ACNIS reView from Yerevan. A short time ago, Mnatsakan Safaryan, deputy foreign minister of the Republic of Armenia, shed light on the ongoing Armenia-Azerbaijan negotiations, stating in the National Assembly that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not rule out the possibility of transferring security control of future transport routes with Azerbaijan, passing through Armenia, to private security companies. This move seems to address the issue surrounding the so-called “Zangezur Corridor,” a long-standing focal point of geopolitical tensions among the Collective West, the USA, Russia, Iran, Turkey, and other nations.
The problem is that each side is attempting to assert dominance over the “corridor” at the expense of partial loss of Armenia’s sovereign territory. Whoever among the four aforementioned contenders gains control of the corridor will be the lesser of evils for Armenia. The worst-case scenario, however, would occur if, God forbid, Turkey succeeds. This would be disastrous for Armenia, as it would allow Turkey to unite the Turkic world and fulfill its long-standing dream of Great Turan—”Armenia without Armenians.”
If Armenia delegates responsibility for road safety to private security companies, it stands to gain nothing. On the contrary, it would essentially admit that it is incapable of ensuring security within its own territory, opting to transfer this critical duty to private companies deemed more reliable and professionally trained than state security forces. It’s important to consider what this means and the potential consequences it may lead to.
By pursuing this course of action the government of Armenia, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, effectively lowers the bar of Armenia’s sovereignty. If a country is unable to provide security within its borders and is willing or compelled to cede this sovereign right to others, there is a high likelihood that other states could later attempt to establish control over that territory, citing the country’s official admission of its inability.
Read also
For instance, a neighboring country—one that is a bitter enemy—or another state could argue, through effective diplomacy, that if Armenia cannot ensure security in one part of its territory and officially acknowledges this, what guarantees exist that it can maintain security in other areas? This could lead to calls for international control over additional sectors, involving other states or private entities. The principle is clear: you are either powerful or powerless.
This reckless step is being taken by a government that claims sovereignty and territorial integrity are of paramount, eternal value. Yet what we are seeing is only the beginning; a major struggle among external players over who will provide security in Armenia is expected. History offers examples—Panama and Egypt once ceded control of communication routes passing through their territories to private companies, and it took significant bloodshed and effort to correct those mistakes.