Peace on Baku’s terms: Aliyev says treaty possible ‘next day’ if Armenia amends constitution

2026-02-19 - 18:54

YEREVAN — While Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev publicly project an end to the conflict and the prospect of long-awaited “peace,” a key obstacle remains: Aliyev continues to insist that Armenia amend its Constitution. The demand centers on the Constitution’s preamble, which references the 1990 Declaration of Independence and, by extension, a 1989 unification act adopted by the legislative bodies of Soviet Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. Under Armenian law, altering that provision would require adopting a new constitution through a nationwide referendum — a politically and procedurally complex process. In an interview with France 24 during the Munich Security Conference, which Pashinyan did not attend, Aliyev framed recent developments as marking the end of the decades-long conflict. He pointed to the signing of what he called a “historic document” at the White House as signaling the conclusion of hostilities and the beginning of a new phase. According to Aliyev, more than six months have passed without shootings or casualties along the Armenian-Azerbaijani border. Yet, he made clear that a formal peace treaty hinges on constitutional change in Armenia. “Once the amendment to Armenia’s constitution is made, we can sign the peace agreement the very next day,” he said, while also asserting that, in practice, peace between the two countries has already been achieved. Aliyev also ruled out pardoning Armenian detainees held in Baku, describing them as “separatists” who acted illegally on territory internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. He said the issue was raised by U.S. Vice President JD Vance, to whom he presented Azerbaijan’s position. Despite the absence of international media at the trials in Baku — which have been covered exclusively by Azerbaijani outlets — Aliyev maintained that the proceedings are fully transparent. He compared the prosecution of former Artsakh officials to the Nuremberg trials and claimed the accused committed crimes against humanity more serious than those of Nazis during World War II. On regional connectivity, Aliyev said Azerbaijan is constructing nearly 400 kilometers of railway to its border, with just over 40 kilometers remaining on what he referred to as the Armenian section of the “Zangezur” corridor. He added that almost 200 kilometers of railway infrastructure in Nakhichevan would be restored and expressed confidence that the so-called “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP) project — intended to link mainland Azerbaijan to Nakhichevan through Armenian territory — would be realized. Regarding the potential return of the Armenian population of Artsakh, Aliyev said the matter could be considered only on the basis of reciprocity. Political scientist and Azerbaijan expert Tatevik Ayrapetyan has sharply criticized Aliyev’s comparison of detained former Nagorno-Karabakh officials to Nazis, arguing that such rhetoric undermines both legal logic and the stated goals of the peace process. Ayrapetyan said that if the Armenian government were fully defending national interests, it would publicly challenge Baku’s position. “If Azerbaijan possesses such overwhelming evidence of crimes, why then include a provision in the draft peace treaty calling for the withdrawal of international lawsuits?” she asked, suggesting that any allegations should be tested in international courts rather than resolved through political bargaining. Ayrapetyan also pointed to what she described as a contradiction in Aliyev’s rhetoric, noting that he has long celebrated Ramil Safarov, the Azerbaijani officer convicted of murdering an Armenian serviceman with an axe in Hungary in 2004 and later pardoned after his transfer to Azerbaijan. She argued that accusations of “Nazism” ring hollow coming from a leadership that, in her view, has tolerated or glorified such violence. The analyst further alleged that policies under Aliyev’s leadership contributed to serious violations during recent hostilities, including documented cases of abuse and the killing of Armenian soldiers. She cited, in particular, the 2022 incident involving the mutilation of an Armenian female soldier during clashes on Armenian territory, footage of which circulated widely online. Ayrapetyan also criticized Pashinyan, arguing that concessions made during negotiations have allowed Azerbaijan to deflect scrutiny over allegations of war crimes, blockade policies and forced displacement while advancing what she characterized as expansionist aims under the banner of peace. Mane Tandilyan, chairwoman of the Country to Live political party, has also condemned Aliyev’s remarks, describing them as “not mere rhetoric, but explicit hate speech aimed at human dignity.” “These are individuals who lived and worked in their homeland — soldiers, civilians and officials born and raised in Artsakh, on their own land,” she said. “They did not invade foreign territory, occupy other peoples or seek to destroy anyone. They defended their families, their communities and their right to exist.” According to Tandilyan, the term “Nazi” is being weaponized to legitimize the forced displacement of Artsakh residents, justify ethnic cleansing and silence international scrutiny. She accused Aliyev of attempting to cloak the crimes of his own regime — including blockades, policies of starvation, war crimes, terror against civilians, forced displacements and ethnic cleansing — under the language of historical atrocity. “The most painful aspect,” Tandilyan wrote, “is that the Armenian authorities, led by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, have responded not with state dignity but with silence, concessions and a defeatist policy labeled as a ‘peace agenda.'” She argued that such an approach makes any genuine peace unattainable. “Peace is impossible when your prisoners are presented as Nazis, yet you continue to play the role of a ‘constructive partner,’ she wrote. “Peace is impossible when your people are deprived of rights and you remain silent in the name of ‘improving relations.'” “Peace is impossible,” she added, “when the victim is forced to justify the executioner.” Tandilyan concluded with a forceful rejection of the comparison: “Armenian prisoners are not fascists. They are Armenians. They are people who lived in their homes and defended their right to life. Anyone comparing them to Nazis is either deliberately lying or attempting to provide a moral pretext for their own crimes. Silence in response to this cynical statement is complicity in crime.” Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) member and Armenia “Alliance” MP Artur Khachatryan described recent developments as emblematic of Armenia’s diplomatic passivity, arguing that international engagement has been more symbolic than substantive. Khachatryan noted that Pashinyan also skipped the World Economic Forum in Davos, attending only briefly to sign a document establishing the so-called Peace Council initiated by U.S. President Donald Trump. In Munich, his absence was even more pronounced. Pashinyan did not take part in discussions on national interest and foreign policy, including forums organized by figures such as U.S. Senator Marco Rubio. Khachatryan argued that for Pashinyan, the pursuit of “legitimacy” has become an overriding concern, eclipsing the concrete defense of Armenia’s national interests. “For him, small-scale national concerns matter less than legitimizing concessions made to Azerbaijan and Turkey,” Khachatryan wrote. Aliyev, by contrast, used the Munich platform to reiterate Baku’s position that Armenia’s Constitution contains territorial claims — an assertion Pashinyan has repeatedly denied. Aliyev also referenced the timeline of regional conflict, framing recent clashes and the 2023 war as part of a two-year trajectory since the Washington summit. He portrayed Armenia as the primary aggressor, asserting that Baku’s military actions were a response to Yerevan’s “inaction,” while simultaneously conducting operations in Artsakh and implementing policies leading to the forced displacement of its population. Khachatryan argued that this framing helps explain Pashinyan’s reluctance to confront Aliyev publicly, as well as his repeated assertions that peace has already been achieved in the region — a narrative that, he suggested, conveniently aligns with both leaders’ domestic agendas ahead of elections. Reflecting on Pashinyan’s earlier diplomatic efforts, Khachatryan recalled the “Munich Principles,” which were intended to articulate Armenia’s position on Nagorno-Karabakh. The framework emphasized the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh, the necessity of negotiation, security as a non-negotiable factor and the importance of incremental “micro” and “mini” reforms to resolve the conflict. It also stipulated that any settlement must be acceptable to the peoples of Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan, while rejecting military solutions as illegitimate. Khachatryan contrasted those principles with the current state of affairs, writing, “We see why Pashinyan avoided Munich. Aliyev set the agenda, defined the conditions for ‘peace’ and left Armenia on the sidelines.” He argued that the so-called Munich Principles have become largely irrelevant, with Armenia’s foreign policy now yielding a far more precarious position. “The narrative of peace and regional infrastructure is dictated by the victor rather than by negotiation or law,” Khachatryan wrote. These developments, he suggested, reflect broader concerns about Armenia’s diplomatic posture — including its absence from key forums, deference to Azerbaijani initiatives and reliance on symbolic gestures over assertive advocacy. “Where did we end up?” Khachatryan concluded. “Pashinyan did not go to Munich; Aliyev did, and the terms of peace are now being defined entirely by Azerbaijan.”