Much has been said and written about the November 10 trilateral Statement ending the 44-day war between Azerbaijan and Armenia in 2020. In one of the posts on social media, I mentioned that although it is a concise document with only 9 articles, every time you look at what is written in it, you can discover new points hidden between the lines. The statements of Maria Zakharova, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, at a briefing on January 20 made us return to this issue.

Zakharova answered a number of pre-arranged questions of the Armenian journalist, the answers to which were prepared in advance. Among them was the question about Azerbaijan's harsh reaction to the illegal visit of French presidential candidate Valerie Pecresse to Karabakh. (By the way, at a time when Russian diplomacy is focusing on Ukraine and dialogue with the United States, it does not forget about other regions of the post-Soviet space, including Karabakh.) Zakharova said that according to Article 6 of the November 10 Statement, the Lachin corridor is under the control of Russian peacekeepers, while Azerbaijan guarantees the safety of citizens, vehicles and cargo traveling in both directions along the corridor. According to her, the command of the Russian peacekeeping contingent has established rules for visiting the areas where the peacekeeping operation is carried out (including visits by foreign citizens, international organizations, missions): “The rules are well known to both Azerbaijan and Armenia. Russian peacekeepers will be informed about such visits in advance. This is our basic approach. "

It should be noted that in an interview with local TV channels, President Ilham Aliyev said that there were many irritating moments in the activities of Russian peacekeepers:

"Russia has been officially reprimanded many times for such illegal visits. Our Defense Minister has repeatedly sent letters to his counterpart, as well as reprimanded the head of the peacekeeping mission, and the same steps have been taken in connection with the recent illegal visit of Valerie Pecresse. We were told that they did not see, did not know, it was out of focus, she came in an ordinary car, and so on. However, of course, this is not convincing, and I must say, as it is, both positive and negative… According to my information, the Armenian representatives visiting Karabakh appeal to the peacekeeping mission regarding the visits of foreign citizens. It is either allowed or not. In general, I can say that we have accurate information about all the events that take place at the entrance and exit, in Khankendi and in the surrounding areas. Therefore, it is not serious to hide something from us, to say, "We have not seen, we have not known."

Maria Zakharova claims that the command of the peacekeeping contingent has established rules for visiting areas where a peacekeeping operation is being carried out, and this is well known to the Azerbaijani side. What rules are we talking about? For the first time, Russia declares the existence of such rules. This was not known before. 

Isn't it absurd that the rules of entry and exit to the territory of one state are determined by another state (its army)? It is clear that this is a gross violation of the Constitution of Azerbaijan, the sovereignty of the country. According to Zakharova, Moscow arbitrarily set some rules and simply informed Baku about it. The diplomat did not say whether the Azerbaijani side had officially agreed to the rules. Most likely, there is no such agreement. Even if the Azerbaijani government officially agrees, it is unconstitutional. In general, the legitimacy of the entry of the Russian army into the territory of Azerbaijan under the guise of a peacekeeping operation on the basis of the November 10 Statement is in great question. We have written about it many times. (You can see our article published earlier on old.old.pressklub.az about the strangeness of the agreement here.)

The sentence "Azerbaijan guarantees the safety of citizens, vehicles and cargo in both directions along the corridor" from the Article 6, mentioned by Maria Zakharova, is also strange and open to comment:

1) Which citizens are guaranteed to travel along the corridor by Azerbaijan? Does this category include only Karabakh Armenians, or does it include citizens of Armenia and any other country? If so, what is the legal basis for it?

2) For what type of vehicles and belonging to which state(s) does Azerbaijan guarantee movement along the corridor? Are the vehicles of Karabakh Armenians meant, or do the vehicles of Armenia and other countries also belong here? If so, why and under what agreement?

3) Azerbaijan guarantees the movement of what cargo along the corridor? Does military cargo also belong here? Let's say that the Lachin corridor can be used to supply and equip the peacekeeping contingent in Karabakh. What about military cargo brought from Armenia to Karabakh or exported from there, including the personnel of the armed forces? Or other cargo transported to Karabakh via the Lachin corridor? This point is not as clear and uncertain as the others.

In general, if the Azerbaijani state does not control the part of the state border with Armenia that falls into the Lachin corridor, how can it guarantee the safe movement of citizens, vehicles and cargo from there? Isn't there an abnormality in this sentence? However, according to Article 9, Armenia, in turn, guarantees the security of transport links between the western regions of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic in order to organize the unimpeded movement of citizens, vehicles and cargo in both directions. But here we are talking about transport links between one part of Azerbaijan and another. There is a fundamental difference between the two.

Apparently, the Russian state, which drafted the text of the November 10 Statement, deliberately placed sentences in it so that it could later be interpreted as it wished. In our article on the anniversary of the statement, mentioned above, we noted that according to Kissinger there is a concept in international relations called "constructive ambiguity". Some agreements consciously use ambiguous formulas, and the documents include expressions and sentences that are not clear and specific, so that each of the parties can then interpret it in their own interests. The November 10 Statement is one of such documents.

Translator: Gulnara Rahimova