Since the foreign ministries of Armenia and Azerbaijan announced last week that the two countries had ironed out outstanding language in the draft peace proposal, officials in Baku have ramped up their threats and pressure on Yerevan for more concessions.
In addition to repeating its preconditions for signing a peace deal with Armenia, Azerbaijan continued to accuse Armenian forces of violating the ceasefire along the border, issuing seven such warnings since Sunday.
Armenia’s Defense Ministry has continuously denied those claims, challenging Baku to present supporting evidence of its allegations.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s office on Tuesday issued a lengthy statement, essentially echoing the Armenian military’s statement and insisting that “the Armenian army has no reason or order to violate the ceasefire.”
Pashinyan’s statement emphasized that Yerevan’s numerous offers to Baku to set up joint investigation and monitoring of armed incidents on the border have been ignored.
“The government of the Republic of Armenia is guided by the agenda of peace, with the steps aimed at finalizing the text of the agreement on peace and establishment of interstate relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan serving as undeniable evidence of this,” Pashinyan’s office said in the statement.
Baku was quick to dismiss the statement, with Azerbaijan’s foreign ministry spokesperson Aykhan Hajizada alleging large-scale military buildup along the border.
Hajizada also made clear that a change of Armenia’s constitution, which Baku says contains territorial claims to Azerbaijan, remains the “main condition” for signing the peace accord. He went on to deplore Yerevan’s reluctance to open a land corridor to Nakhichevan.
Pashinyan’s office said in its statement that Yerevan is still awaiting a “positive” response on a proposal made in January for resolving the transportation issues between the two countries, “as well as a proposal on creating a bilateral mechanism for mutual arms control.”
Nevertheless, Pashinyan’s statements urges a focused discussion on “the dates and the venue for the signing of the treaty.”
