Judging by how Armenian diplomacy continues to try on various styles of obstructionism—while also indulging in verbose rhetoric—it becomes clear that official Yerevan is only verbally interested in peace. The delays and zigzag maneuvers of its representatives on various platforms only confirm the Armenian side’s unwillingness to reach a result regarding the signing of a peace agreement.
Against the backdrop of uncertainty surrounding the fate of peace in the South Caucasus and ongoing border provocations that violate the ceasefire regime, Armenian diplomacy continues to exaggerate the issues around the draft treaty, even those provisions that seemingly went through the coordination stage. In fact, Yerevan is quietly torpedoing an important process to completely drown it out and spark undesirable and potentially risky new alarming trends.
What is also striking is how Armenia is supported in its dangerous games by external forces that, in words, also welcome the peace process. At the Swiss-Armenian political consultations held in Bern, the issues and topics discussed could arguably be categorized as part of an absurd model. If the efforts of diplomats do not yield real results and lack any constructive spirit, the accumulated potential automatically goes into the bin of exhausted resources.
The proposal to hold bilateral consultations initially appeared quite serious, seemingly capable of bringing positive elements into the evolving situation. However, in reality, it turned out to be yet another attempt to search for empty meanings. Undoubtedly, the participants of the meeting would not admit the futility of their work, the result of which was eloquent yet meaningless statements and hollow announcements.
What does this indicate? Only that the participants in the consultations in Bern—head of the Armenian delegation and Director of the European Department of Armenia’s MFA, Samvel Mkrtchyan, and Head of the Eurasian Division of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA), Muriel Peneveyre—knew in advance that they were merely going to simulate a round of discussions about a problem whose nature and details are widely known. Achieving the long-awaited breakthrough requires forming a unified stance between Baku and Yerevan. The prerequisites for success are obvious, yet Armenia continues to burden the process with ballast in the form of destructiveness.
Once again, the same old story of marching in place repeated itself, which suits both the Armenian side and its foreign supporters just fine. And, as has often happened in the past, a third party involved in the process redirected the mainstream away from the intended goal.
It has long been noted that politics is the art of the possible. If opportunities are clearly visible, there’s no need for lengthy discussion. One simply needs to reach an agreement. And is there any sense in expanding the format of participants? Obviously not.
If Yerevan is so keen to show the world its foamy peace-loving sentiments, it can settle for a series of presentation-style, informative events. However, the way Armenian diplomacy prefers pointless and insignificant discussions involving foreign experts shows that it is merely complicating work on the project by expanding the circle of stakeholders. This clearly harms the cause.
It seems Yerevan has taken a liking to the principle of nullifying the results achieved over the past period, finding comfort in constant resets of a configuration that has already been developed and doesn’t need any additions. The unnecessary involvement of third parties only complicates the process further, adding completely unneeded components and details.
The mood among participants in the Bern talks appeared fairly optimistic, and some observers were quick to share hopeful impressions. The way Armenian representatives warmly welcomed a parliamentary initiative from a European country, interpreting it as a serious attempt to support comprehensive peace, requires no special commentary. After the consultations, it became clear that templates pre-ordered by Yerevan had been prepared in advance.
Swiss diplomacy has always been characterized by self-sufficiency and traditional caution. It does not act for the sake of appearances. However, in this case, it stood out for its bias and ineffectiveness in the context of a sensitive discussion. The choice between the strict demands of international law—insisted upon by official Baku—and the tearful lamentations of a whiny Yerevan proved to be an insurmountable barrier for Bern. Has Swiss diplomacy really stooped to an unusually low level? And did it really need that?
Meanwhile, Armenia continues its senseless games, displaying an increasing level of recklessness. Its loud statement in support of the Swiss Parliament’s destructive initiatives brought it no benefit.
This waste of resources and time only added to Yerevan’s liabilities. In fact, this is where Armenian diplomacy seems to excel—revealing its systemic incompetence. Against the backdrop of Azerbaijan’s growing strategic potential, it is ceding ground. That is its fate.
Tofig Abbasov
