“Peace is being undermined” — this is the headline under which the Swiss newspaper 20 Minuten published a commentary from the Azerbaijani Embassy and Azerbaijani parliamentarians regarding a controversial attempt by the local Armenian lobby to organize a “peace initiative for Nagorno-Karabakh.”
Thanks to the confidential and highly professional efforts of the Azerbaijani Embassy in Switzerland, the federal government of the Alpine republic firmly opposed this forum. Despite this, Armenian representatives managed to push a resolution through the Swiss parliament to establish a “public support committee” for their contentious initiative.
Now, 20 Minuten has requested a statement from the Azerbaijani Embassy and published its response: the Azerbaijani Embassy welcomes the position of the Swiss Federal Council regarding the “Swiss Peace Initiative for Nagorno-Karabakh” committee. Both the diplomatic mission and the newspaper recall that the Swiss government had recommended rejecting the proposal. The letter from Samad Seyidov, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign and Interparliamentary Relations of the Milli Majlis (Parliament) of Azerbaijan, is also cited: the decision “causes deep concern and disappointment.” “Such initiatives are not only counterproductive for peaceful conflict resolution but seriously undermine it. Peace in Karabakh has already been established, and the current focus is on recovery and development. These proposals could severely damage Switzerland’s reputation as a neutral venue for negotiations,” Seyidov noted.
The letter from Fariz Ismailzade, head of the Azerbaijan-UK Interparliamentary Working Group, is also mentioned, this one addressed to British MPs. It outlines atrocities committed by the Armenian side against the local Azerbaijani population and calls for resistance against external influence and efforts to derail the peace process.
Thanks to the efforts of Azerbaijani diplomats in Switzerland, public discourse in the local press about the attempted “peace conference” is unfolding in a very different direction than the Armenian lobby had hoped.
This is hardly surprising. Azerbaijan has fully restored its territorial integrity, expelled the occupying forces, and turned the page on the conflict. Azerbaijan and Armenia are now working on the text of a peace treaty. In fact, the treaty has already been agreed upon — the only step left is for Armenia to fulfill additional Azerbaijani conditions, primarily constitutional amendments. To be blunt: the peace scenario now unfolding was written in Baku. There is no longer any room for conferences, initiatives, or Karabakh-related negotiations driven by Swiss-based Armenian lobbyists.
Yet, the Armenian diaspora continues to act as if it were still the era of war and occupation. And now, even Swiss experts admit that its actions are undermining the peace process in the region.
This is a complex and significant issue. When the USSR collapsed, many believed that the numerous, wealthy, influential, and politically structured Armenian diaspora was a tremendous advantage for Armenia. But events have shown that this “advantage” became a severe political trap. Few in Armenian circles like to speak openly about it, but the political mechanisms of the diaspora were originally created during World War I — as a PR tool for promoting the idea of separating six vilayets from the Ottoman Empire. In essence, these mechanisms were not created by Armenians or for Armenian interests; they were constructed by European powers for their own strategic aims.
In the 1960s–70s, the Soviet Union began financing and using these diaspora structures to exert pressure on Turkey, which had joined NATO by then. Later, these mechanisms were redirected toward the Karabakh issue.
Furthermore, many “traditional” Armenian political parties — primarily the ARF Dashnaktsutyun — continued to operate in the diaspora. This activity had its own characteristics. Armenia did not yet exist as a state. These parties did not have to worry about how Armenia could survive economically and physically, especially amid territorial disputes with Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Georgia. They didn’t concern themselves with ensuring security, paying salaries or pensions, exporting apricots and brandy, or importing hydrocarbons. Instead, they freely discussed which lands from neighboring countries should “belong” to “long-suffering Armenia.” And of course, the price of such discourse — for ethnic Armenians strolling along Lake Geneva while talking about Karabakh — differed greatly from that paid by ordinary citizens of Armenia.
Today, a paradoxical situation has emerged. Baku and Yerevan are engaged in direct peace negotiations — without intermediaries — as shown by their recent meeting in Abu Dhabi. Even earlier, the two countries agreed directly to begin border delimitation and return four Azerbaijani villages in the Gazakh district, previously under Armenian occupation. The Armenian authorities — willingly or not — are following the peace roadmap outlined by Azerbaijan. And they don’t really have an alternative: after losing two wars, it is unwise to play risky games around the peace treaty.
The diaspora and its lobbyists, however, have their own agenda. And today, all their political tools are being used in ways far more dangerous for Armenia than for Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan has resolved its issues of territorial integrity and security. For Armenia, however, avoiding new geopolitical misadventures remains a pressing challenge. As Armenian politicians admitted back in the mid-1990s, the tone for the Karabakh confrontation was initially set by the “traditional” parties operating within the diaspora. And if their current disruptive actions result in a missed opportunity for peace, it is Armenia that will pay the highest price.
Nurani
Translated from minval.az
