No one can confidently insist that the protraction of captives’ return is not linked to specific arrangements - Karen Bekaryan
No one can conflidently insist that the protracted processes in the repatriation of our captives and detainees from Azerbaijan are not linked to specific political arrangements aimed at enabling Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan to gain certain dividends, political analyst Karen Bekaryan said on Monday, calling for revised attitudes to the problem.
“It has been quite a long time that we do not have any progress at all in connection with the return of captives and detainees, an issue that virtually remains a top concern for our society at present. It is naturally possible to explain this by Azerbaijan's posture, i.e. - Azerbaijan’s move to make the issue part of its political bargaining. But is that really all? I think we are now required to look upon this also from a different perspective,” Berkaryan said during the analytical broadcast Between the Lines on ArmNews TV Channel.
“The incumbent authorities of Armenia are advantageous, to say the least, to both Azerbaijan and Turkey, as they have fulfilled – and are still fulfilling – the major tasks on the Azerbaijani-Turkish agenda. Are our captives hostages by definition at the hands of [Azerbaijani President] Ilham Aliyev, securing a certain progress at the proper moment to assist Pashinyan in domestic policy affiars and in the entire electoral processes?” he asked.
The analyst also highlighted the deliberate intent behind the authorities’ repeatedly voiced theses on "reconciliation processes" and various “peaceloving” ambitions, as well as Armenia’s “benefits” from the proposed unblocking of the communication channels.
“While it is imaginable in the long run, it sounds extremely artificial now that we have so many unresolved problems and are still facing the the agression aftermath[s], with so many captives and detainees not returning as yet. It serves only one supreme task, i.e. – meeting the Azerbaijani and Turkish interests,” he said, stressing the need of making the issue a top agenda item at the upcoming Armenian-Azerbaijani summit.
“It was incorporated as a key issue into the November 10 joint statement [the Russia-brokered ceasefire on Nagorno-Karabakh] but was not respected by Azerbaijan. I don’t think Russia will change this situation in any way in case of investing all its efforts to push ahead with this agenda,” he said, addmitting Moscow’s somewhat contributig role to the “dirty game” of prolonging Pashinyan’s hold on power (by virtue of its silence).
According to the analyst, the Pashinyan-Putin agenda should cover also issues dealing with appropriate measures to end Azerbaijan’s anti-Armenian rhetoric and create a commission (in line with the international law and practice) responsible for border denarcation and delimitation activities.
“And last but not least, it is necessary to eventually clarify the negotiation format, prepare its agenda and specify the starting timeframes. The legal, political and moral assessment of the terrorist-backed Turkish-Azerbaijani aggression and the impermissibility of resolving political issues by threat of force - and as a result of using force – as well as the start [of a dialogue] over all the issues remaining open in the political settlement process = must be the underlying basis of the negotiation format,” he added.