2024-04-05 07:44:58
Author: Elvin Sakhavatoglu
One of the main topics of discussion before the meeting between the US-EU-Armenia officials tomorrow is related to the purpose of the meeting. Some experts claimed that the meeting was planned against Azerbaijan and that a military document related to Armenia’s security would be signed.
Of course, these points could not but worry official Baku. For this reason, on March 27, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan issued a strict statement regarding the meeting to be held tomorrow.
The statement said: Such activities by the European Union and the United States are clearly unilateral and biased and based on a double standard approach. The said conference is not conducted in a fully transparent manner, lacks regional inclusiveness and is contrary to the much-needed confidence building and integration promoted in the region. Instead of encouraging the Armenian side to negotiate in good faith, this conference creates new dividing lines and “spheres of influence” in the region.
The position of Azerbaijan is taken into account
Baku’s concerns did not go unnoticed by the United States, one of the main organizers of the meeting. A clear example of this is that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who actually runs the United States, called President Ilham Aliyev before the meeting and explained the situation.
During the phone conversation, Blinken explained that the April 5 meeting was not against Azerbaijan. The State Secretary pointed out that the main essence of the mentioned meeting will be the economic development of Armenia.
Of course, the fact that Blinken called President Ilham Aliyev and tried to explain the situation is an indicator of Azerbaijan’s influence. In other words, global players have to settle with Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan was given an explanation – why is Iran silent?
Another noteworthy point about the April 5 meeting is related to Iran’s position. It is known that relations between Iran and Western countries are tense. For this reason, Iran constantly accuses Western countries of threatening its borders.
For example, official Tehran has repeatedly stated that regional countries should resolve differences of opinion in the region by themselves, interference of outside players is unacceptable.
Is the deployment of Western forces in Armenia under the leadership of France not an external intervention in the region? Why is Iran not reacting harshly to this issue, not even a normal attitude.
It is clear that Russia’s loss of power in the South Caucasus may increase the possibilities of Iran’s intervention in the region.
Perhaps this is the root of Iran’s silence.
The processes show that Armenia aims to act as a military platform in the process of redistribution of the world. The interests of any state collide in Armenia. It is difficult to predict in advance what the processes will result for Yerevan against the background of the West’s settlement in Armenia. What is known is that Syria of South Caucasus can be Armenia.