2024-08-02 12:54:46
Author: Elchin Alioglu
Source: Trend
The fact that the negotiation process regarding the final peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia is going on in a direct, bilateral manner worries the West. The European Union has now joined the United States and France, which are trying to change the format of the negotiations.
According to Charles Michel, the President of the Council of the European Union, he is worried about the inertia in the negotiation process and the growing tension in the South Caucasus region.
He said in an interview with the influential US resource “Politico” that he intends to continue the mediation mission between Azerbaijan and Armenia: “I call on the parties to sign the peace agreement as soon as possible.”
At the 4th Summit of the European Political Community held in Oxford, England, Charles Michel again met separately with President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer wanted to organize a meeting between the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia at the Oxford summit, but N. Pashinyan refused and ran away from the meeting.
According to the claims of sources in the Council of the European Union, “since Charles Michel used all the possibilities he had for the signing of a peace agreement between Baku and Yerevan, Azerbaijan and Armenia should stop mutual accusations and sign the peace agreement.”
In addition, it is claimed that Charles Michel sent a letter to Baku and Yerevan, urging the parties to return to the negotiating table and complete the process aimed at signing a peace agreement. He especially called for solving the still unresolved issues related to the delimitation and demarcation of the conventional state border between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
The intention of S. Michel, or rather of Brussels, is clear: the European Union, which insists on the fact that there has been stagnation in the negotiation process aimed at signing a peace agreement for months, intends to turn the negotiations into a tripartite format and play the role of mediator or moderator.
Taking into account the rapid arming of the Armenian army, the constant allocation of aid to Yerevan by the United States, France and the European Union, the increase in the supply of weapons and military equipment by Nikol Pashinyan’s government, and especially the intensification of firing by Armenians on our positions on the conventional state border, the level of tension in the region is rising. Of course, in such circumstances, the signing of a peace agreement and the establishment of security and stability in the region, which has been expected for decades, are particularly important.
It is not bad that the European Union also makes statements about mobilizing its capabilities to achieve peace.
Until now, Brussels has mediated between Baku and Yerevan.
During the initial phase of Charles Michel’s mediation, the situation was satisfactory. Progress was made in the negotiations in Brussels and Prague, and preliminary agreements appeared. However, the attempt of French President Emmanuel Macron, who is known for his words “I am more Armenian than Armenian”, to participate in the summit of the European Political Community in Granada, Spain, affected the process. After Macron announced his desire to participate, the official Baku announced that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s participation in the Granada meeting was a must.
E. Macron and Charles Michel did not agree, official Baku also refused the meeting. Despite this, a quadrilateral meeting was held in Granada with the participation of Emmanuel Macron, Charles Michel, German Chancellor Olaf Scholtz and Nikol Pashinyan, and a joint statement was signed.
The “discussion” of the issue related to Azerbaijan without the participation of Azerbaijan was to one side – the final statement included statements such as “sure of the safe return of Armenians from Karabakh without any reservations or conditions”, “the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh”.
All this was a gross violation of the mediation mission, an attempt to put pressure on Azerbaijan.
If the European Union wants to mediate again, it should forget the “meeting” in Granada and the statement adopted at that summit, and start the discussions again.
Azerbaijan will in no case agree to start the next round of negotiations based on the terms of the shameful statement in Granada.
The European Union will not be able to ignore the meeting in Granada and act as if nothing happened.
Thus, Charles Michel, who tried to restore mediation and stressed that he was “longing for the establishment of peace”, fell into the “Armenian trap” which is a product of the European Union’s own activities.
Let’s not forget that on April 5, a meeting was held in Brussels between US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. Although the parties insisted that military-technical cooperation and security issues were not discussed in this meeting, which was also desired by French President Emmanuel Macron, it was after the Brussels negotiations that the European Peace Fund opened a helpline to Yerevan.
Although 10 million dollars have been given to Yerevan under this line, the important thing is not the amount, but the fact of the aid.
After the Brussels negotiations, no decision was made regarding similar assistance to Azerbaijan, and thus the European Union did not try to hide its purely pro-Armenian position, even if it appeared.
Despite the half-hearted decisions of Brussels, which provided aid to Yerevan, sent hundreds of professional soldiers and military experts to the Armenians under the name of “European Union Monitoring Mission” (EUMA), and continuously made them stand in line at the conventional state border with Azerbaijan, observing the positions of our army, the “shortest” peace treaty declares that he wants it to be signed in time.
There is a name for such behavior: hypocrisy while considering the other party naive.
Why does the European Union not demand from Armenia that the preamble of its Constitution contains the provision reflecting the territorial claims against Azerbaijan, and amendments are made to the supreme law of Armenia? If this does not happen, no one can guarantee that the desire for revanchism and a new war will not arise again in Armenia.
If the necessary changes are not made to the Constitution of Armenia, the peace agreement to be signed will turn into an ordinary framework agreement, repeating the fate of the tripartite statement signed on November 10, 2020. It should be noted that Armenia has not complied with any of the conditions of the document it signed.
In addition, if Charles Michel wants to continue his mediation mission, he should familiarize himself with the obvious pro-Armenian, absurd and, in most cases, out of diplomatic ethics statements of the European Union High Commissioner for Foreign Policy and Security Affairs, Joseph Borrell, and try to put an end to such paranoid statements.
Finally, Charles Michel should demonstrate an adequate position regarding the EUMA mission. These observers with binoculars, located along the conventional state border of Armenia and Azerbaijan, “suddenly” become deaf, blind and dumb when Armenian soldiers fire at the positions of our army. When the Azerbaijani Army opened fire and silenced the provocateurs, EUMA observers made hysterical statements and said, “We will not allow Azerbaijan to attack Armenia.”
Nothing will be achieved if the European Union seeks to resume its mediation mission with all these flaws and shortcomings.