Today, US President Donald Trump will receive Nikol Pashinyan and Ilham Aliyev in Washington. The meeting is likely to end up with an agreement between Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan, which will be presented as a "progress" obtained by the United States, and it will even be mentioned in the name of Trump's Way for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP).
In particular, he noted.
"Before applaud, you must clearly say. It doesn't matter if the corridor will be treated by Armenia, the United States and the International Administration, will be leased for a hundred, ten or one-year, will be presented as a "neutral road" or packaged with other diplomatic reserves. The fact remains that Armenia agrees, temporarily or permanently give control of any part of its sovereign territory, and it is unacceptable. The real annoying circumstance is not that this deal is "good" or "bad", but that it exists at all.
For several years, the so-called "Zangezur Corridor" has been used by Baku as a political weapon to question Armenia's sovereignty and reshape the post-war settlement. Now, instead of sharply rejecting this demand, Washington's motion has legitimized it, turning the Azeri fruitful demand to the topic of discussion of "creative solutions." This is the same diplomatic as negotiating, as you are ready to give up from the Aydd area, instead demand that the fence will remain in its place.
With "technical" discussions, the neutrality of management models, lease dates and manager, Armenia is involved in a trap that represents the corridor as inevitable. When the discussion is moved to how the corridor should act, not if it must exist, the basic principle of sovereignty has already been violated.
We need to clearly say. Armenia has never agreed to provide a country with foreign access to Syunik. The law of Armenia explicitly prohibits leasing land for such a purpose. The "Cross on Peace" initiative, the model proposed by Armenia, envisages regional communication based on sovereignty, jurisdiction, reciprocity and equality. The TripP transaction, which will be a long-term of the road to US control, violates all four principles.
Iran has already announced its open text that it will not tolerate any foreign presence in Syunik. These warnings are not just rhetoric. Syunik is Armenia's strategic vital zone, and an important link in the North-South axis. Turning it into a geopolitical show of trade, it endangers both Armenia's security and regional stability.
Proponents of her case have been working to make the actual transaction between the transaction. But what kind of peace is that begins with the disruption of one of the sides of one of the parties? Some may claim that the presence of the United States is a "neutral guarantee". However, neutrality is meaningless when the mediated corridor fulfills Azerbaijan's demand.
If the goal is true peace, it must inspire confidence in both sides. If Azerbaijan claims that it cannot trust ordinary Armenian roads, "Trump" corridor is needed to reach the territory of Azerbaijan without reciprocity so that Armenians will safely reach the Caspian basin for trade or travel.
The Pashinyan-Aliyev-Trump meeting can be presented in some circles as a diplomatic achievement. In fact, it jeopardizes the peace process to strengthen a unacceptable concession. Discussion of the corridor should never go to the agenda. Instead of applauding the "smart" compromises on his conditions, the only principled position is his complete rejection. "
