So, first, both chambers of the French parliament adopt anti-Azerbaijani resolutions, and then Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan stated the need to send OSCE and UN missions to the “Nagorno-Karabakh” and “Lachin corridor”. Then, two hundred (!) French intellectuals sent a letter in support of the people of “Artsakh”. By the way, the document is so full of big names that it looks more like a summary of a newsreel than an act of humanitarian will. Then the political leaders of the key parties in France take the stage and call on President Macron to support the people of Armenia and “Artsakh”. Then Prime Minister Pashinyan takes the stage again with a proposal to give the RPC a UN mandate. A little later, the story is rounded off by a statement by Macron in which he urges Armenians not to break with the CSTO since France cannot guarantee Armenia’s security. Time will tell if this statement is more sincere or sly. At the same time, the French-Armenian tandem was preparing to deliver “the main blow” to us by trying to pass an anti-Azerbaijani statement in the UN Security Council, in which the events on the Lachin road were presented as a humanitarian catastrophe. While we were preparing this material, the provocation, thanks to the brilliant work of Azerbaijani diplomats, as well as Britain, Russia, Albania, and the UAE, failed miserably, demonstrating the futility of current French policy in the South Caucasus.
Caliber.Az has covered and analysed most of these events, but now it is time to take a bird’s-eye view of the problem and ask ourselves “why”? Not from the hysterical position of offenders, which by definition we are not, but from a purely scientific point of view. The title of a funny old film starring Dustin Hoffman comes to mind: “Who Is Harry Kellerman and Why Is He Saying Those Terrible Things About Me?” Here we wonder, “What is France and why does it keep…” Well, you get the idea.
There is a perception that France is driven by purely pragmatic interests. France’s economic rivalry with Türkiye is said to force it to play against Türkiye on every possible field, including the South Caucasus. This is certainly the case. France’s desire to prevent Turkey from actively defending its interests in the Aegean Sea area, Cyprus, Syria, the African Mediterranean, and the African continent, is a logical extension of its attempts to “disrupt the game” for Azerbaijan, Türkiye’s closest ally. The confrontation with Türkiye has not only an economic but also a more image-oriented character. France not only does not want to lose its position, but also eyes to act as the flagship of European interests that do not allow the independent policy of the successor to the Grand Porte, both in its zone of traditional influence (Syria, Africa) and directly in Europe itself (Greece and Cyprus).
There is also much talk about the influence of the large Armenian lobby. Of course, it is huge, but is it big enough to shape the foreign policy agenda in such an important area? We do not think so. The influence of the Armenian lobby in the US is also huge, yet the US has never been known for its eccentric and hysterical outbursts against Azerbaijan. Why the US, being so powerful, has been more tactful? Why is France, which does not have half of the political clout of the US, more inclined to take an offensive tone? Maybe it is the love of the French for Armenia? Here, contrary to our preferred pragmatic approach, we may be getting closer to a solution.
Let me speak aside. If you look at the comments of ordinary Frenchmen to the anti-Azerbaijani posts and articles on French news sites, you will find an interesting picture. Users of Arab origin are more likely to defend Azerbaijan and accuse the government of being Islamophobic. Black commentators tend to remain neutral, but swear at the government for all the wrong things, including Islamophobia. Finally, without exception, all ethnic French people (of which there is a majority so far) put tear-stained smiley faces under their posts and call for swords to defend their oppressed sister, Armenia. Yes, the French do love Armenians; this is not a figure of speech or exaggeration, but the way things are. But they do it for a reason, and not even for money. The reason is deeper.
It is no secret that, like any former imperial nation, the French suffer from an inferiority complex. This complex is fuelled by a series of ignominious defeats in the 20th century, starting with the capitulation to Germany in 1940, and ending with the expulsion from their colonies, Vietnam (1954) and Algeria (1962). In the period that followed, this complex was more or less compensated, in the absence of competitors, by its media status as a trendsetter and in good taste. In the modern period, in the era of instant exchange of information and democratisation of fashion, France has lost this ‘monopoly on taste’. Whereas the Frenchman wearing a neck scarf once represented a style icon, it now evokes only a kindly smile as a cute vintage image.
Other imperial nations are experiencing similar problems. But while the English, not without the help of the Americans (let us also call this phenomenon Anglo-Saxon peace) managed to maintain their influence in the world through soft power – the English language, high standards of business ethics, and higher education; while the Germans, after the collapse of the Third Reich, staked on economic progress, increasing personal comfort and abandoning geopolitics, the French never managed to form any clear vectors of their development in the new world. The situation is aggravated by the loss of passionarity common to the peoples of Western Europe.
France, which is rapidly losing ground in its traditional cultural fiefdom of Francophone Africa (against a backdrop of an active expansion of influence from China, Türkiye, and Russia), is no longer in demand in the world. It is not only losing money but also losing its image, as no one sees France as a civilisational landmark and no one associates it with the future. France simply has nothing to offer in this sense. Yes, it exports technology, but many do, for example, Finland. But not many have the ambition of a great nation. To prove its greatness, France urgently needs to offer the world some intangible good. The problem is that there is no one to offer it.
That’s when Armenians take the stage. The Armenians are the only ones calling out to the French, to their imperial ego and their civilisational exceptionalism. In the midst of a “cynical, consuming, digitised” world, only little Armenia, this “ancient hearth of civilisation torn apart by predators”, appeals to France for help, puts its trust in it, reminds it that it is great, appeals to its sentimentality, wakens up the old chivalrous and late moral imperatives of the Great French Revolution. The piteous rhetoric of global Armenianism fits very well into the sentiments of both major strata of French society: both the left, by exploiting the slogans of the right of peoples to self-determination, and the right, by appealing for protection of the first Christian state against Islamic expansion and a bulwark of European mentality in the grip of the “barbaric” East.
Macron, as the representative of a young ambitious generation, decided to play the good-doer.
An examination of France’s chances of establishing itself in the South Caucasus is a topic for another article, but for now, we will limit ourselves to noting that these prospects seem extremely dim for a number of factors related to geography, logistics, and, not least, the underestimation of other actors in Caucasian politics – Azerbaijan, above all.
Azerbaijan, after winning the 44-day war, has stated unequivocally that the Karabakh conflict has been resolved. The deployment of Russian peacekeepers in the areas populated by ethnic Armenians is temporary and does not dispute in any way the sovereignty of Azerbaijan over this territory. Proceeding from this, Azerbaijan no longer needs the mediation of the dissolved OSCE Minsk Group, much less any new formats for the involvement of international forces in the resolution of the imagined conflict. Azerbaijan welcomes mediation by any party, on one condition – if this mediation is aimed at achieving a comprehensive peace treaty with Armenia, recognizing the territorial integrity of each side.
This unconcealed position of France only serves us well. Before Azerbaijan’s historic victory in the Second Karabakh War, Azerbaijan had to tolerate France’s mediation in the OSCE Minsk Group while being in a less advantageous position. Paying lip service to neutrality, France, as a member of the Minsk Group, did everything possible to prevent the conflict from being resolved in any way beneficial for Azerbaijan. Now, after Azerbaijan’s confident victory, the openly hostile actions of some parts of the French establishment give us every right to exclude France from the mediation format between Baku and Yerevan, depriving it of methods of diplomatic influence on the peace negotiations.
But this does not give us a reason to rest on our laurels. We now need to monitor the situation closely, reacting promptly and adequately to provocations of various scales. This is what our leadership is doing, without giving an overly emotional, disproportionate reaction: so far we have limited ourselves to handing over notes of protest to the French Ambassador. We do not watch our words, but our deeds. Not on lawmakers, but on doers. And if the doers make the same mistakes as their colleagues in the chambers, perhaps at some point the question of the advisability of cooperation between our countries, particularly in the energy field, will be raised.
Gustave Flaubert’s great work, the title of which is in the headline of this article, is a novel about growing up and explores the theme of the loss of youthful illusions. I hope that the hotheads of French politicians will also one day lose their illusions about the cultural exceptionalism of Europe as a whole and their own country in particular. Implicitly exploiting the gestalt of the white man’s mission and the supremacy of Christian civilisation, the French are driving a dead horse which can at best be compared to D’Artagnan’s nag which he rode into Paris, and from which he got rid at the first opportunity. Does this mean that French culture has lost its relevance? We don’t think so. It seems to us that all the civilizational achievements of the French, their contribution to the world science, culture, and philosophy, will revive under one condition – if France, which, by the way, has a huge Muslim population (!), turns its face to the Islamic world, and creates its new identity by integrating with it, becoming a bridge in the dialogue of civilizations. In this sense, Azerbaijan, one of the first countries in the Muslim world to integrate the heritage of European culture, could be one of France’s key partners in achieving this doctrine. Is France going to get its chance? Will it once again become strong, shedding its arrogance and allying with new players, enter a new era armed with new meanings, or will it let itself be swept away in the murky depths of the old world, with a small, but karmically very heavy weight, called Armenia, strapped to its feet? This is an open-ended question.
Murad Abiyev
Caliber.Az
