logo
For peace in the troubled Caucasus region, we must look forward not back

For peace in the troubled Caucasus region, we must look forward not back

Yahoo04-05-2025

Since Azerbaijan's liberation in 2020 of its internationally recognised territories from three decades of Armenian occupation, our region has witnessed dramatic change. For the most part, the transformation of the South Caucasus has been towards lasting peace and deepening connectivity. Just as Azerbaijan has been championing regional cooperation and energy security, it was the Azerbaijani side that put forward the main principles for the peace agreement with Armenia shortly after hostilities ended.
Let me reiterate this point: having secured a decisive military advantage, Azerbaijan offered a peace treaty and normalisation of relations with Armenia, including the reopening of transport and communications. Armenia, on the other hand, has for the last five years stalled on implementing its commitments made in writing, delaying the peace process. Indeed, the text of the agreement – only finalised recently – is based on the very same terms Azerbaijan offered earlier and to which Armenia did not agree until recently.
The agreement on the final text is an important milestone in itself as it underscores the success of direct talks between the parties without external interference – the ineffectiveness of which was exemplified by the dysfunctional OSCE Minsk Group, now defunct in all but name. Hopefully, this also reflects the growing realisation in Armenia that building peaceful and mutually beneficial relations with neighbours requires a responsible approach rather than succumbing to jingoistic and ideological fantasy.
Of course, the text of an agreement is not alone sufficient to engender lasting peace. Let us just recall the 1994 Budapest Memorandum signed by the U.K., among others, offering Ukraine all the things it desperately needs but cannot have today.
Azerbaijan sincerely seeks normalisation with Armenia and long-term security in our region. But Armenia's own Constitution, which even now still essentially calls for the annexation of Azerbaijani lands, remains a key obstacle. Simply put, the provisions in the agreement text on mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty are in direct contradiction with Armenia's Constitution. Incidentally, vocal Armenian political forces opposed to any peace with Azerbaijan whatsoever continue to make territorial claims to our internationally recognised land – and point to their constitution as justification.
Fortunately, even the most zealous Armenian nationalists seem to be finally recognising that this narrow, ethnicity-driven political agenda has been the root cause of the constant conflict and consequently, the primary impediment to their country's growth. Even the Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has acknowledged that Azerbaijan's liberation of its lands has given Armenia the opportunity to now focus on its own sovereignty as well as greater room for manoeuvre on foreign policy.
However, for Armenian political groups abroad, reality is just a minor obstacle in their never-ending quest to attack Azerbaijan and Türkiye, as well as to retain their own, otherwise questionable, relevance. Increasingly, in their pursuit of an ideological agenda, the state of Armenia is becoming an instrument rather than the objective.
They are not alone in their pursuit of relevance at any cost: a number of Western politicians also appear unwilling to acknowledge any positive development. Take, for instance, Lord Alton, a British Peer, who spends an alarming amount of time attacking Azerbaijan and rejecting any progress on peace.
In his latest offering, without naming him he speaks on behalf of one Ruben Vardanyan, the ethnic Armenian oligarch parachuted illegally into Azerbaijani territory from Moscow to act as leader of the separatists. Lord Alton conveniently omits that Mr Vardanyan has been sanctioned by Ukraine for his support of war and that he openly directed acts of violence against Azerbaijan. With no legal expertise to speak of, Alton calls Vardanyan and others facing trial in Azerbaijan 'unjustly held,' despite the recent decisions by the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the International Court of Justice, which reaffirm the opposite: that the trial is not arbitrary, there is no mistreatment of defendants, and the trial is transparent and open to the public.
This may not matter to Alton's view of history, but it does matter to the rest of the world. To justify his advocacy for Armenia's decades-long violation of international law, Alton invokes the cliché of Armenia being the 'first Christian nation.'
Even if one disregards the questionable factual basis for such a claim, who in their right mind justifies their support for the illegal actions of a country today by the religious choices of the state that occupied the same geographical location in the fourth century AD? Do we judge modern Britain by what the Romans were doing in Londinium 1,800 years ago? Of course not. It would be absurd.
Perhaps, a better option would be to heed the late Pope Francis, who praised Azerbaijan's culture of diversity and inclusivity during his visit to our country just under a decade ago. He called for a genuine peace between our two nations – a peace free from double standards and dividing narratives.
Elin Suleymanov is the Ambassador of the Republic of Azerbaijan to the UK and Ireland
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Musk Tries to Make Up With Trump After New Threat on L.A. Protests
Musk Tries to Make Up With Trump After New Threat on L.A. Protests

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Musk Tries to Make Up With Trump After New Threat on L.A. Protests

Just days after publicly flaming Donald Trump for allegedly being named in the Epstein Files, tech billionaire Elon Musk is cozying back up to the president. The dynamic DOGE duo's relationship burst into flames Thursday as Musk attempted to kill the president's 'big, beautiful bill.' In back-to-back posts, Trump and his ex-financier unloaded on one another on each of their respective social media platforms, accusing each other of being unlikable, untrustworthy, and even unreal. But by Sunday, Musk was back to elevating Trump's opinion, retweeting one of the president's diatribes on the anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles. Law enforcement officers have gone toe-to-toe with protesters in Los Angeles for the last three days as locals take a visible stand against the president's anti-immigration agenda. The situation has since boiled into a sizable federal-versus-state predicament, with California Governor Gavin Newsom announcing the state's intent to sue the Trump administration for breaching the Constitution by sending hundreds of National Guard troops to intervene. Musk also reshared a post from Vice President JD Vance declaring that the administration will not condone 'rioting and violence.' Vance's post included another screenshot of Trump's Truth Social feed, in which the president referred to L.A. as a 'once great American city' that had been overrun and 'invaded' by 'illegal aliens and criminals.' 'Now violent, insurrectionist mobs are swarming and attacking our Federal Agents to try and stop our deportation operations—But these lawless riots only strengthen our resolve,' Trump wrote, directing Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Attorney General Pam Bondi to 'liberate' the City of Angels from what he perceives to be a 'migrant invasion.' 'Order will be restored, the Illegals will be expelled, and Los Angeles will be set free. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' Trump posted.

Abrego Garcia is back but contempt and sanctions for Trump admin still on the table
Abrego Garcia is back but contempt and sanctions for Trump admin still on the table

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Abrego Garcia is back but contempt and sanctions for Trump admin still on the table

With Kilmar Abrego Garcia back in the U.S. after his illegal removal to a notorious Salvadoran prison, followed by months of Trump administration delay and defiance, the administration wants to focus on the new criminal charges it had waiting for him upon his return. But understanding what brought us to this point is crucial not only for how to think about the criminal case, but also because his civil case against the government isn't over just because he's back. Abrego Garcia's lawyers reminded us of that Sunday in their latest court filing to U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, the Maryland judge who ordered the government to facilitate his return back in April. The filing came in response to the Trump Justice Department's request Friday to halt pending civil litigation over fact-finding into the government's facilitation efforts, just after Xinis had approved Abrego Garcia's lawyers' bid to file a sanctions motion against the government, due Wednesday. Responding to the claim that the civil case is now moot due to his return, Abrego Garcia's lawyers reminded the Obama appointee that she 'still retains jurisdiction to find contempt and impose sanctions.' They called the government's claim that it has complied with her order 'pure farce,' writing: The Government flouted rather than followed the orders of this Court and the United States Supreme Court. Instead of facilitating Abrego Garcia's return, for the past two months Defendants have engaged in an elaborate, all-of-government effort to defy court orders, deny due process, and disparage Abrego Garcia. In its latest act of contempt, the Government arranged for Abrego Garcia's return, not to Maryland in compliance with the Supreme Court's directive to 'ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador,' . . . but rather to Tennessee so that he could be charged with a crime in a case that the Government only developed while it was under threat of sanctions. Farcical is a good summary of this case and the administration's broader immigration stance. The description pairs well with U.S. District Judge James Boasberg's recent nod to Franz Kafka's 'The Trial,' in comparing the novel's absurd legal ordeal to the administration's summary removals of scores of Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador's mega-prison known for human rights abuses. (Litigation is pending separately in that case in Washington, D.C., as lawyers try to secure the immigrants' return. That case also includes an attempt to hold the administration accountable for contempt, which is pending separately on the government's appeal in D.C.'s federal appeals court.) Urging Xinis to keep the civil case alive, Abrego Garcia's lawyers said the government's 'wanton disregard for the judicial branch has left a stain on the Constitution' and that if there's 'any hope of removing that stain, it must start by shining a light on the improper actions of the Government in this tragic affair and imposing meaningful remedies.' Meanwhile, Abrego Garcia's criminal case is getting started in Tennessee, where he's charged with illegally transporting undocumented immigrants. It's an understatement to say the new case will be highly scrutinized, given how it came about in an apparent attempt by the administration to save face. That doesn't mean federal prosecutors won't be able to secure a conviction; they may be even more motivated to do so, given the political stakes. On that note, ABC News reported, citing unnamed sources, that the decision to pursue the criminal case led high-ranking Tennessee prosecutor Ben Schrader to resign due to 'concerns that the case was being pursued for political reasons.' Asked about the reason for his resignation, Schrader declined to comment to NBC News. If his resignation is connected to the criminal case against Abrego Garcia, then the administration's political posturing through the Justice Department has led to the loss of yet another career prosecutor — one of this administration's sordid legacies, as exemplified by the Eric Adams dismissal debacle earlier this year. Abrego Garcia is reportedly set to go before a judge Friday for arraignment, where he'll presumably plead not guilty and the government will press its case for detaining him pending trial. We don't know how this criminal case will end, but it will proceed in a U.S. court under the due process protections the administration has resisted providing in this case and others. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on

What is the Insurrection Act? Here's what Trump has said about invoking it amid LA protests
What is the Insurrection Act? Here's what Trump has said about invoking it amid LA protests

USA Today

time2 hours ago

  • USA Today

What is the Insurrection Act? Here's what Trump has said about invoking it amid LA protests

What is the Insurrection Act? Here's what Trump has said about invoking it amid LA protests Show Caption Hide Caption California officials take on Trump over National Guard deployment California officials accuse President Donald Trump of inflaming protests by mounting a federal response. Protests continued to roil Los Angeles, California for three days straight over the weekend, as demonstrators clashed with law enforcement across the greater area over a series of federal immigration raids. The protests began Friday, June 6 after Homeland Security officials detained dozens of people across multiple locations in the city. By that evening, more than 100 people gathered at a downtown Los Angeles federal detention center where some immigrants had been held. The demonstrations gained steam throughout the weekend in response to a Saturday morning gathering of Border Patrol agents the Latino suburb of Paramount and as National Guard troops deployed by President Donald Trump arrived in downtown Los Angeles Sunday, June 8. Live updates: Gov. Newsom blames Trump for unruly protests Timeline: LA protests went from small to substantial over three days. Here's what unfolded The National Guard deployment, along with statements from Trump and other officials, has raised the specter of further executive actions while the administration takes a heavy hand in responding to the demonstrations and tensions escalate. Trump was asked about the potential of invoking the Insurrection Act, an unprecedented move in recent memory, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement. Here's what to know. What is the Insurrection Act? The Insurrection Act is an 1807 law that empowers a president to deploy the U.S. military to suppress events like civil disorder. 'The Insurrection Act allows the president to deploy the military inside the United States and use it against Americans, making it one of the executive branch's most potent emergency powers,' according to a 2022 report by the Brennan Center for Justice. It's also one of the oldest emergency powers available to the president, the center says, traced back to the Calling Forth Act of 1792. It's Congress's authority under the Constitution to 'provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions,' and is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, the center's experts say, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities. What has Trump said about invoking the Insurrection Act? In a social media post on Sunday, Trump called the demonstrators "violent, insurrectionist mobs" and said he was directing his cabinet officers "to take all such action necessary" to stop what he called riots. When asked on Sunday by reporters if he was considering invoking the Insurrection Act, he said, "It depends on whether or not there's an insurrection." Prompted as to whether he thinks there currently is an insurrection, he said, "No, no, but you have violent people and we're not going to let them get away with it." In Trump's presidential memorandum deploying "at least" 2,000 National Guard troops, he said the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and referred to the demonstrations as a 'form of rebellion' against the authority of the U.S. government. It is the first time in decades a president has moved to deploy troops in such a manner without a governor's consent or explicit invitation, Reuters reported, and the move has prompted California Gov. Gavin Newsom to say he plans to sue the administration over the deployment. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said on X Friday that active duty Marines at its West Coast base were on 'high alert' and would be mobilized if 'violence continues,' claiming the demonstrations were a national security risk. In his statement on X, Hegseth repeated the unfounded claim of an invasion by immigrants facilitated by criminal organizations, a once-fringe theory that now undergirds the administration's immigration crackdown. Senior White House aide Stephen Miller on Saturday condemned protests, posting on X: "This is a violent insurrection." More: Videos show Waymo cars on fire amid LA protests; service reportedly suspended Has the Insurrection Act been used before? In 230 years, the Act has been invoked in response to 30 crises, according to the Brennan Center for Justice report, but it has not always led to the actual deployment of troops. The Insurrection Act has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the U.S. in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War, the Brennan Center says in a report that lists out the history of the act's use. The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, also in response to unrest and demonstrations in California. Unlike the current immigration raid protests, the governor of California at the time requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the Rodney King trial, after four white Los Angeles police officers were acquitted in their trial for beating the Black motorist. The unrest had already been mostly quelled by state-controlled National Guard troops before the federal troops arrived, the Brennan Center said. Contributing: Reuters. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store