Incompleteness, ambiguity, and a one-sided approach are the characteristics and main errors of US and EU mediation between Baku and Yerevan.
Incompleteness and Ambiguity
The US and EU lack a clear stance on many aspects of the resolution process. This gap is being exploited by one of the parties, currently Armenia and its backers. Amidst the current stagnation, there is a “Karabakhization” of the peace process. However, it is incorrect to associate the interstate process between Azerbaijan and Armenia with an intra-Azerbaijani dialogue between Baku and Karabakh Armenians.
Western leaders often talk about the rights and security of the Armenian population in the region but fail to mention which country’s laws ensure those rights and security. While the Russian Foreign Ministry states that Armenians residing within the territory should be provided rights and security guarantees within Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, it doesn’t clarify the relationship between the EU and the US.
Irationality and Inconsistency
US diplomats refuse to visit Shusha, effectively violating the territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan. After Pashinyan acknowledged the territorial integrity of our country, including Karabakh, his statement did not receive the necessary support in the West. This made the Prime Minister an easy target for the Russian Karabakh clan and Armenian influences, further enabling Russia to block the peace process.
Despite the fact that the territorial entity known as “Nagorno-Karabakh” no longer exists, the US and EU insist on using this phrase in their statements, attempting to maintain the relevance of an outdated narrative and giving Armenians unwarranted hopes for a special status of this region in future Azerbaijan.
While the use of the Lachin corridor is an internal matter for Azerbaijan, US and EU officials intervene in this issue whenever possible. If they are concerned about the humanitarian situation of Armenians in Karabakh, the road they take shouldn’t matter. The rejection of the Agdam road is connected to the West’s desire to grant extraterritorial status to the Lachin corridor. On one hand, they proudly state that the principle of territorial integrity was established through Western mediation. On the other hand, they refuse to accept the application of border and customs legislation of Azerbaijan along the Lachin road.
One-sided Approach
The US and EU assert that Azerbaijan should not have territorial claims to Armenia. However, Armenia’s legislation contains territorial claims against Azerbaijan, and Pashinyan acknowledged this. Moreover, the fact that territories of the Azerbaijani Republic were occupied at one point did not prevent the West from collaborating with Armenia and assisting them under the most authoritarian and pro-Russian leaders.
The possible migration of Karabakh Armenians from Azerbaijan is deemed unacceptable for the West. But what about the expulsion of Azerbaijanis from Armenia and Karabakh? Is this issue addressed?
Armenia funds its proxies and military forces in Karabakh, and the West considers this normal. Therefore, the presence of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Azerbaijan within its own territory should be considered normal. Otherwise, it is perceived that the West applies the principle of territorial integrity only for the protection of Armenia.
Outcome
These and other negative aspects in the stance of Western countries undermine the effectiveness of their mediation. Azerbaijan is well aware that the West engaged in the resolution process to assist Armenia, but this aid cannot come at the expense of Azerbaijan. For the West, a peaceful treaty is the main priority of negotiations, while Russia proposes to sign it at an indefinite time. Due to the stated mistakes of the US and EU, Russia, using its resources on the ground, is blocking the swift signing of a peace agreement. Azerbaijan is taking military-diplomatic steps to eliminate these obstacles on its own.
The South Caucasus Research Center (CQTM)
