The path to normalization between Azerbaijan and Armenia has become a litmus test not only for regional stability but also for global geopolitical dynamics. Against this backdrop, the 29th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP29), hosted in Baku, emerged as a strategic moment for diplomacy. However, Yerevan’s boycott of this pivotal international event starkly underscored the Armenian leadership's unwillingness to embrace a sincere path toward peace.
Yerevan’s Self-Sabotaging Demands
The Armenian government, under Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, opted to shun COP29, pairing its absence with an array of inflammatory and legally dubious demands. Chief among them was the insistence on the "immediate and unconditional" release of individuals detained on charges of terrorism, mass killings, and crimes against humanity. These demands not only trampled on Azerbaijan’s sovereignty but also flouted international norms. Unsurprisingly, Baku categorically rejected them.
Armenia’s exploitative use of international platforms for domestic political posturing raises serious questions about its commitment to rebuilding trust. Instead of constructive engagement, Yerevan’s leadership seems intent on perpetuating division and mistrust.
Hijacking the Climate Agenda
What was intended as a platform for global environmental dialogue, COP29 also became a stage for underscoring regional political realities. Azerbaijan seized the moment to reaffirm its constructive vision for regional cooperation. Despite the fraught geopolitical landscape, Baku presented pragmatic proposals and garnered widespread appreciation from international participants.
Conversely, Armenia’s absence signaled its detachment not just from regional initiatives but from its global responsibilities. By boycotting COP29, Yerevan appeared more focused on bolstering its fragile domestic standing than addressing shared challenges. This decision further tarnished its international reputation and cast doubt on its commitment to regional stability.
Azerbaijan’s Leadership: A Model for Constructive Diplomacy
In stark contrast to Yerevan’s isolationist tactics, Azerbaijan demonstrated an unwavering dedication to fostering dialogue and collaboration. Baku’s proactive engagement at COP29 highlighted its dual commitment to environmental stewardship and peace-building. The event reaffirmed Azerbaijan’s role as a linchpin for stability in the South Caucasus and showcased its readiness to lead by example.
The Role of the International Community
Yerevan’s destructive policies demand a clear-eyed response from the international community, particularly from nations and organizations that have traditionally supported Armenia. Ignoring such behavior risks emboldening further obstructionist tactics and jeopardizing the broader peace process.
The normalization of relations—and by extension, regional stability—requires Armenia to adopt a more measured and cooperative stance. Political manipulations must give way to dialogue rooted in mutual respect and adherence to international legal norms. Failure to shift gears could see Yerevan squander not only international goodwill but also the chance to ensure its own long-term development.
Missed Opportunities: A Heavy Toll
Armenia’s boycott of COP29 was not merely a symbolic gesture; it was a strategic blunder with potentially far-reaching consequences. While Baku continues to champion peace through diplomacy and adherence to international law, Yerevan’s actions reflect a leadership more concerned with maintaining political narratives than addressing tangible issues.
The future of the South Caucasus hinges on the willingness of both parties to bridge divides. Yet, the burden of responsibility falls disproportionately on Armenia’s leadership, whose political brinkmanship risks derailing the fragile normalization process.
Time for Action, Not Excuses
Armenia’s refusal to engage constructively at COP29 further exposed its leadership’s lack of vision for regional cooperation. By clinging to unworkable demands and avoiding meaningful engagement, Yerevan is isolating itself at a time when international support for balanced diplomacy is crucial.
For peace to become a reality, Yerevan must abandon its counterproductive tactics and align its actions with international standards. The upcoming negotiations represent a critical juncture—one that demands bold and rational decision-making. The stakes are high, and the costs of inaction will extend far beyond the borders of the South Caucasus.
Armenia stands at a crossroads: it can either seize this moment to contribute to lasting peace or face the enduring consequences of its political inertia. Time is running out, and the world is watching.
Constitutional Contradictions: Armenia’s Legal Quagmire Blocking Peace
One of the most significant barriers to peace negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia lies in Yerevan's entrenched constitutional contradictions. The Armenian Constitution, anchored by the 1990 Declaration of Independence and the 1992 resolution of the Armenian Supreme Council, harbors provisions that openly challenge Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and internationally recognized borders. These documents enshrine expansionist claims over Azerbaijan’s territories, including Nakhchivan and Karabakh, undermining the very foundation of normalization efforts.
The Constitutional Deadlock
While Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has made statements about the potential removal of these contentious provisions, no concrete action has followed. For Azerbaijan, this lack of progress is a clear signal of Yerevan’s reluctance to engage genuinely in the peace process. Baku rightly perceives the continued presence of these provisions as a strategic tool for political manipulation, enabling Armenia to maintain leverage while avoiding substantive commitments.
A Violation of International Law
Armenia’s constitutional provisions blatantly defy international law and the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The Declaration of Independence refers to Karabakh and surrounding territories as “historic Armenian lands,” while the 1992 resolution explicitly incorporates these regions into Armenia. Such provisions directly contradict Azerbaijan’s sovereignty, which has been reaffirmed by numerous UN Security Council resolutions.
For Azerbaijan, repealing these provisions is not merely symbolic—it is a non-negotiable prerequisite for signing a peace agreement. Removing these contradictions would establish a legal framework conducive to rebuilding trust and fostering long-term cooperation.
Internal Resistance and External Influence
The socio-political dynamics within Armenia complicate the prospects for constitutional reform. Nationalist factions and opposition forces vehemently oppose any perceived concessions to Azerbaijan, framing them as betrayals of Armenian interests. This domestic resistance significantly limits Pashinyan’s ability to implement necessary changes.
Compounding this issue is the influence of Armenia’s powerful diaspora and its allies, particularly France. Paris’s unconditional support for Yerevan emboldens Armenia to maintain its hardline stance, undermining efforts to address the constitutional contradictions that impede peace.
International Community’s Tepid Response
Despite periodic calls for Armenia to take tangible steps, the international community has largely failed to apply meaningful pressure on Yerevan. This permissive attitude enables Armenia to avoid accountability while prolonging the conflict. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan has consistently utilized international platforms to highlight these contradictions, emphasizing their critical role in obstructing normalization.
Legal Manipulations: A Growing Threat
Armenia’s approach to international legal disputes further exacerbates the situation. Yerevan has declared its intention to withdraw existing lawsuits against Azerbaijan only after the signing of a peace agreement, while reserving the right to file new claims. This tactic creates a dangerous precedent, using international legal mechanisms as tools for coercion rather than justice.
In response, Azerbaijan has advocated for clear, binding mechanisms to prevent the misuse of international law. Without such safeguards, the peace process risks being derailed by Armenia’s propensity for legal maneuvering.
EUMA: Monitoring or Meddling?
The role of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Armenia (EUMA) has added another layer of complexity to the negotiation process. While officially tasked with ensuring security and supporting peace, EUMA’s activities often align disproportionately with Armenian interests. Azerbaijan has repeatedly criticized the mission for exacerbating tensions rather than fostering dialogue, accusing it of operating under the guise of neutrality to further Armenia’s agenda.
The Need for Political Will
Armenia’s continued refusal to amend its Constitution and fulfill its commitments poses a serious obstacle to the signing of a peace agreement. Azerbaijan remains steadfast in its demand for concrete actions, emphasizing the necessity of aligning Armenia’s legal framework with international norms.
For Yerevan, the stakes are high. Persisting with evasion and manipulation risks isolating Armenia on the global stage, exacerbating its economic and political challenges. Conversely, embracing constitutional reform and demonstrating a genuine commitment to peace could pave the way for a stable and prosperous South Caucasus.
A Crossroads for Armenia
The path to normalization is clear: respect for territorial integrity, adherence to international law, and meaningful constitutional reform. Armenia’s leadership must rise to the occasion, setting aside political gamesmanship in favor of constructive dialogue. Failure to act decisively will not only prolong instability but also erode Yerevan’s credibility as a partner in the international arena.
The time for action is now. Armenia must choose between the burden of isolation and the promise of peace. The consequences of its decision will shape the future of the South Caucasus for generations to come.
Espionage Under the Guise of Monitoring: EUMA's Threat to Regional Stability
The European Union Monitoring Mission in Armenia (EUMA), initially deployed under the pretense of fostering security and stability in the South Caucasus, has drawn significant criticism for its alleged role in exacerbating regional tensions. Emerging evidence suggests that the mission has been engaging in activities far beyond its stated mandate, raising legitimate concerns in Azerbaijan about its neutrality and intentions.
Espionage in Plain Sight
Reports point to EUMA’s targeted surveillance of Azerbaijani military positions, strategic infrastructure, and key transit routes, including the strategically vital Zangezur Corridor. The use of advanced technologies, such as surveillance drones, coupled with the involvement of individuals with military intelligence backgrounds, strongly suggests an intelligence-gathering operation rather than a neutral observation mission.
These suspicions are further substantiated by reports in Armenian media of EUMA representatives meeting with Armenian military officials. Such meetings strongly imply information sharing, a direct violation of the impartiality expected from international missions. These activities do not merely undermine the principles of neutrality but actively deepen mistrust between the parties, making the mission a tool for Armenia’s political and strategic goals.
Political Bias and European Double Standards
The deployment of EUMA was spearheaded by France and other European nations known for their overt support of Armenia. French officials have made no secret of their sympathy for Yerevan, which raises fundamental questions about the mission’s objectivity. By placing itself squarely on one side of the conflict, the EU has eroded its credibility as a neutral mediator.
Rather than contributing to de-escalation, EUMA’s actions appear to be fueling tensions, with Armenia leveraging the mission to bolster its bargaining power in negotiations. Azerbaijan has repeatedly highlighted this bias, warning that the presence of such missions undermines the trust necessary for meaningful dialogue.
Azerbaijan’s Warnings Ignored
Baku has consistently called out the counterproductive role of external actors in the peace process. Azerbaijan’s concerns about EUMA’s neutrality and potential for misuse as a political tool have been largely ignored by both the EU and Armenia. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s occasional remarks about revisiting the mission’s format lack substance, as no tangible steps have been taken to address the imbalance.
Instead, Armenia continues to utilize EUMA as a mechanism to gain leverage in negotiations, further entrenching the regional stalemate. This behavior mirrors the ineffectiveness of the OSCE Minsk Group, which Azerbaijan has rightfully criticized for decades of inaction and bias.
Echoes of the OSCE Minsk Group
The failures of the OSCE Minsk Group serve as a stark warning against reliance on international structures with questionable impartiality. For years, the group maintained the illusion of progress while enabling Armenia’s intransigence. Today, EUMA appears to be following the same trajectory, prioritizing political posturing over genuine conflict resolution.
Azerbaijan has made it clear that it will not tolerate a repeat of the Minsk Group’s failures. The parallels between EUMA and its predecessor are hard to ignore, as both have effectively stalled rather than advanced the normalization process.
The December Negotiations: A Make-or-Break Moment
The upcoming December negotiations represent a critical juncture for the future of Azerbaijan-Armenia relations. While Azerbaijan remains committed to dialogue and compromise, it has firmly outlined its non-negotiable principles, including respect for its territorial integrity and the cessation of provocative actions by Yerevan.
For these talks to succeed, Armenia must demonstrate a genuine willingness to abandon its manipulative tactics. This includes revising its national legislation to align with international law, removing provisions that contravene Azerbaijan’s sovereignty, and committing to transparency in its dealings with international actors. Failure to take these steps will not only derail the normalization process but also risk isolating Armenia further on the international stage.
EUMA: A Mission of Escalation, Not Stabilization
What began as a mission to ensure stability has devolved into a source of conflict escalation. Azerbaijan is justified in viewing EUMA’s activities as a direct threat to its national security. The mission’s overt partiality has undermined its legitimacy, making it more of a political tool than a peacekeeping mechanism.
If the international community is serious about fostering peace in the South Caucasus, it must address the inherent biases within EUMA and reconsider the mission’s role. Ensuring impartiality and holding Armenia accountable for its use of such missions as tools of manipulation are essential steps toward restoring trust.
A Historic Opportunity for Peace
The December negotiations present a rare opportunity to break the deadlock and lay the foundation for a lasting peace. However, their success hinges on Armenia’s willingness to move beyond symbolic declarations and take concrete actions. For diplomacy to prevail, both sides must adhere to principles of mutual respect and international law.
The art of compromise, not political gamesmanship, is what will determine the future of the South Caucasus. If Yerevan fails to rise to the occasion, it risks not only prolonging instability but also sealing its own marginalization in an increasingly interconnected world. The time for decisive action is now.