We cannot however deny him the talent to make a diplomatic scandal out of thin air, just like all of French diplomacy. This person decided to give an interview an Armenian media outlet. Of course, he spoke in an intriguing tone about the military cooperation between Armenia and France. At the same time, he decided to send a message to the Azerbaijani audience: “As for Azerbaijan’s concerns, they can be sure that the type of cooperation, the types of equipment we supply to Armenia are aimed at the defense of the country, they are purely defensive in nature. By the way, when we talk about air defense, if you do not violate Armenia’s airspace, you will never face Armenia’s air defense, this is a defensive capability. We are talking about the defense of Armenia’s sovereignty, its territory and its people. And it was clear from the very beginning that everything we supply, weapons, equipment, training, is in line with this very goal.”
He then proceeded to speculate on the peace process between Baku and Yerevan and the “merits” of his country in promoting it: “over the past 30 years we have come to a certain confidence that third party support and guarantees are needed,” and “American and European mediation are the most reliable guarantees,” and in general, “France has played an important role in reaching some of the key points in the negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan, in particular in Prague in October 2022, when an agreement was reached between the two parties on mutual recognition of territorial integrity and border issues on the basis of the Alma-Ata declaration.”
God knows what exactly Olivier Decottignies was expecting: a storm of applause, tears of emotion, or the immediate start of negotiations, where France would be granted the status of mediator and “guarantor of future peace.” But there is no doubt that his interview was an obvious early bid for the status not only of mediator but also of “foreign guarantor of peace”. See, we have been thinking for 30 years and decided that a foreign guarantor of peace is needed, and the best candidate is France.
But what does it mean that “over the past 30 years we have come to a certain confidence that third party support and guarantees are needed”? Who is “we”? The defunct Minsk Group, co-chaired by Russia, France and the United States, which was advised by the President of Azerbaijan to celebrate its thirtieth anniversary and retire? Is Mr. Ambassador sure that after 30 years of inactivity, which ended in a new war, it was the opinion of the Minsk Group that was missing? Did Paris and Yerevan perhaps decide something about “foreign guarantors”? Armenia never tires of yammering about “international mechanisms” and is ready to drag anyone into the region as long as it gives it hope of friendship against Azerbaijan.
But, how shall we put it, it is in Mr. Decottignies’ job description to know at least the basics of diplomacy. And to understand that Armenia will negotiate peace not with France, but with Azerbaijan. Moreover, Azerbaijan has won a military victory and now has the right to lay down conditions. Baku has already repeatedly stated that no “foreign guarantors” are needed for the future peace treaty. Especially if they are the same “guarantors” who want to retain the ability to manipulate the conflict. Especially if they are blatantly providing military support to Armenia.
Mr. Decottignies can tell tales along the lines of “we only supply Armenia with defensive weapons, Azerbaijan has nothing to worry about.” But, first of all, the line between defensive and offensive weapons is very thin. Means of electronic warfare with which the illegal junta in Karabakh interfered with Azerbaijani CIVILIAN airplanes are also considered defensive weapons. Air defense systems that, when moved right up to the border, can shoot down air targets, including civilian ones, over foreign territory, are also considered “defensive”. And most importantly, any military cooperation with Armenia before the signing of the peace treaty pushes it directly into new military undertakings. No matter how poorly political analysis and intelligence work in France, Paris must understand such basic things. Particularly after the French mediation was sent to a not very prestigious “address” as a result of the “get-together” in Granada, and the European mediation was left hanging by a thin thread.
You see, in diplomacy, one can either support one of the parties or be a mediator, observing at least external neutrality. And one can try mixing incompatible and obviously inedible “ingredients” in one “diplomatic salad”, but then one will have to eat it on one’s own. And one may well find a cap with bells on one’s head instead of a top hat. Or a salad bowl with the same mixture of obviously unacceptable ingredients. So, out of the “hat, salad and scandal” trinity Mr. Olivier Decottignies only managed the latter.
Nurani
Translated from Minval.az
