(MENAFN- AzerNews)
Orkhan Amashov read more The wrath and opinionated condemnation of partisan Europe is
upon Azerbaijan. Armenia is recumbent in cognac-soaked reverie and
the Russians are chortling with vodka-enhanced glee, with Baku
dutifully downplaying the significance of the recent resolution
adopted by the European Parliament which criticised Azerbaijan for
what it believes to be the 'blockade' of the Lachin-Khankandi
Road.
As sure as the Pope is Catholic, there is a realm beyond the
externally visible, which we may fail to unearth and return to what
is rudimentarily detectable, leaving us consequently feeling unduly
malcontent, due to our comprehensive understanding that such a
gloomy perspective is insufficiently substantiated. Enough of
suppositions. Let us dig deep into what the document says and what
could be its real impact.
The 19 January resolution of the European Parliament is a
non-binding, yet still authoritative, soft power instrument,
purported to influence the Council's decision-making powers,
instructing its President to forward all to the relevant parties,
including the governments and parliaments of Azerbaijan and
Armenia.
The document is not entirely unimportant. It is also not
categorically critical in any principal sense. It should not be
viewed with mere dismay as a catalogue of worthless ill-digested
admonitions, despite the probability that it may actually be such a
document. What is certain, nevertheless, is that its content should
not excessively sully the cluttered minds of those trying to
understand the EU's approach to Baku-Yerevan dynamics. In other
words, a judiciously apt sense of proportion should be assigned to
it, with no hard feelings or slants of any sort, which should be
alien to any fair-minded observer contemptuous of all forms of bias
that could have any bearing upon one's assessment.
For practical reasons, there is no need to recite the
resolution's paragraphs here, for it would only suffice to say that
it is in full conformity with the Armenian position over the
Lachin-Khankendi Road standoff situation. The resolution relates to
what it refers to as“the humanitarian consequences of the blockade
of Nagorno-Karabakh”. It“deplores”,“urges”,“underlines”,
“strongly condemns”,“calls for” and contains other ill-informed
clauses of similar ilk, centred around the logic that Baku is
responsible for“the tragic state of affairs” in what the European
legislators believe to be“the Nagorno-Karabakh”.
It says nothing about Baku's admonitions over the ongoing
illegal exploitation of Karabakh's natural resources and the misuse
of the Lachin-Khankendi Road under the aegis of the so-called
Russian 'peacekeepers' and the non-fulfilment by Armenia of Article
4 and 9 of the 10 November 2020 declaration.
For those deluded personages who voted for the resolution, Baku
is an audacious culprit which has been regrettably beastly to the
population of the region. The only aspect which may be deemed as
falling within the realms of the acceptable for Baku is that,
amidst its manifest criticisms, the European Parliament is calling
on it to protect the rights of the Armenian population of Karabakh,
inadvertently and vaguely showing its inherent acknowledgement of
Azerbaijan's territoriality integrity.
The question hanging in the air like the Sword of Damocles is if
this lackadaisically thought agitprop drama of the European
Parliament is the deadly axe-blow to Brussels' mediatory efforts in
the eyes of Azerbaijan and whether we should look upon it as“the
nail in the coffin' of the largely laudable efforts of the
Council's President, Charles Michel. Perhaps not. It is a blow from
a blunted axe, wielded by an inexpert axeman; a serious one, but
not ultimately capital. It is probably a significant setback that
is reversible, albeit not easily. In May 2021 and 2022, the
European Parliament adopted resolutions replete with unsympathetic
lines towards Azerbaijan, yet their impact on the Council's peace
mediation efforts was negligible.
What happen to be the factors of greater consequentiality are
the mendacious French design to transform the trilateral Brussels
format into a quadrilateral one and the obscure intentions of the
EU's new civil mission to Armenia which is set to begin on 20
February. It could be seen as a fairly realistic probability that,
if Charles Michel uses his influence and initiates a new trilateral
meeting devoid of meddling French involvement, Azerbaijan will be
close to being receptive.
On the other hand, for Moscow, this resolution has been, in a
way, a godsend, its short-sightedness helping the Kremlin at a time
when its reputation is at an unprecedented low, now being regarded
as more authoritative vis-a-vis Brussels. On 18 January, reanimated
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated, amongst other
clauses, that it was a part of the understanding by the signatories
of the 10 November 2020 declaration that the Lachin-Khankendi Road
would not be used for non-humanitarian and non-civilian purposes.
He also added that the so-called Russian 'peacekeeping' contingent
could fulfil the task of inspecting the transport devices to ensure
this, deviating from Moscow's earlier position, and that there had
been meetings between Baku and the Armenians in Karabakh on the
subject.
What Lavrov has suggested is driven by self-interest, as the
Kremlin wants any new arrangement to be agreed upon via its
self-interested mediation and, if the contingent is explicitly
acknowledged to be entitled to this function as part of its control
over the ceasefire regime, Russia will see itself even more in
charge, re-entrenching itself in the region. Baku, in all
probability, will push for a new arrangement with its own permanent
control over the route which, at this stage, could be shared with
the temporarily stationed 'peacekeepers'.
Baku-Brussels relations are too complex and multidimensional to
be viewed purely from the prism of the European Parliament's
partisan resolution. The damage is serious but revocable. Within
the tug-of-war over the influence in relation to the
Azerbaijani-Armenian peace process between Russia and the EU, it is
now incumbent upon the latter to show it is capable to rise above
trivialities.
As Neil Watson, British Journalist, remarked:“This move is
contrary to the best interests of the EU and favours the
expansionist stance of the Big Bad Wolf of the World - Russia. MEPs
need to helicopter up and see that an EU-mandated
Armenian-Azerbaijani peace is preferable for both parties and the
world at large.”
---