In his speeches, President Ilham Aliyev has revealed some details about how France managed to become a mediator in the OSCE Minsk Group and the concerns these attempts raised among the astute and politically savvy Heydar Aliyev.
The current president has also talked about how the then-French leader, Jacques Chirac, promised his Azerbaijani counterpart that his country would try to maintain a neutral position (though even “neutrality” in a conflict where both the aggressor and the victim are evident should not have been seen as something “self-evident”). Chirac was succeeded by Sarkozy and Hollande, who, although not showing a clear eagerness to resolve the conflict quickly, did not openly display the traditional French sympathy for Armenian separatism.
Everything was fine until Emmanuel Macron moved into the Élysée Palace. Before the 44-day war, Macron did not particularly show anti-Azerbaijani animosity. There was an explanation for this—the Armenian occupation of a large part of Azerbaijani territory suited this “greater Armenian than the Catholicos himself” just fine. He was content with the then status quo (which our Ministry of Foreign Affairs called “not sustainable”), and he had no particular need to bare his teeth threateningly in our direction.
But as it always happens with chronic failures, something eventually “went wrong.” This “wrong” was the triumphant march of the Azerbaijani warrior across HIS OWN land, which had been occupied for a long time (partly due to Paris’s inspiration from Yerevan), and the raising of the Victory flag over the crown of Karabakh—Shusha.
At this point, Macron’s bile started to pour out, and all the anti-Azerbaijani stench began to surface. During the war, hints, quickly turning into threats, were directed at us. After the war ended and France’s port ally capitulated, some rather ridiculous resolutions from both houses of the French parliament called on the government to recognize the “NKR.” It is hard to guess what those who voted for this “nonsense” hoped for, but in Azerbaijan, this barking was heard, laughed at, and the caravan moved on.
Initially, Macron tried not to publicize his solidarity with the resolutions, hinting at the separation of powers. Unsurprisingly, President Aliyev did not object to the idea of European Council President Charles Michel inviting the French colleague to the meeting in Prague in October 2022. Perhaps the only benefit from that meeting and Macron’s participation was the adoption of the Prague statement, where Armenia and Azerbaijan confirmed their commitment to the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration and the UN Charter, effectively meaning Pashinyan’s abandonment of his earlier statement “Artsakh is Armenia, period.” It was not only a renunciation of Karabakh as part of Armenia but also recognition of it as part of Azerbaijan, which we have written about many times.
However, what followed the Prague summit removed all masks from Macron’s face. On French television, he openly attacked Azerbaijan, thus signing his own sentence regarding his further role as a mediator in the negotiation process.
Another tripartite meeting in the Aliyev-Pashinyan-Michel format was supposed to take place in Brussels on December 7, 2022, but before that, Baku received a call from the office of the European Council head, conveying Yerevan’s desire to invite Macron to the meeting as a “condition” for its occurrence. As President Aliyev said then, “this means the meeting will not take place.”
A nearly six-month stagnation in the negotiation process followed, with no new meetings except for a panel at the Munich Security Conference involving the leaders of the three South Caucasus states. The next summit of the European Political Community in Moldova was marked by an informal tea discussion involving Ilham Aliyev, Nikol Pashinyan, Charles Michel, Emmanuel Macron, and Olaf Scholz. After Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was refused participation in the Granada summit, the head of the Azerbaijani state also decided not to go. There, in Spain, the four leaders—Michel, Scholz, Macron, and Pashinyan—decided to “marry us off” in our absence. Naturally, our non-participation in that meeting meant no obligations on our part regarding the statement adopted as a result.
Since then, Macron seems to have been bitten by a bug. He sends “Bastions” to Armenia, “Caesars” and other weapons. It is obvious that being landlocked by four neighbors, this deadly, far-from-defensive weapon can only be directed against us. The question is, why? Do you want war? Why do you need war when delimitation has started and is progressing rapidly, and the parties are even close to signing a peace agreement? Does this mean that the calculation is on future revenge, which will not stop even a signed peace agreement and completed delimitation? Is that how we should understand it?
And most importantly, what is the interest of distant France, which, when joining the OSCE Minsk Group as a co-chair, promised to maintain a neutral position? Where is this neutrality now, especially when the war is over, and Yerevan has even declared recognition of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity?
The conclusion is clear: a peaceful sky over our region is not in the plans of not only revanchist forces in Armenia but also Macron. He wants blood. For what?
Let those Armenian and French families, who, God forbid, will meet zinc coffins marked “200” answer this question.
Azerbaijan does not want war. But it will never renounce its legitimate right to defend its own. Everything else is on Macron’s conscience and those in Armenia who have turned their ears to French macaroni.
Zuhrab Dadashov
Translated from minval.az
