Abu Dhabi - © Shutterstock
Baku and Yerevan appear to have made significant progress toward reaching a peace treaty after a meeting, described as "constructive," held in the United Arab Emirates in early July. However, many question marks remain unanswered
The 10 July meeting between Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev in Abu Dhabi marked a significant if still uncertain step in the fragile peace process between the two countries. Whether the 10 July talks will prove historic, as some have already termed them, or merely yet another waypoint, remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that expectations are once again heightened as diplomacy seemingly moves forward.
Unlike previous summits in Brussels, Moscow, or Washington, the choice of the United Arab Emirates as the venue was met with rare universal approval. The absence of geopolitical baggage allowed for what Azerbaijani analysts hailed as the first truly bilateral interstate meeting between Yerevan and Baku. Even the Emirati hosts refrained from public comments while identical statements from both Armenia and Azerbaijan described the talks as “constructive.”
But while both governments now suggest they are closer than ever to formalising a peace treaty, core issues remain unresolved. Chief among them is Baku’s demand for Armenia to remove a controversial preamble from its constitution, something that will require a national referendum. Some Azerbaijani analysts have floated a compromise – sign the treaty now, but delay ratification pending constitutional reform – but that scenario remains unofficial and theoretical.
Yerevan’s position is further complicated by internal and external realities. Domestically, Pashinyan may need a signed peace agreement to boost his chances of securing a third term in next year’s parliamentary elections. Internationally, its border with Turkey remains closed. Some pro-government voices have recently attempted to appeal to U.S. President Donald Trump’s ego, dangling the prospect of a Nobel Peace Prize to entice pressure on Ankara and Baku to make it happen.
That is not as far-fetched as it sounds. In December, the McCain Institute’s Evelyn N. Farkas suggested the same, writing for The Hill. A few days ago, in an interview with AnewZ, former U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan and once co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Matthew Bryza placed great emphasis on this as a major incentive why Trump might become involved. The second reason would simply be financial to benefit U.S. businesses.
A recent article by Carnegie Politika suggested that Washington has its sights set on replacing Russian FSB oversight of any future transit route from Azerbaijan to its exclave of Nakhchivan with an American company. That appeared to be confirmed last week by comments from U.S. Ambassador to Turkiye Thomas J. Barrack, who hypothesised this could be in the form of a 100-year lease, and by Pashinyan in a televised press conference broadcast on 16 July.
However, Pashinyan did stress that no decision has been taken on this and others have also shown an interest in managing the route, including the European Union. At time of writing, there has been no public response from Moscow or Tehran despite the route on Armenia-Iran border initially envisaged to be overseen by Russian FSB border guards as per the November 2020 ceasefire statement that ended the last war.
Regardless, there is consensus in Brussels and Washington that an agreement is within reach. The EU, in particular, has made no secret of its desire to see the treaty signed soon. The stakes are regional with a corridor linking Europe and Central Asia via Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan serving key EU and U.S. interests. Nonetheless, ambiguity persists.
Azerbaijani media have reported that the treaty might be first initialed rather than signed, echoing speculation ahead of last year’s COP29 summit in Baku. Once again, though Armenia’s Foreign Ministry initially denied this, Pashinyan confirmed this was discussed in Abu Dhabi. Some Armenian analysts argue even an initialed text would provide political capital for Pashinyan next year when he seeks re-election.
Confidence-building measures were also on the table in Abu Dhabi and forming new bilateral working groups discussed, though it remains unclear whether they would include a bilateral mechanism to unblock communications, especially as the current trilateral Russia-led format has stalled. The sides also agreed to continue nascent border demarcation efforts, effectively stalled since 10-12 kilometres were formalised over a year ago.
In off the cuff remarks on Armenia and Azerbaijan made in the Oval Office, Trump was upbeat. “'It looks like that’s going to come to a conclusion – a successful conclusion,” he said in a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on 14 July. Others are only cautiously optimistic, however, echoing official comments from Baku made in April that a peace deal is closer than ever before.”
The text of the agreement to normalise relations, finalised in March, has yet to be presented to the public in both countries, while neither population has been prepared for the moment a peace deal is signed after over three decades of conflict and mutual animosity. The situation remains particularly uncertain with parliamentary elections in Armenia just 11 months away.
To Top