BAKU, Azerbaijan, November 18. During recent hearings in the US House of Representatives, members of the State Department, notably James O'Brien, once again reiterated anti-Azerbaijani remarks and partial accusations directed at Baku concerning non-existent territorial claims against Armenia.
As customary, State Department representatives emphasized the urgent need for Azerbaijan and Armenia to promptly reach a peace treaty. O'Brien's speech conveyed the impression that Baku is the sole obstacle to the peace process, while simultaneously portraying Yerevan as almost a victim in the scenario.
Is Brussels and Washington aware that the peace accord endorsed by Yerevan will carry no weight? It will be a futile document, devoid of importance for the Armenian side, as the terms that Azerbaijan is willing to accept contradict the fundamental documents of Armenia. Armenia proclaimed its independence, essentially incorporating territories of Azerbaijan. Furthermore, it officially recorded claims to lands in Türkiye, referencing in the declaration the purported Western Armenia.
Even with the signing of the document, even if Prime Minister Pashinyan sincerely intends to implement its stipulations, he will face obstacles. The agreement won't receive ratification from the Armenian parliament, not due to unwillingness from the ruling majority but because it conflicts with the country's Constitution. In essence, this is a logical outcome. The entrenched "miatsum" in Armenia's fundamental law leaves Yerevan without an escape route. The sole option to broaden maneuverability is to amend the Constitution, eliminating references to "reunification" from the preamble.
If the West truly wants to achieve genuine and lasting peace, it needs to address a crucial matter. There should be efforts to push Yerevan into aligning its Constitution with international law. Otherwise, all discussions about a peace treaty will amount to mere talk. Excuses from Pashinyan won't be accepted.
What's necessary is a document, recognized internationally, that solidifies Armenia's abandonment of territorial claims to Azerbaijan and, to some extent, acts as a safeguard against potential aggressive plans from the Armenian side. Given the sentiments in Armenian society and how external players easily manipulate Armenians, it's clear that, in the current situation, no one can offer Azerbaijan such guarantees. Why should Azerbaijan take on such obligations alone?
It's difficult to accept that the State Department, currently issuing direct threats to Azerbaijan, is unaware of the harmful provisions in the Armenian Constitution. As a result, any complaints directed at Baku appear to be mere hypocrisy and cynicism. Azerbaijan doesn't have the means to force Armenians to amend their Constitution, but Western supporters of Yerevan can influence this if genuine concern for peace in the South Caucasus exists in the West.
