political agreements.