Deputy FM: Azerbaijan’s stance disappointing, alarming

PanARMENIAN.Net - Armenia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Robert Abisoghmonyan presented the peace treaty finalization process with Azerbaijan, its political implications, and upcoming steps during a special OSCE Permanent Council session in Vienna.

He stated that the shortest path to peace lies in signing the agreement, but Azerbaijan’s response and subsequent actions are both disappointing and alarming.

“After three years of intensive negotiations, on March 13, 2025, Armenia accepted the final version of the agreement and informed the Azerbaijani side. Finalizing this document is a major milestone in a decades-long conflict, creating a historic opportunity for regional peace. This process has required genuine commitment, tireless effort, and strategic patience to address sensitive issues and bridge differences. As a result, we finalized the draft text and are now ready to discuss the timing and location for its official signing. On March 20, 2025, the Prime Minister of Armenia proposed to the President of Azerbaijan to hold joint discussions on signing the agreed draft.

Several international partners have welcomed this positive development and urged the parties to continue constructive engagement toward the swift signing of the Peace Agreement and progress in other areas of the peace agenda.

To our surprise, Azerbaijan's response and actions were both disappointing and worrying. While acknowledging the conclusion of negotiations, Azerbaijan simultaneously introduced artificial preconditions.

Armenia has consistently stated that resolving all the accumulated issues of a decades-long conflict through a single agreement is unrealistic. Nevertheless, signing the peace agreement would foster a favorable environment to address unresolved issues,” he said.

He added that Azerbaijan demands the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group structures—despite Armenia's constructive approach throughout negotiations—as a unilateral demonstration of Armenia’s commitment. Moreover, Baku insists that Armenia amend its Constitution, claiming that references to the Declaration of Independence in its preamble imply territorial claims against Azerbaijan.

“Armenia has already made its position clear at the highest level. We are ready to consider dissolving the OSCE Minsk Group structures, but only once the Peace Agreement is signed, officially and institutionally ending the conflict. Otherwise, this would be premature. If Azerbaijan wants these structures gone, the most legitimate way is to sign the agreement.

As for Armenia’s Constitution, we inform participating states that on September 26, 2024, the Constitutional Court of Armenia validated the agreement regulating the joint work of the border commissions, confirming that demarcation based on the 1991 Almaty Declaration is consistent with Armenia’s Constitution. This means that mutual recognition of territorial integrity based on borders at the time of the Soviet Union’s dissolution, as reflected in the Agreement, fully aligns with our Constitution, and Armenia holds no territorial claims against Azerbaijan. In other words, the quickest way to ease Azerbaijan’s concerns is also signing the Agreement.

Moreover, the Constitutional Court clarified that only the provisions of the Declaration of Independence explicitly reflected in constitutional articles have legal force. Any parts not embedded in the Constitution carry no legal weight.

Thus, it is once again reaffirmed that Armenia’s Constitution contains no provision that can be interpreted as a territorial claim against any third country,” Abisoghmonyan stated.

He added that it is, in fact, Azerbaijan’s Constitution that raises concerns, as it includes clauses implying territorial claims against Armenia.

“The preamble of Azerbaijan’s Constitution refers to the 1991 Constitutional Act adopted by its parliament, which, in turn, refers to the 1918 Declaration of Independence of the First Republic of Azerbaijan. That declaration stated that the republic included Eastern and Southern Transcaucasia. In November 1919, Azerbaijan submitted a map to the Entente powers showing around 60% of Armenia’s current territory within Azerbaijan. Therefore, Azerbaijan’s Constitution includes territorial claims against Armenia,” he concluded.

Addressing the OSCE Permanent Council, Armenia’s Deputy Foreign Minister questioned why Yerevan is not demanding changes to Azerbaijan’s Constitution, given Baku's insistence on Armenian constitutional amendments.

He explained that the peace agreement contains a clause prohibiting either party from invoking domestic legislation to justify non-compliance. Another provision states that both countries recognize each other's territorial integrity, have no territorial claims, and commit to avoiding such claims in the future. Furthermore, both sides acknowledge each other’s borders as those of former Soviet republics.

Therefore, once the agreement is signed by Armenia and Azerbaijan, endorsed by their constitutional courts, and ratified, it will hold supreme legal authority over any domestic law.

“In this regard, raising any unrelated issue as a precondition to signing only delays the peace process,” he said.

The Deputy Minister also addressed Azerbaijan’s disinformation campaign regarding alleged ceasefire violations along the border.

“Why would Armenia prepare to use force? What agenda item would justify Armenia initiating force?” he asked.

He reminded the Council that over 200 square kilometers of Armenia’s sovereign territory remain under Azerbaijani occupation. Despite this, Armenia has declared at the highest level that it will not seek a military solution. The ongoing border delimitation process and legal provisions within the finalized peace agreement offer peaceful avenues for resolving the issue. Armenia remains committed to the principles of peace.

In this context, Armenia’s Ministry of Defense has launched an investigation into alleged ceasefire violations. Simultaneously, Yerevan, seeking to foster a climate of trust, proposed to Baku a joint mechanism for investigating violations. Additional steps were suggested, such as mirrored troop withdrawals from the border and mutual arms control mechanisms. Sadly, these proposals received no positive response from Azerbaijan, casting doubt on the sincerity behind their frequent accusations.

It was stressed that Baku’s allegations are part of a broader disinformation policy, used to justify renewed regional tensions. This tactic, according to the Armenian side, was flagged to OSCE states in both 2020 and 2023. A call for vigilance was issued, highlighting that spreading falsehoods and baseless accusations could signal upcoming military escalations, not just distort the truth. These developments demand caution and greater dedication to peace.

Recent threats and escalatory rhetoric against Armenia were presented as a continuation of this concerning trend, echoing past episodes of military tension. Armenia reiterated that peace requires restraint and constructive dialogue. Durable peace must be built on trust, genuine cooperation, and responsibility—not threats or mutual blame.

Concluding his speech, the Armenian representative reaffirmed Yerevan’s readiness to sign the peace agreement and proposed starting consultations with Baku to determine the date and venue for the signing. His final message was unequivocal: “We are choosing peace, not war.”

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has repeatedly stated that the draft peace agreement with Azerbaijan is finalized and ready for signing. He has called on President Aliyev to initiate consultations toward its conclusion. On March 13, Armenia’s Foreign Ministry announced it had accepted Azerbaijan’s proposals on the remaining two articles, declaring the agreement ready for signature. Yerevan is ready to discuss timing and location, while Baku introduced new preconditions, saying it is too early to set a date.