Washington Accord: Armenia-Azerbaijan’s Historic Peace?

The long-standing conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, a geopolitical fixture of the South Caucasus for three decades, appears to be yielding to a new era of dialogue and cooperation, symbolized most recently by the signing of the Washington Accord. At the Doha Forum, H.E. Armen Grigoryan, Secretary of the Security Council of Armenia, and H.E. Hikmet Hajiyev, Assistant to the President of Azerbaijan, engaged in a candid discussion moderated by David Hearst, offering key insights into the achievements of the Accord, the challenges of institutionalizing peace, and the transformative vision for the region. Their conversation provided a rare occasion where previously warring parties discussed the reality of success, moving the narrative away from conflict and toward strengthened stability.

For the last thirty years, the South Caucasus has suffered from a profound “deficit of peace,” characterized by conflict and war, particularly dating back to unfortunate developments in the early 1990s. Azerbaijan’s representative noted that the region was a “battle space,” scarred by different conflicts. This enduring instability meant that neither country truly knew what “peace” entailed. The recent history is marked by a long conflict, with fresh wounds in both societies, exacerbated by various escalations and warfare in the preceding five years.

The Washington Accord, however, has been framed by both nations as a “historic breakthrough” and a “historic success” that fundamentally changes the region. Hajiyev likened its significance to a “Camp David” style peace arrangement, indicating its potential to redirect the geopolitical context of the South Caucasus. For Azerbaijan, the Accord brought an end to the conflict and established a “just peace,” building new realities based on the guiding principles of international law. For Armenia, the Accord represents success in changing the atmosphere of the region, allowing discussions to focus on strengthening and institutionalizing peace. Both officials shared the hope that this peace would save future generations from the destructive developments experienced in the past.

The success of the Washington Accord was attributed to a confluence of bilateral efforts and crucial international facilitation. Azarbaijan emphasized that, at a core level, both nations understood the fundamental need for peace and the necessity of building that peace themselves. This realization led to effective bilateral engagement, culminating in the presentation of the real text of the peace agreement and five fundamental principles that would shape the future treaty.

A critical precursor to the Washington Summit was the government-to-government meeting in Abu Dhabi, which laid the framework for the subsequent Washington process. Grigoryan agreed that the Abu Dhabi meeting “paved way” for the ultimate success in Washington.

Furthermore, both nations highlighted the decisive role of the United States. Hajiyev noted that the arrival of President Trump’s team coincided with Azerbaijan’s own agenda for stronger American engagement, providing a political guarantee and weight necessary to ensure the peace process was “irreversible”. Grigoryan mirrored this sentiment, calling the Accord a “big beautiful deal” and crediting President Trump’s dedication and the successful approach of his team in pushing the deal forward. The US played an “impartial and honest broker” role, bringing the parties to the final deal.

The main focus following the Accord is moving beyond a mere lack of conflict and establishing a sustainable, long-lasting peace. This process, referred to as the institutionalization of peace, encompasses signing and ratifying the full peace agreement and unblocking the region economically.

Hajiyev stressed that defining peace philosophically means ensuring it provides “prosperity” and “development,” fundamentally changing the geopolitical landscape. Azerbaijan’s strategic goal is the complete transformation of the region, moving it from a “battle space” to a “marketplace” open to investment, cooperation, and partnership. They are concentrating on the economic benefits of peace and building mutual dependency, ensuring that communities feel the immediate and long-term positive impacts. Armenia shares this view, expecting that unblocking the region will lead to cheaper goods and significantly benefit Armenian society, noting that peace allows investment to shift from security to economic opportunities and social development. Armenia has already seen its GDP per capita double over the last three to four years, with expectations of further benefits once communications are fully opened.

Concrete steps toward economic connectivity are already being explored:

1. Trade and Goods: Azerbaijan has removed its ban on the transfer of Armenian goods or goods coming to Armenia through its territory, with Armenia announcing a reciprocal readiness.

2. Energy: Discussions are underway concerning the export of oil and oil products from Azerbaijan to Armenia, an unprecedented development.

3. Grain Transit: Armenian imports of grain from Kazakhstan and Russian grain are running through Azerbaijani territory, showcasing the initial economic benefits of the peace concept.

4. High-Level Interaction: A recent, unprecedented visit saw the Deputy Prime Minister of Armenia travel to the Gabala region of Azerbaijan for official visits and discussions on mutual trade, alongside work on border delimitation.

A key area of cooperation and negotiation involves regional connectivity, which remains subject to a divergence in terminology.

For Azerbaijan, this critical transportation linkage is often referred to as the Zangazur corridor. They view this project not merely as linking the two countries but as a broader, transformative infrastructure initiative that will change the Eurasian landscape, connecting Central Asia and the Caspian region to the Black Sea and onwards to Turkey and the Mediterranean. Hajiyev views this corridor concept broadly, suggesting that the entire territory of Azerbaijan could serve as a corridor for positive traffic and goods.

For Armenia, the term “corridor” is explicitly “not acceptable”. Following the Washington summit, Armenia’s leaders and the United States signed a document referring to the road unblocking as the “Trip Trump route for international peace and prosperity”. Armenia emphasizes that this strong interaction will bring benefits both regionally and to businesses and countries outside of the region. The implementation of the Trip Trump route is expected to create extensive business opportunities for Armenia by facilitating the transfer of goods and services. Despite the difference in terminology, both sides are working on ensuring the connectivity project advances, with Hajiyev expressing hope that the divergence is “only terminology”.

Both officials acknowledged that moving past 30 years of conflict requires concerted efforts in confidence-building, which must extend beyond government negotiations to the societal level.

Government-Level Trust: Grigoryan noted that a degree of trust has been established over the last few years between the leaders and their respective teams. Hajiyev emphasized that blocks of confidence are being built between the governments, including through security and military apparatus.

People-to-People Contact: A vital element is preparing people for peace. Azerbaijan stressed that they wanted to sign the normalization agreement not only with the government of Armenia but also with the people of Armenia. The development of Track 1.5 diplomacy—combining government and civil society institutions—is proving effective. Recently, civil society representatives from Azerbaijan visited Yerevan, and Armenian civil society representatives visited Baku, a process aimed at creating trust at the societal level and garnering public support for peace. Both sides recognize that while governments make decisions, engaging society is crucial, and the Armenian side confirmed that its society is ready and strongly supports the institutionalization of peace.

The Role of the International Community: While acknowledging the success of bilateral negotiation, the officials appealed for continued international support to ensure the peace remains irreversible. The international community’s support is seen as crucial and should be streamlined toward the peace agenda. This support should primarily be political, but also economic, augmenting regional efforts like the connectivity projects. Crucially, the officials requested that international partners and media avoid statements or research that might regress the process, effectively “taking us to the back,” and instead focus on helping them move toward the future.

The dialogue at the Doha Forum illuminated a shared, albeit challenging, commitment to transformation in the South Caucasus. The Washington Accord serves as the foundation for a “just peace” and the blueprint for institutionalizing cooperation. As Grigoryan observed, talking about peace is “much easier than talking about the conflict,” signifying a profound shift in narrative where previously contradicting discourses are now aligning.

The commitment to economic interdependency, evidenced by agreements on trade, energy, and transportation—despite the semantic hurdle over corridor versus route—demonstrates that the process is focused on concrete benefits. This joint effort to build a regional security architecture that can withstand spoilers reflects a high degree of regional ownership and responsibility, driven by the desire to save future generations from the scars of war. This shift in the South Caucasus, where at least one chapter of conflict is closed, provides a hopeful model: a dedication to bilateral dialogue, supported by strategic external engagement, can transition a scarred battleground into a potential marketplace. The process of establishing peace works like putting together a broken puzzle post-storm; each part – confidence, jobs, or leadership drive – needs precise alignment for order to emerge, while outside nations mainly offer steady conditions so locals can rebuild.

Join the Conversation:
📌 Subscribe to Think BRICS for weekly geopolitical video analysis beyond Western narratives