Headless state's prime minister: who is decision-maker in country?
One meeting at a time, the agreement of the Armenian leadership in the meeting, and in the end, different opinions and chaos in the country, and ultimately Pashinyan's reneging on his promise - pretending to be fearing for his life. All this has already turned into a constantly repeating scenario, which has been a tedious story for Azerbaijan, Europe and the West, and even Russia.
Finally, on May 14, in accordance with the wishes of Azerbaijan, as well as the steps taken for the restoration of real peace in the region, the trilateral meeting was held among three leaders bringing the Brussels format back. The meeting, which took place in a positive mood, ended with some successful results for Azerbaijan as well. Even though the tripartite meeting in Brussels did not fully satisfy Armenia, it was undeniable that in the end, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan would agree to the set conditions.
What points were considered at the Brussels meeting?
First, the main issue was the adherence of Azerbaijani and Armenian leaders to the terms of the 1991 Almaty declaration and the mutually respect of both parties to each other's territorial integrity. This was also a confirmation of the Armenian Prime Minister's recognition of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, similar to the meeting in Prague.
Another issue discussed was the mutual agreement regarding prisoners of war. As the President of the Council of Europe, Charles Michel, emphasized, it seemed promising that positive results would be achieved between the two sides. However, every time Armenians, being faithful to their tradition, try to violate what is written on the document. Some statements made in the Armenian media the other day brought back the old anti-Azerbaijan atmosphere. In the statement of Armenian deputy Artur Khachatryan, the criticism of Pashinyan once again showed that Armenia does not want to negotiate with Azerbaijan. At the same time, it can be emphasized that the MP's calling the Brussels meeting inconclusive and Azerbaijan's "taking over the rule of the Nagorno-Karabakh" as a clear disrespect for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. A question also arises here: does this country have a leader? Whose word is superior in this country?
The formation of such a chaotic mood in the country after Pashinyan's meetings can mean that the leadership either lacks authority or that Pashinyan is simply mentally ill. Because there is a choice in the middle: either you have to agree and follow, or you have to give up and have the last word...
But this is not the end. Although the final result regarding the fate of the prisoners of war at the Brussels meeting was satisfactory, it was not received unequivocally within Armenia. In other words, Pashinyan says one word outside, but a different story is heard inside the country. Also, this can be understood as a refutation of not only Pashinyan, but also the President of the Council of Europe, Charles Michel. Siranush Sahakyan, the representative of the interests of Armenian prisoners, claims that Azerbaijani military personnel, who recently went missing and were brutally beaten and arrested by Armenia, deliberately entered the Armenian territory. Moreover, she called the terrorist groups arrested by the Azerbaijani side in the territory of Karabakh after the signing of the capitulation document between Armenia and Azerbaijan as prisoners of war. Mrs. Siranush probably neglects the November 9 statement, which Pashinyan agreed to with his signature. The Armenian populist's statement to Russian media shows that Armenia has not yet woken up from its illusions and cannot discern the prisoners of war from terrorist groups either by her stupidity or knowingly. Even Siranush's discussion of the law and rights regarding the arrested Azerbaijani servicemen puts the puppet government in Yerevan in a ridiculous situation. After all, what legal regulations is Armenia talking about? Is beating an unarmed soldier and torturing him included in the Armenian law?
Of course, it is not surprising to see this from the Armenian society, which cannot distinguish between peace negotiations and the politics of ethnic cleansing. In the sovereign territory of another state, speaking on behalf of its legal citizens is written in which international laws? Is Armenia really thinking about taking care of the 30 thousand Armenians in Karabakh, or is it about carrying out its nefarious plans over the poor people there?
Thus, the pleasant impressions of the Brussels meeting are only until the moment of the Armenian leadership shakes hands with the parties at the meeting. While Pashinyan was speaking at the meeting, the adoption of separate decisions in Yerevan can also be a message for Azerbaijan as it has to take tougher decisions.
Elnur Enveroglu is AzerNews’ deputy editor-in-chief, follow him on @ElnurMammadli1
Follow us on Twitter @AzerNewsAz