"Will the West repeat its mistakes?" Opinion from Baku
CSSC about the meeting in Brussels
Azerbaijani political analysts continue to make assumptions a day before a meeting between the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia in Brussels. Different predictions are being made. “Azerbaijan’s position has not undergone any changes. As before, Baku defines relations with Yerevan as an international issue and the Karabakh issue as an internal one,” experts of the South Caucasus Research Center say.
- “End of history” or “new beginning”? Reflections of an Azerbaijani economist
- “Armenia is openly threatened with the Ukrainian scenario”. Opinion from Yerevan
- Former house of government in Abkhazia to be turned into hotel: Why some call it sacrilege
“Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan are expected to meet again in Brussels in late October. The summit will be held at the invitation and with the participation of European Council President Charles Michel.
After Pashinyan refused to participate in the summit of CIS heads of state in Bishkek, it became clear that there would be no negotiations in Russia before the Brussels meeting.”
Agenda for the Brussels meeting
“Azerbaijan’s position has not undergone any changes. As before, Baku defines relations with Yerevan as an international issue, and the Karabakh issue as an internal one. The international presence in Karabakh is regulated exclusively by Baku, and this issue does not concern Armenia in any way. As for the issues with Armenia, Azerbaijan expects liberation from the occupation of enclaves, opening of communications and recognition of territorial integrity with the obligation of non-interference in internal affairs.
There have been changes in Armenia’s position. Until now Yerevan manipulated the issue of Karabakh Armenians, turning it into an element of pressure on Azerbaijan, but now is forced to limit itself to the issue of its own security. Naturally the Armenian leadership has long-term plans, but the likelihood of their realization depends on the level of Western support for the Karabakh Armenians”.
West – US/European Union
“One of the most interesting points of this meeting is undoubtedly the South Caucasus policy of the West. The US/European Union have been failing the region in recent months with their incomplete and one-sided attitude. This was primarily due to the desire to include the Karabakh Armenians in the peace treaty, thereby conflating interstate issues with Azerbaijan’s internal affairs.
But even after this fiasco, there are signals that France, using its resources on international platforms, intends to repeat its unsuccessful attempt. On Paris’ initiative, the EU tried to pull off this attempt last time in Granada. There a temporary document was on the table until the signing of a peace treaty, which was hoped to be concluded between Aliyev and Pashinyan. But we know well that nothing is more permanent than a temporary agreement. France only needs time to continue trying to formalize its anti-Azerbaijani initiatives.
Here it is important to mention something else: apparently, if for the U.S. it is more important to support Pashinyan personally, for France the priority is Armenia itself. This is a very important point for political maneuvering opportunities and positioning in general.”
Summary
“Thus, in all three formats, the agenda of the negotiations is the same and formed on the initiative of Azerbaijan. Now it is important to put pressure on the West and completely remove the topic of Karabakh Armenians from the interstate agenda. The international presence in Karabakh should be limited to a contingent of Russian peacekeepers until 2025, a Russian-Turkish joint monitoring center and temporary UN missions with a clear agenda. The West should realize that only Azerbaijan itself can provide guarantees for the Karabakh Armenians.
The West’s 25-year cooperation with Russia to support Armenia’s occupation policy within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group is over. But the meeting of representatives of the United States and the European Union with Russia in Istanbul can be regarded as an attempt to restore the cooperation of the powerful against our country, and from this point of view creates some threats. To neutralize the existing threat, it is not enough to separate the West and Russia only in the context of relations with Azerbaijan; it is also necessary to achieve a split within the Western camp itself. The refusal to participate in the French-mediated meeting in Granada is related to this very factor.
In short, Washington and Brussels may repeat their mistake, but this time the erroneous steps will cost the West too much – they risk losing Pashinyan in Armenia. The one-sided policy of the US and the EU has already created conditions for strengthening Russia’s position in the region. Whether the West will make another mistake depends only on itself.”
