Failure to Secure Third-Country Support for Armenian Prisoners Held in Baku Is a Diplomatic Failure

– Ms. Sahakyan, yesterday, Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan, addressing the issue of Armenian prisoners of war held in Baku, stated that Armenia had approached third countries for assistance, but they had responded by telling Armenia to “stay out of it.” Are you aware of such information? Why are third countries responding this way, and what could explain their position?

– We are aware of the information that has been officially and publicly disclosed. Yes, according to official sources, we know that the Foreign Ministry’s efforts to persuade a third country to assist Armenia in exercising its rights have failed.

However, this is puzzling because, as we have pointed out, in 2025 and even in 2026, civil society organizations sent letters to the Swiss authorities as part of public diplomacy efforts. At least in those letters, there was no indication that Switzerland was opposed to or unwilling to provide humanitarian assistance concerning ethnic Armenians or citizens of Armenia.

For this reason, we would like to understand what diplomatic failures may have occurred that could have led Switzerland to change its position on this issue.

Of course, the official statements do not indicate that a request was submitted specifically to Switzerland. In other words, the countries Armenia formally approached have not been identified, making this information impossible to verify.

There are approximately 200 countries in the world. Ukraine, for example, managed to persuade 33 countries to bring an extremely sensitive political issue before the International Court of Justice. Moreover, it succeeded in mobilizing around 30 countries to engage with the International Criminal Court and pursue the criminal accountability of senior leaders of a major world power, with all the resulting legal and political consequences for international diplomacy.

Yet Armenia has been unable to engage even one of those 200 countries in addressing a humanitarian issue, and the explanation offered is that Azerbaijan demanded that they stay out of it.

For me, this is an indicator of where Azerbaijani diplomacy stands today compared with Armenian diplomacy.

– In other words, if Armenia had conducted more effective diplomacy, could the refusals by third countries mentioned by the authorities have been avoided?

– What I am demonstrating is that, in international practice, effective state diplomacy can resolve far-reaching issues, even when they involve highly complex political matters.

I am unaware of any precedent in which a state has sought to have its citizens represented through third countries and those third, neutral states have objected. Raising objections in humanitarian matters is not customary. Quite the contrary, there are countries that are particularly active in addressing such humanitarian issues.

International practice shows that a neutral state may agree to provide assistance, while the state in whose territory the foreign nationals are located creates obstacles or complications. As a rule, such situations lead to interstate disputes.

In other words, if Azerbaijan had objected to an agreement between Armenia and a third country, that would have been more or less consistent with precedents known to us in international practice. But a situation in which a state is unable, through its diplomatic efforts, to secure the involvement of a third country is simply unprecedented, to my knowledge.

I can provide examples from international practice where the state hosting foreign nationals created obstacles.

For instance, in the case of the United States and Serbia, during NATO’s military operations against Yugoslavia, Switzerland was prepared to represent U.S. interests in Belgrade, but Serbia refused to give the necessary consent.

Similar cases occurred in relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia. Indonesia demanded that the United Kingdom cease representing Dutch interests and subsequently refused to allow another protecting power to become involved.

There was also the case involving Germany and the United States during NATO’s operations against Yugoslavia. Germany and the United Kingdom approached Switzerland, asking it to act as a protecting power for their interests. However, Switzerland declined to serve as a neutral intermediary, citing concerns about maintaining the neutrality of its embassy’s operations in Belgrade.

In other circumstances, refusals and major obstacles have generally come from the countries in whose territory the foreign nationals were located. Finding a third, neutral country, however, has typically been a relatively straightforward diplomatic matter because of the humanitarian nature of the issues involved.

Such obstacles have been followed by special measures, including international judicial proceedings. In other words, failure to ensure such arrangements generally gives rise to an international scandal and is regarded as an act that violates international law.

– So, in this case, when the Armenian side says that third countries have refused, could it not have turned the matter into an international scandal?

– Yes. First of all, the reasons for the refusals and the names of the countries involved should be disclosed so that everything is transparent.

– Ms. Sahakyan, how do you assess the fact that, during the October 15 government meeting, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, referring to the 1,254 letters addressed by citizens to Armenian prisoners held in Azerbaijan, stated that these letters should not be handed over to the government but simply sent through the postal service?

– We all know that HayPost cannot deliver letters sent from Armenia to Azerbaijan.

We have encountered numerous cases in which, for the purposes of international judicial proceedings, we had to send formal letters to the Azerbaijani authorities and invariably received refusals on the grounds that there were no communication channels.

Those refusals were substantiated and provided in writing. We submitted them to international bodies to demonstrate the absence of communication channels.

In other words, it is a well-known fact that letters cannot be sent to the Azerbaijani authorities from Armenian territory. Such correspondence can be sent from foreign countries.

In this situation, state involvement is inevitably necessary.

– Does this mean that, even in matters where the state could assist its citizens, it is failing to take the necessary steps?

– I do not want to believe that any Armenian government would lack the desire to protect its citizens who find themselves in an unimaginably difficult and exceptional situation.

I believe this is a matter of capacity. As a citizen, I found it unpleasant to hear Armenia’s foreign policy authorities publicly acknowledge such a diplomatic failure in finding a third country.

I would feel very proud if Armenia could successfully resolve this small, relatively minor diplomatic issue and provide assistance to its citizens, so that every citizen, wherever they may be, could truly feel safe, knowing that the state is present in their lives.

Kristine Aghabekyan