Armenian opposition lawmakers criticized on Tuesday an agreement with the United States that commits Armenia to opening a U.S.-administered transit corridor for Azerbaijan, saying that Baku will not reciprocate what they see as a far-reaching concession made by Yerevan.
Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan claimed the opposite during a parliamentary debate on the ratification of the agreement on the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) signed by him and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in June.
The deal calls for the creation of a joint venture that will build and manage for at least 49 years a railway, a road, energy supply lines and other infrastructure connecting Azerbaijan to its Nakhichevan exclave. The U.S. government will own 74 percent of the TRIPP Development Company (TDC) that will receive “exclusive land use rights, development rights, related permissions, and all other rights.” The TRIPP is to run along Armenia’s border with Iran.
Opposition leaders and other critics of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian’s government say the transit arrangement could call into question Armenian control of the strategic border. Lawmakers representing the Armenian parliament’s two opposition factions made a different argument against it during the debate. They said that Azerbaijan has not undertaken to open its territory for cargo shipments to and from Armenia.
“Our main concern is that when the TRIPP is launched, Azerbaijan will come up with new demands … which are difficult to fulfill,” said Narek Karapetian of the main opposition Strong Armenia alliance. “Its main goal is to get its coveted road but not lift its blockade of Armenia in return.”
Karapetian said Yerevan should therefore link the implementation of the TRIPP deal with the signing of an Armenian-Azerbaijani peace treaty which Baku makes conditional on a change of Armenia’s constitution.
“Why would they be motivated to sign the peace deal with Armenia after getting their road to Nakhichevan?” he told the parliament. “By making concessions we only motivate them not to sign the peace treaty.”
“Azerbaijan’s interests are reflected more directly in this document than Armenia’s interests could possibly be,” said Anna Grigorian, the parliamentary leader of the opposition Hayastan alliance.
“What does each side gain [from the deal?]” she went on. “The United States gains a direct presence in the region, specifically along the border with Iran, in a vital strategic sector. Azerbaijan secures a connection between Nakhichevan and the rest of Azerbaijan: a long-held dream and strategic objective for both Azerbaijan and Turkey the realization of which is reflected in this document. What does the Republic of Armenia gain?”
“It’s just not possible that Azerbaijan will transport cargo to Nakhichevan without making it possible for Armenia to ship cargo through Azerbaijani territory,” insisted Mirzoyan.
He argued that Armenia began importing wheat and fuel via Azerbaijan early this year. Edgar Ghazarian, another Strong Armenia deputy, countered that those commodities enter Armenia from Georgia, rather than directly from Azerbaijan.
Neighboring Iran has also voiced serious concerns over the TRIPP. In particular, it fears that the transit arrangement could lead to U.S. military or security presence along the Armenian-Iranian border.
Mirzoyan and other Armenian officials have ruled out such presence. Visiting Yerevan earlier this month, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that the Armenian government is addressing Tehran’s concerns.