Azerbaijan’s Center of Analysis of International Relations (AIR Center) has issued a detailed rebuttal to a recent political brief published by the Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael, arguing that the document contains “factual inaccuracies, legally flawed interpretations, and analytical gaps” that risk distorting international understanding of the Armenia–Azerbaijan normalization process.
The Clingendael report – titled “Armenia and Azerbaijan: Peace or Pause?” – analyzes the August 8 Washington summit, the initialling of the bilateral peace agreement, and the newly created Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), a transport link connecting Azerbaijan with Nakhchivan via Armenia.
In its response, the AIR Center says several terms used in the brief “misrepresent real processes in the region” and can inadvertently reinforce misleading narratives at a sensitive diplomatic moment.
Baku Calls Out “Terminological Confusion” and “Selective Interpretation”
According to the think tank, the Dutch review mishandles several core issues:
Normalization talks: Baku argues that the Clingendael brief offers an “incomplete and sometimes speculative” reading of how negotiations reached their current stage.
OSCE Minsk Group: Azerbaijani analysts stress that the report mischaracterizes the legal and political basis for closing the Minsk Group, noting that both Armenia and Azerbaijan jointly appealed for its dissolution.
Constitutional issues: AIR Center says the brief simplifies Armenia’s constitutional objections and overlooks the official positions of both sides.
Claims and counterclaims: The response says Clingendael’s description of mutual legal and territorial claims fails to reflect their international legal foundations.
TRIPP evaluations: Baku says assessments of the Trump Route underestimate the clarity of the framework and Armenia’s public confirmation of the route’s status under Armenian jurisdiction.
“These inaccuracies do not merely misinform readers,” the Center notes. “They create risks of misunderstanding the dynamics of Azerbaijan–Armenia relations at a critical stage in the peace process.”
Why Baku Is Pushing Back
The AIR Center emphasizes that think tanks play a powerful role in shaping foreign policy debates in Europe and beyond. Because of this, “precision in terminology and context is essential,” especially when discussing post-conflict stabilization.
The Center says its rebuttal is “not just a protest,” but part of its institutional responsibility to prevent “misinterpretations that could undermine regional stability.”
It has prepared a “clarification document” addressing each point in detail and sent it to Clingendael.
Open to Dialogue – With Conditions
Despite its criticisms, the Azerbaijani think tank stresses that it remains committed to “open and professional dialogue” with Dutch researchers and other international institutions.
“We believe that mutual efforts based on accuracy and respect are essential for achieving a sustainable peace,” the Center said.
Why This Exchange Matters
The debate comes at a moment when international think tanks, governments, and regional actors are reassessing the implications of the Washington agreements, the future of the TRIPP route, and the shifting geopolitical balance in the South Caucasus.
The Clingendael paper – which explores US, Russian, Iranian, Turkish, and EU reactions to the peace deal – has attracted broad attention in policy circles for its argument that Washington’s commitment may be short-lived and that the EU now has a rare opportunity to solidify its role in the region.
Baku’s sharp response suggests that Azerbaijan wants to shape how European research institutions frame this new diplomatic landscape – and push back firmly when it believes the narrative is drifting off course.
