2024-07-21 06:02:55
Author: Elchin Alioglu
Source: Trend
The 4th Summit meeting of the “European Political Community” was held in Oxford, England. In this summit, which was an inclusive format attended not only by the leaders of the European Union countries, but also by the leaders of the European states, there were issues of military operations in Ukraine, European security and democracy, as well as ensuring the energy security of the European Union and establishing sustainable peace and stability in troubled areas.
During the summit, the meeting of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan was expected with the participation of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. However, N. Pashinyan refused the meeting.
It is an irrational and somewhat hysterical decision.
Demarcation and delimitation of the conventional state border between Azerbaijan and Armenia, restoration of transport communications and opening of new logistics routes, liberation of our 4 villages still under Armenian occupation, establishment of normal interstate relations, etc. – all these issues are not the basis for the establishment of relations between Baku and Yerevan, but for the establishment of peace and stability in the entire South Caucasus. The next stage in the process of discussing the issues and reaching agreements, which would not be inconclusive or insignificant, could be the summit in Oxford.
It did not happen, because the prime minister of Armenia made a demarche.
Hikmet Hajiyev, head of the Department of Foreign Policy Affairs of the Administration of the President of Azerbaijan, assistant to the President of Azerbaijan, commented on the incident as follows: “Great Britain, which hosts the European Political Community, made a proposal to hold such a meeting, and it was held at the Munich Security Conference between the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Prime Minister of Armenia. It was suggested that the meeting took place in the format of the Munich Security Conference, where German Chancellor Olaf Scholtz participated in the meeting, and after that the meeting continued in a bilateral format. Great Britain hosted the meeting in the same format.
But the Armenian side refused. Thus, at the beginning of the meeting, the participation of the British Prime Minister, and then the continuation of the meeting between Azerbaijan and Armenia, should have taken place. We consider Armenia’s rejection of this meeting as a manifestation of its intention to withdraw from the dialogue and the advancement of the peace agenda.
While Armenia talks about peace on various platforms, it is by no means understandable that it refuses a meeting that serves to advance the peace agenda, and the international community itself should appreciate that instead of evaluating the possibilities of dialogue, Armenia refuses it. We highly appreciate such a peace initiative of Great Britain”.
The press secretary of the Armenian MFA, Ani Badalyan, made the following statement about the demarche: “We proposed to hold a bilateral meeting between the Prime Minister of Armenia and the President of Azerbaijan within the framework of the summit in Britain. However, the Azerbaijani side rejected this proposal. The proposal of the Armenian side is valid. Besides, high-level negotiations “Our proposal to activate and sign a peace agreement within a month is valid.”
After such an absurd statement, another voiced: “Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan not only did not refuse the meeting, but even now he is ready to hold a bilateral meeting. The Azerbaijani side refused a bilateral meeting and declared that it is ready to hold a tripartite meeting with the participation of the Prime Minister of Great Britain.”
As you can see, the official Yerevan is trying to show that Baku wants to hold a meeting with the participation of the British Prime Minister, and that Armenia is committed to the format of bilateral meetings, by writing the exact opposite of what happened.
Of course, after Nikol Pashinyan’s démarche, which was far from political ethics and culture, logic and political morals, neither official London proposed such a meeting again, nor did Baku agree to such a meeting without the host’s initial action out of respect for Britain, which hosted the summit.
The most interesting issue is that Nikol Pashinyan carried out this demarche on whose instructions and instructions?
The first possibility is, of course, French President Emmanuel Macron.
E. Macron is the author of the idea of the 4th Summit meeting of the “European Political Name”, and there is no doubt that the official Paris instructed the Armenians to avoid the meeting.
But only Macron?
We do not think that Emmanuel Macron’s support and instructions are enough for Nikol Pashinyan to ignore the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s offer.
Because the USA wants to take the leading position among the “players”.
Immediately after the meeting between Azerbaijan and Armenia organized by US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken within the framework of NATO’s jubilee summit held in Washington, the United States began to hint at the “return to the Washington format of negotiations”.
Let’s remember the statement of Matthew Miller, the spokesperson of the US State Department: “We think that an agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia is possible. The agreement requires difficult choices and difficult concessions on both sides. Therefore, we will continue to urge the parties to overcome their differences and reach an agreement.”
Later, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken’s deputy for civil security, democracy and human rights Uzra Zeya made a statement: “The US is deeply concerned about the human rights and humanitarian crisis in Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as over 100,000 displaced people. The United States calls on Azerbaijan to ensure the rights and security of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as their safe, voluntary, dignified and stable return as soon as possible.
Official Washington, as it seems, deliberately and knowingly uses the terms “Nagorno-Karabakh” and “relocated Armenians from Karabakh” and clearly puts pressure on Baku. It is Washington’s desire that a clause related to the “return of Armenians from Karabakh” be included as a separate clause in the peace agreement to be signed between Baku and Yerevan.
France and the United States put pressure on the Armenians, make promises, tempt, entice and try to distance the official Yerevan from direct, bilateral peace talks with Baku as much as possible.
Nikol Pashinyan, who behaves according to the instructions of Washington and Paris, is also disrespectful to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. However, unlike Anthony Blinken and Emmanuel Macron, Kir Starmer did not pretend to mediate or moderate.
He just acted as the initiator and organizer of the meeting.
Taking into account that Britain has recently been rapidly expanding its relations with Armenia and raising its quality to a new level, N. Pashinyan’s demarche during the summit in Oxford should be a lesson for official London in a certain sense, and we hope that Britain will learn from the “lesson” of the Armenians.
As far as the official Yerevan is concerned, the goal is clear: Nikol Pashinyan indicates that he intends to change the bilateral format of the negotiations aimed at signing a peace agreement, and then hold discussions with the participation of only the United States or France.
Considering the efforts of the US State Department officials to put pressure on Baku and the statements aimed at fully supporting Armenia, it can be assumed that Nikol Pashinyan’s actions in Oxford, which are far from political morals and upbringing, are not a spontaneous decision, but a step taken after consultations with Washington.
At the same time, with this demarche, Washington urges London to be active in the South Caucasus and “refrain from creating obstacles” for the Americans to achieve their geopolitical goals.
Armenia, on the other hand, prefers to follow the instructions of Washington and Paris over the risk of spoiling relations with Britain, and demonstrates its desire to end the format of direct and bilateral contacts of negotiations. The goal is to get Baku to agree to a new negotiation format with the participation of mediators.
Washington and Paris believe that if this happens, they can put pressure on Baku more easily and effectively. According to the Americans and the French, if Baku does not accept this format, it will be accused of refusing peace talks, and if it accepts it, it will be faced with statements that it “obeyed the will of Yerevan”.
Of course, Baku understands these primitive scenarios and prepares the necessary response measures.
The loser will definitely be Yerevan.