He noted that “both sides have come a long way” and emphasized the White House’s intention to “continue pushing” the process. Mr. Miller acknowledged the “opportunity for a deal,” which he said requires both sides to make difficult choices and substantial compromises.
It is clear that nothing is clear. Does the State Department spokesperson believe he clarified everything without providing any specifics? He only mentioned at the end that the administration would not rest until progress is achieved.
But this is where it gets interesting, if not intriguing. What does Matthew Miller mean by progress towards a peace agreement? And what does he consider difficult and substantial compromises for Armenia and Azerbaijan?
Without speculating for Yerevan, it’s noteworthy that Miller used this concept regarding Baku as well. So what does the White House mean?
We agree that these so-called compromises have been discussed by various intermediaries for the past 30 years. They often included veiled (and sometimes open) calls for Baku to recognize the status quo in the region, i.e., to accept the Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani lands.
We’ve been through this. Azerbaijan will not agree to any such combinations. What if one of Washington’s compromises is to maintain Armenia’s constitution in its current form? This would mean Baku agreeing to territorial claims against Azerbaijan enshrined in the Armenian constitution.
What does “progress” entail? Is it the significant military support to Armenia from France and India, leading to regional militarization? Or the Armenian-American military exercises that started yesterday? Mr. Miller did not disclose these nuances. Maybe next time, he will be more detailed.
In light of these emerging questions, another perspective comes to mind. Less than two months ago, in his congratulatory message to the Azerbaijani people on Independence Day, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken welcomed the efforts towards a lasting and dignified peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia and expressed Washington’s readiness to support these efforts to close the chapter on the “long-standing conflict and build a better future.” He emphasized the “full commitment to this goal” and reaffirmed U.S. support for Azerbaijan’s independence, territorial integrity, and sovereignty.
There is clear specificity here. Clarity. No ambiguity or half-truths. Therefore, the question arises: if the White House administration unequivocally recognizes the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic of Azerbaijan, what compromises was Matthew Miller talking about yesterday? Can there be a compromise at the expense of independence? If not, why use this term at all? Wouldn’t it be better for the State Department to direct the Armenian side to fully accept the five principles that official Baku has long outlined as the basis for a peace agreement? These principles include the inviolability of international borders, political independence, a legal obligation not to make territorial claims in the future, refraining from threats to each other’s security, state border delimitation and demarcation, and the opening of transport and communications.
Azerbaijan has made its position clear long ago. If these principles are accepted by the Armenian side, nothing will prevent the signing of a peace agreement between Baku and Yerevan.
Therefore, Azerbaijan will not make any compromises in this direction. If Armenia genuinely hopes to transition from being an object to a subject in world politics, it must swiftly heed Azerbaijan’s position. It must not only listen but also accept all the principles outlined above.
It seems Mr. Miller is well aware of all this.
Teymur Atayev
