Last Friday, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, and US President Donald Trump held historic talks on a peace settlement in Washington. The meeting resulted in the signing of a seven-point declaration, the initialing (not signing) of a 17-part peace agreement, and the establishment of a plan for a yet-unnamed US company to manage a route from Azerbaijan to its exclave of Nakhchivan through Armenian territory. OC Media breaks down what was agreed upon, the related steps toward peace, and what it means for the future and the region as a whole.
Arshaluys Barseghyan, staff writer
I’m quite puzzled by the outcome of the Washington agreements here in Armenia, as there are numerous vague and undisclosed details about what the parties actually agreed upon. What is clear, however, is that with US intervention, Armenia agreed to allow Azerbaijan access to its exclave, Nakhchivan, through Armenian territory. The big question remains: will the roads through Azerbaijan be opened for Armenia as well, or will only Azerbaijan’s demand be met?
At the same time, Armenia seems to have made another concession by submitting a joint application for the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group and its structures, which had been the main platform for Nagorno-Karabakh conflict negotiations. Armenian officials had repeatedly offered to do just that in parallel to signing a peace treaty, concerned that the conflict could otherwise be transferred to Armenian territory. Instead, they did so as they initialled the agreement.
In the end, the agreement still remains unsigned, with Azerbaijan holding firm on another precondition: a change to Armenia’s Constitution.
Aytan Farhadova, staff writer
The peace agreement initialled in Washington between Azerbaijan and Armenia can be seen as a step in the right direction for resolving a conflict that has lasted for decades; but at the same time, it has raised many questions.
When Aliyev and Pashinyan spoke of peace and shook hands, they took on the responsibility of representing two nations, because these nations and their people were the real victims of the wars — wars that destroyed their lives, left them without homes, without their land, and without their loved ones.
But it is also important to question who will extend the hand of peace to the other side — in this case, authoritarian dictator Ilham Aliyev, who has demonstrated zero commitment to democracy and human rights at home.
Peace between nations is more important than declarations. Over the coming months, both sides will need to decide whether to take this responsibility. It will be very complicated to create trust between two nations, and the situation will be even more difficult if one side only pretends to be peaceful. After all, can we really say Azerbaijan seeks peace when it puts journalists behind bars, activists pay for freedom of speech with their lives, and civil society is destroyed?
Peace should not be a screen or a cover under which to hide dirt; peace should be a word that no one is afraid to pronounce, where no one is afraid to visit each other, where no one should be afraid to return to their old home, no matter which side it was built on.
Mikheil Gvadzabia, staff writer
Through US mediation, Armenia and Azerbaijan are working on a still-unfinalised but emerging agreement: an undeniably significant development for a region that has not seen lasting peace in decades. The process is closely followed in Georgia, where, despite the country’s internal democratic crisis and uncertain future, interest in its neighbourhood remains strong. No matter its condition, Georgia cannot isolate itself from the realities of the region.
Among government critics, there is frustration that at what some consider a historic moment for the region, Georgia appears only faintly on the geopolitical map — a consequence, they argue, of sharply deteriorating relations with traditional Western partners under the Georgian Dream government.
It remains unclear what the prospective agreement, still marked by numerous unresolved and ambiguous details, will ultimately bring to the two countries involved and to the wider region: whether it will genuinely succeed or merely join the long list of failed diplomatic efforts. Beyond relations at the state level, there is also the question of what might change between the two peoples themselves, long estranged from one another. And what will it mean, in concrete terms, for those imprisoned in Azerbaijan solely because they sought a dignified present and future for their country?
Still, the process has sparked a cautious sense of renewal in a place where generations have grown up under the shadow of conflict. However, a significant degree of uncertainty still lingers.
Dominik K Cagara, co-founder and CFO
There is still a lot of uncertainty surrounding this deal, but I see it as a step in the right direction. Trust between the sides remains low, and many mutual grievances remain unaddressed. A period free of violence is essential to open up the space for genuine peacebuilding, provided both sides view the settlement as a historic opportunity for reconciliation rather than a tool to undermine one another.
I’m full of scepticism towards Trump’s business-style approach to diplomacy and can imagine many ways this could go wrong — especially as key implementation details remain unknown. Still, I can also see how signing no deal at all might lead to an even worse outcome.
Mariam Nikuradze, co-founder
It’s too early to have any real expectations on what is going to happen next, and there are too many questions left to be answered. For now, my thoughts are with Bahruz Samadov, an Azerbaijani peace activist sitting in jail for almost a year for ‘treason’. Bahruz has been an advocate for peace for many years and we at OC Media are very proud to have collaborated with him and published a number of important articles by him. He is being punished for that, for trying to put in groundwork for the long desired peace in the region which this deal is going to try to achieve.
Robin Fabbro, editor-in-chief
While watching Pashinyan and Aliyev trip over each other to brown-nose Trump left somewhat of a bad taste in the mouth, if it results in the US administration having a stake in the peaceful resolution of the conflict, it could ultimately be a positive development. That this engagement could require offering commercial incentives to the US is also distasteful, but a sign of today’s global reality.
Of course with so many details about the ‘Trump Route’ still up in the air, nothing is certain. But I am cautiously optimistic that we may finally be on the way to a peaceful resolution to this decades-long conflict. Not a perfect peace by a long shot — the chance the thousands of Armenians driven from Nagorno-Karabakh ever see their homeland again remains more remote than ever — but a peace that is preferable to the alternative I feared earlier this year: a return to open war, death, and displacement.
Yousef Bardouka, editor
I’m still recovering from Friday’s press briefing and announcement. It was a marvel watching these two South Caucasus leaders in action alongside Trump, and I must admit that only one of them (cough, Aliyev) actually came out looking good. However, as hopeful as I am that Armenia and Azerbaijan will finally find peace, I can’t help but remain sceptical about the Washington announcement: these two countries have been in conflict for three decades, and I’m not sure Trump’s mediation was the missing ingredient needed to end this bloody enmity.
We know very little (if anything) about how TRIPP would be implemented or what it would look like. We have no idea when the two countries will sign a peace deal, and we have no guarantees that reports of ceasefire violations on their shared border will finally come to an end.
I remain cautiously optimistic and am very much looking forward to seeing future developments unfold.
Xandie (Alexandra) Kuenning, editor
Honestly, it feels like we have all been a part of a show of smoke and mirrors, and when the smoke cleared, we were left with more questions than answers.
Yes, it is definitely good to see Aliyev and Pashinyan appear to make progress on a peace agreement, but so many terms remain up in the air, from Aliyev’s previous preconditions to any bit of insight as to the on-the-ground placement of TRIPP. For all we know, now that Trump has put his name on something and had his photo opp, his role will finish and the peace negotiations will continue to stall as they have since March.
Overall, I am wary about cheering the Washington agreements with too much fervour. Instead, I will wait to see how the next few weeks, or even months, progress, and whether words turn into actions, or just stay as ephemeral as smoke.
Nate Ostiller, editor
I’m cautiously — emphasis on cautiously — optimistic about the steps forward toward peace stemming from the Washington meeting. I’ll start with the positives. Any progress towards normalisation, diplomacy, and no armed conflict on terms that are at least modestly acceptable to both sides is welcome in my opinion.
Under the terms that we tentatively understand, Armenia will retain control and sovereignty of its own territory, both Baku and Yerevan will work on confidence-building, and Armenia’s ability to defend itself if need be will not be limited. Russia being frozen out is also a good thing, for all sides. We may question if the US is truly a trustworthy partner in the age of Trump (or ever for that matter), but Russia has repeatedly proven it is not only impossible to trust, but is an actively toxic, self-interested, and ultimately imperialist actor in the region.
In the most favourable reading of the steps forward, normalisation and the Trump Route (yes, I truly hate this term) will create opportunities for Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as the US, to reap significant economic benefits, not to mention the intangible gains from there simply being no more war.
However, as others have said, what has happened so far is not a signed and sealed peace deal — far from it, and even a signed peace deal does not by itself undo decades of bloody conflict and mutual animosity. Ameliorating this will take significant effort from both sides. Perhaps most importantly, we don’t know how serious Trump is about the US involvement, or if this is a typical attention-seeking, short-term ploy to get a Nobel Peace Prize. Much remains to be seen.
