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

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
16 minutes ago
- Axios
Black Caucus chair says Trump's actions on L.A. are impeachable
Congressional Black Caucus chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday she believes President Trump mobilizing the National Guard and deploying Marines to Los Angeles rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Why it matters: It's a break with House Democrats' general aversion towards impeachment from the head of one of their most powerful groups. The comment comes amid growing animosity between Democrats and the Trump administration over the president's use of law enforcement to carry out a campaign of mass deportations. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Driving the news: During a press conference, Clarke was asked if Trump's actions to quell protests in L.A. rise to the level of an impeachable offense "I definitely believe it is," she responded, "But we'll cross that bridge when we get to it." Clarke and other Democrats have argued that Trump has violated the U.S. Constitution by mobilizing the National Guard over Newsom's objections. Reality check: Democrats are highly unlikely to pursue an organized impeachment effort against Trump any time soon. Two rank-and-file members, Reps. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) and Al Green (D-Texas), have spearheaded their own rogue impeachment initiatives, but most Democrats have dissociated themselves with those efforts. Most Democrats are clear-eyed that impeachment would be doomed to failure with Republicans in control of Congress — and they often note that Trump won in 2024 despite previously being impeached twice. What they're saying: House Democratic Caucus chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) told reporters at a subsequent press conference, "I've said before that ... House Democrats aren't focused on impeachment today."


CBS News
18 minutes ago
- CBS News
Colorado town orders organizers to cancel "No Kings" anti-Trump rally citing event conflict
This Saturday, June 14, hundreds of "No Kings" rallies are expected to take place across the country, including in Colorado, protesting authoritarianism and coinciding with President Trump's birthday, the U.S. Army's 250th birthday, and Flag Day. But in Douglas County, one woman says the Town of Parker stopped her from organizing the event because it coincided with the Parker Days festival a half-mile away. Town officials cite safety as the reason the rally can't occur at the same time as its largest festival, but organizers say it violates their free speech rights. Signs inside Carolyn Williamson's Parker home make it clear how she feels about the Trump administration. "The evil, evil terrifying king," Williamson said, while gesturing to a papier-mâché Trump head she made, before moving to a pile of homemade signs. "I try to make more than one of each kind of theme." Carolyn Williamson, of Parker, Colorado, discusss her efforts to organize a protest in town and being denied a permit by town officials, which she says is a violation of her free speech rights. CBS "He claims to love the Constitution, but he only picks and chooses the things that he likes," Williamson said, citing concerns over recent immigration policy under Trump's leadership. When she learned of plans for "No Kings" rallies across the country on Trump's birthday, she decided to organize one in her community. "We need one in Parker," Williamson said. "We have to use our White privilege and speak up for those who can't while we can." Soon, nearly 400 people had signed up to attend, and Williamson began planning for their safety. "I took some safety and de-escalation training online," Williamson said. "The Boulder thing is at the forefront of everybody's mind. So I reached out to the Parker police." After initially being told she'd need a permit for an event of more than 100 people and would not be able to get one due to Parker Days, Williamson changed plans to host several small gatherings Saturday at intersections across town. But then Williamson says the town's attorney and police chief called to say the rally would need to be canceled because the town didn't have the resources to ensure its safety during Parker Days. "I said, 'well, what about our First Amendment rights?' And they said, 'Well, you're welcome to say anything you want, but you cannot be on public sidewalks that day. You can do it on another weekend,'" Williamson said. "I don't think that they have the constitutional right to deny us the right to protest." "In general, you don't need a permit to demonstrate on a public sidewalk," said Philip Chen, associate professor of political science at the University of Denver. "It's public land." Chen says governments can place some restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech, as long as those restrictions are content-neutral. "The Supreme Court has said it has to be not subject to the content of the speech. It has to be very narrowly tailored to what the government's sort of interest is, and they have to provide some sort of alternative way for that message to be communicated," said Chen. "Content neutrality is going to be the important thing," he continued. "If somebody stood on the sidewalk with a sign for the rally and was told to leave, and another person stood there with a sign saying, 'I love Parker Days,' they would have to also tell that person to leave, or else it wouldn't be what would be considered sort of content-neutral enforcement." While Chen says restricting the time and place of the demonstration for safety reasons likely does not violate First Amendment protections, he says the idea that even a small rally would not be allowed could be an overly restrictive use of time, place and manner allowances, especially if the gathering was small enough to not require a permit. According to the ACLU, "you don't need a permit to march in the streets or on sidewalks, as long as marchers don't obstruct car or pedestrian traffic. If you don't have a permit, police officers can ask you to move to the side of a street or sidewalk to let others pass or for safety reasons." The organization also says, "police may not break up a gathering unless there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic, or other immediate threat to public safety." The Town of Parker said in a statement: "The Town of Parker became aware of a rally that had been scheduled to occur within the Town on June 14, 2025, during the same time the Parker Days Festival is being held in the Town. Based on the considerable resources that the Town provides to ensure the safety of Parker Days attendees and event organizers, the remaining resources available to serve the rest of the Town and all residents and visitors is extremely limited. The Town would be unable to allocate sufficient staff and resources to ensure the safety and needs of the rally participants along with the residents and other visitors to the Town. The Town takes very seriously the safety and well-being of all residents and visitors and wants to ensure that everyone in the Town has the best possible resources available to them. While the Town is supportive of individuals' First Amendment rights, those rights must be balanced with the rights and safety of all other individuals and may be limited under the law if there are concerns related to things such as the timing of events. The Town is truly unable to accommodate another event during the weekend of Parker Days, as it will negatively impact the Town's ability to safely and properly respond to the routine matters within the Town. The Town did offer the rally organizer the ability to work with the Town to determine another possible date to hold the rally." O'Brien Park in Parker, Colorado is seen on Monday, June 9, 2025. CBS The town offered to find another date for the No Kings rally, but Williamson says the message can't wait. "Civil disobedience doesn't always align conveniently with current events," Williamson said. Other No Kings rallies will be held across the metro area, including in Castle Rock, Littleton, and Denver. Monday night, after her interview with CBS News Colorado, Williamson said she decided to still host the event. She says it will be a block-by-block rally Saturday from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Williamson plans to organize peaceful demonstrators along Parker Road intersections from Lincoln Avenue to Hess Road. They will skip Mainstreet so as not to interfere with Parker Days.

Wall Street Journal
19 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
The Presidency Has Become a Trump Card
Concerns about executive power go back to the beginning of our republic—but the controversies of the Trump era are also new. Writing in defense of the Constitution in 1788, James Madison observed that 'the legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.' Powerful legislatures came with risks: 'Legislative usurpations . . . must lead to the same tyranny as is threatened by executive usurpations.'