Beniamin Matevosyan: Aliyev refuses to issue Pashinyan a “cadastral certificate”

(Uncertainty of the future)

Behind the outward pathos of ceremonial speeches, lavish concerts, and street glitter marking the 35th anniversary of Armenia’s independence lies a deep systemic crisis of Armenian statehood. The authorities are trying to project onto society the illusion of a long-awaited peace and calm, making no secret of their satisfaction over the shameful surrender of Artsakh, and assuring everyone that an era of peace in relations with Baku has finally arrived. But behind this festive facade, the real future of a sovereign Armenia remains under a huge question mark. And this thesis doesn’t stem from the analyses of opposition politicians and experts, but from the very conceptual logic of the country’s current leadership: Nikol Pashinyan, Prime Minister, has effectively reduced national independence and the inviolability of borders to the simplified notion of a “cadastral certificate,” which, de facto, is supposed to be issued by Baku itself.

History shows that state borders and sovereignty are guaranteed not by papers, but by a real balance of power, diplomatic weight, and readiness to defend one’s interests. In support of this thesis, one can recall an episode from the “very recent past.” Armenian society was outraged by the visit of European diplomats, in particular Magdalena Grono, EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus — to occupied Karabakh. Society was also outraged by the way this EU official repeated Baku’s thesis about some “Eastern Zangezur.” And no one now remembers that “on paper”, in the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) between Armenia and the European Union, signed in 2017, which both the previous authorities and the current government like to boast about, the position on a Karabakh settlement is recorded in the preamble of the document. It states that a settlement should be based on the goals and principles of the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, namely: non-use of force or the threat of force; territorial integrity of states; and equal rights and self-determination of peoples.

The attempt to reduce the centuries-long existence of a nation to obtaining a formal certificate from a neighboring state contained, from the outset, a strategic vulnerability. Recent events and the rhetoric of Azerbaijan’s leadership clearly demonstrate that no one in Baku intends to issue the Armenian prime minister the desired “cadastral certificate.” On the contrary, Azerbaijan is systematically building an ideological, historical, and political foundation for further pressure and possible new aggression.

Ilham Aliyev’s meetings with foreign participants at international forums are turning into platforms for harsh accusatory rhetoric. Statements about the mass and deliberate desecration of Islamic holy sites, the destruction of dozens of mosques, and the desecration of religious objects are being used not only for domestic consolidation, but also to vilify Armenia before the entire Muslim world, turning it into an enemy of the Muslim world. The Armenian state is being consistently portrayed as a barbaric aggressor whose actions carry no statute of limitations. Such emotional and confessional intensity is being generated not in order to later turn the page and sign an equitable peace treaty, but to legitimize harsh steps yet to come.

It is also telling how the discussion is being conducted at the level of diplomatic representatives and former officials. While Hikmet Hajiyev, Aide to the President of Azerbaijan, speaks at international venues about “conquering the world” and reproaches Armenia for the strength of its revanchist sentiments, Baku’s diplomatic machine is rewriting the region’s cultural and historical map. Attempts to present the Christian heritage of Artsakh exclusively through the lens of “Caucasian Albania,” along with regular visits to ancient Armenian monastic complexes accompanied by claims to them as Albanian heritage, are aimed at the total erasure of the Armenian historical presence. This is a direct signal: even within Armenia’s recognized borders, historical and cultural identity will be called into question.

Irritation and open disdain for Armenian statehood are also showing up on a personal level. Public insulting attacks against Pashinyan by former senior Azerbaijani officials, such as Tofig Zulfugarov, accompanied by claims to Lake Sevan and the use of the toponym “Goycha,” only underscore the true attitude toward the Armenian authorities. The neighboring state’s territorial appetite is not limited to Karabakh, and the concept of “Western Azerbaijan” continues to be actively promoted at every level of the information space.

Especially alarming is the trial underway in Baku of Artsakh’s former leadership. As David Ishkhanyan rightly noted, in Baku it is, de facto, not merely individual politicians and military figures of the unrecognized republic who are being tried, but Armenia itself, its history, and its right to self-determination. Declaring former leaders “war criminals” creates a legal and moral precedent for bringing endless claims against Yerevan itself in the future, in the form of compensation, reparations, and further territorial concessions.

Abandoning past frontiers and the former security system has not brought Armenia the promised peace. Hopes that Azerbaijan would be satisfied after the surrender of Karabakh and leave Yerevan alone are collapsing with every new statement out of Baku. Whether we understand this or not, whether we want to hear this bitter truth amid the festive noise or prefer to remain in illusions, the reality is this: no one is going to give Pashinyan a “cadastral certificate,” least of all Baku. Armenia continues to be surrounded by claims, ultimatums, and accusations, as the ground is prepared for yet another round of escalation.

Think about it…