Wars, displacement, and profound suffering have marked this troubled history, impacting the lives of countless individuals on both sides. In recent times, the international community has sought to mediate and chart a path toward peace in this complex landscape. However, the journey through these intricacies demands a balanced approach that considers the grievances and aspirations of all involved parties.
As we navigate the nuances of this conflict and the role played by external actors, it is paramount to remember that the path to peace in Armenia and Azerbaijan must prioritize the well-being and aspirations of both nations. This is not merely a geopolitical struggle; it is a profoundly human narrative that calls for a balanced, globally concerted effort to pave the way for a more harmonious future in the South Caucasus.
It is our hope that international stakeholders genuinely hold our entire region’s well-being close to their hearts, rather than selectively favoring one side. Our region is in dire need of peace, a long-overdue aspiration. However, achieving peace necessitates a balanced approach. Uninformed intervention can imperil peace. Fostering peace between two conflicting nations is impossible when one side is supported while the other’s suffering is ignored. This approach contradicts the principles of justice.
Before delving into specific instances, it is imperative to underscore that all international stakeholders must acknowledge and comprehend the sentiments of all parties involved, including the nearly one million Azerbaijani refugees and IDPs, and remember the thousands who lost their lives during this protracted conflict. The international community should not forget that approximately 4,000 Azerbaijanis are still missing to this day. Innocent Azerbaijanis continue to fall victim to landmines, with over 330 casualties in the past three years alone.
Emphasizing the human dimension, which I believe is paramount, is crucial. This transcends politics; it is a human narrative. Azerbaijanis feel neglected.
France-Armenia Arms Deal: Striking a Balance in Question
France has long been a supporter of Armenia, but Macron’s France has taken extra measures, garnering widespread international support for Yerevan’s aggressive policies. This indirect endorsement of Armenia’s three-decade occupation of Azerbaijani lands through attempts to pressure Azerbaijan via international organizations is concerning.
French Defense Minister Sebastian Lecornu, in an interview with Le Parisien newspaper, announced that Paris and Yerevan would formalize agreements on the purchase of French weaponry, including air defense systems, on October 22. According to the minister, this is necessary to enable Armenia to safeguard its borders and civilian population.
During her visit to Armenia in early October, French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna disclosed the intention to transfer armaments. “France has given its agreement to the conclusion of future contracts with Armenia which will allow the delivery of military equipment to Armenia so that it can ensure its defence,” she stated during a press briefing that also touched upon security and defense matters.
An article in the French newspaper Le Monde addressed the financial uncertainties of Armenia’s recent military contracts with France, stating, “It is not yet known how Yerevan will pay for the acquisitions announced on Monday, the sum of which may amount to several 100 million euros.”
As part of the cooperation announced on October 23, three GM200 radar systems manufactured by Thales, designed to detect medium-range air threats (fighters, helicopters, drones, etc.) within a range of up to 250 km, will be procured.
An agreement was also reached on the intention to purchase an unspecified number of French man-portable air defense missile systems (MANPADS) “Mistral.”
Following these developments, on November 12, another significant advancement in Franco-Armenian military cooperation was observed. The French armored personnel carriers Bastion, manufactured by Acmat, were shipped to the port of Poti for transportation to Armenia. Components of Bastion vehicles were also delivered to Georgia by the French company ARQUUS.
According to French media Ouest France, this shipment is part of France’s continued military aid to Yerevan. Initially planned for Kyiv, these 12.5-ton troop carriers were redirected to Armenia, deemed less suitable for the Ukrainian front due to their vulnerability to artillery fire and anti-tank missiles. This move not only illustrates France’s ongoing support for Armenia but also indicates a strategic shift in the allocation of military resources within the region.
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has accused France of contributing to a new confrontation in the Caucasus by supplying military equipment to Armenia. He also criticized the European Council for including Baku in a statement following a meeting in Granada, in which Aliyev did not participate due to Paris’ stance.
European Union: Perceived Bias in Post-Conflict Engagement with Azerbaijan
The European Union’s approach in the post-conflict era between Armenia and Azerbaijan has been met with significant criticism from Azerbaijan, particularly following a statement by Josep Borrell, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, on November 13, 2023. Borrell’s warning, “Our message to Azerbaijan is clear: any violation of Armenia’s territorial integrity is unacceptable and will have severe consequences for the quality of our relations,” has been viewed in Azerbaijan as indicative of a one-sided approach favoring Armenia, especially considering the complex historical context of the region.
Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed strong disapproval of this stance, highlighting the EU’s seeming indifference to the long-term Armenian aggression against Azerbaijani territories. The Ministry’s statement emphasized the EU’s failure to acknowledge the plight of over a million Azerbaijani refugees and IDPs, victims of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, accusing the EU of biased policy and double standards.
Adding to the perceived bias, Peter Stano, the EU Spokesperson for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, reaffirmed the EU’s unwavering support for Armenia’s sovereignty in an interview on November 17, 2023. Stano declared, “we said very clearly that we stand very firmly by Armenia’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.” This statement was met with further frustration from Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry, which lamented the EU’s oversight of Azerbaijan’s sovereignty concerns and the ongoing impact of the historical conflict. The Ministry underscored the need for acknowledgment of both sides’ narratives to achieve a balanced and fair approach in the post-conflict period.
United States of America: Impartiality Questioned in the Karabakh Conflict
Pro-Armenian candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has engaged in misleading propaganda in his campaign efforts. He has highlighted certain alleged crimes of Azerbaijan against Armenians who had been residing illegally in Karabakh for decades. Notably, Ramaswamy failed to mention that these individuals held Armenian passports, effectively tying them to the very state that had maintained a 20 percent occupation of Azerbaijani territory for over a quarter-century, in defiance of UN resolutions.
Ramaswamy characterized the events between Armenia and Azerbaijan as an atrocity, claiming that 100,000–120,000 Armenians had moved to Armenia from their homes. However, he neglected to mention that these Armenians had been living in our country illegally and, upon departing, were provided with water, food, humanitarian aid, and an offer to remain as full-fledged, unrestricted citizens of Azerbaijan.
Ramaswamy also neglected to recognize the plight of hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis who were forcibly expelled from Armenia and remain unable to return to their homes. Furthermore, the atrocities he referred to were, in truth, the large-scale shelling of peaceful Azerbaijani towns by Armenians during the 44-day war, leading to the tragic deaths of numerous elderly individuals, women, and children. However, he erroneously portrayed shocking images of destruction and casualties as missile strikes carried out by Azerbaijan against Armenia.
During a discussion with Michael Doran on October 24th, as part of the Hudson Institute’s Presidential Speech series, Ramaswamy was reminded that Karabakh is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. His response, “so we’ll agree to disagree on the international recognition point,” underscores his lack of knowledge regarding both the South Caucasus and international law.
Ramaswamy’s quest for Armenian votes was evident during an exclusive interview with Piers Morgan that aired on October 30th. In the interview, he ignorantly compared Azerbaijan to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, insinuating that Azerbaijan had occupied Karabakh in a similar manner.
Democratic lawmakers, including Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Anna Eshoo of California, and Frank Pallone of New Jersey, known for their pro-Armenian and anti-Azerbaijan positions, have played a detrimental role in the process. Following a phone call with Secretary of State Antony Blinken on October 3, false allegations against Azerbaijan were disseminated, quoting the Secretary as saying that “Azerbaijan may invade Armenia in the coming weeks.”
The United States Department of State later refuted this claim. Armenpress, which is owned by the Armenian government, reported that U.S. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller stated that the information in the article was “wrong” and “does not reflect what Blinken told lawmakers.”
Baku’s Report news agency also received a statement from the US Embassy in Baku, which emphatically declared, “This is an incorrect statement and doesn’t reflect reality at all.”
“Azerbaijan had no plans to seize Zangezur,” Hikmet Hajiyev, a top foreign policy adviser to Ilham Aliyev, told Reuters on October 25th. “After the two sides failed to agree on its opening, the project has lost its attractiveness for us — we can do this with Iran instead,” he said.
In a recent escalation of diplomatic tension, on November 15th, Ambassador James O’Brien, speaking at a hearing before the Congressional Committee on Foreign Affairs on the future of Karabakh, announced significant policy changes. He stated, “we have canceled a number of senior-level engagements. We do not anticipate submitting a waiver, a 907, which enables us to provide some assistance to Azerbaijan.” The senior official from the State Department overseeing Europe and Eurasia confirmed to U.S. legislators that “no chance of business as usual” exists with Azerbaijan until a peace deal is reached between Baku and Yerevan.
In response, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan issued a statement denouncing these remarks as “one-sided and biased.” The Ministry criticized the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State’s comments, describing them as “counterproductive, baseless, and unacceptable.” The statement further claimed that these developments dealt a blow to Azerbaijan-U.S. relations in both bilateral and multilateral formats.
Moreover, the Ministry accused the U.S. of failing to urge Armenia to adhere to international law and end its occupation of Azerbaijani territories. This accusation was followed by a significant announcement: “Under these circumstances, it is important to note that we do not consider it possible to hold the proposed meeting on the level of the Foreign Ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia, in Washington on November 20, 2023.”
The situation has further intensified with a recent statement from Samantha Power, Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). On November 21, 2023, Power announced via her X (formerly known as Twitter) account an additional allocation of $4 million for Armenians who left Karabakh in September. Power’s post, which stated, “Azerbaijan’s military operation in Nagorno-Karabakh forced more than 100k people to leave their homes,” sparked a strong response from the Azerbaijani government.
Aykhan Hajizada, Spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, labeled Power’s statement as a clear display of “double standards, selective approach, and unfair treatment against Azerbaijan.” He highlighted the discrepancy in Power’s engagement with Armenian migrants compared to her refusal to meet with Azerbaijani IDPs, despite their significantly larger numbers and prolonged suffering. Hajizada’s remarks underscored the lack of attention from USAID towards the plight of Azerbaijani IDPs during the nearly three-decade-long occupation.
The response from Hikmet Hajiyev, Assistant to the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan and Head of Foreign Policy Affairs Department of the Presidential Administration, was even more pointed. Criticizing Power’s tenure as the Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations Security Council, Hajiyev accused her of failing to acknowledge the struggles of Azerbaijani refugees and IDPs. His concluding remark, “Masks off! There is no place for USAID operation in Azerbaijan any longer!” suggests a potential shift in the Azerbaijani government’s stance towards USAID activities within the country, reflecting growing frustrations with what is seen as biased and uneven U.S. engagement in the region.
Canada: A Question of Balance and Bias
During the visit of Canada’s Foreign Minister Melanie Joly to Yerevan on October 25th for the opening of Canada’s Embassy in Armenia, her statement that the issue of sanctions against Azerbaijan was already “on the table” was made in response to a question from journalists regarding Canada’s response to Azerbaijan’s actions in Karabakh in September, which led to the exodus of almost the entire Armenian population to Armenia. Foreign Minister Joly emphasized Canada’s expectation that Armenia’s territorial integrity would be respected, stating that it was a matter of close concern.
“The biased position of the Canadian Minister, which demonstrates the lack of knowledge of the situation in the region, is completely unfounded,” said Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry as it commented on the statement by Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly.
“Regarding the non-exclusion of sanctions as a tool against Azerbaijan, we would like to note that it is erroneous to speak with Azerbaijan in the language of threat, and that it will not bear any results to either side.
It should be borne in mind that such provocative and biased statements are nothing more than an obstacle to the further development and progress of the region on the basis of respect for the principles of international law,” the ministry said.
During the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development meeting on October 30th, Canadian MPs, notably Stephane Bergeron and Heather McPherson, appeared to have limited knowledge of the South Caucasus. Their participation might suggest that, until recently, they had little familiarity with the geography of Karabakh.
This is further evidenced by the newly appointed ambassador of Canada to Armenia Andrew Turner’s performance, which, in comparison to others, including Foreign Minister Melanie Joly, was superior. Although his time on the ground was brief, it gave him a closer perspective on the situation. Nevertheless, he has much to learn about the region and its long history.
After underscoring the potential ramifications of sanctions on peace talks, the Ambassador cited France’s actions as a disruptive force. Unfortunately, this point was misconstrued by Bergeron, who redirected the example in favor of France, a direction that is unlikely to benefit the peace negotiation process.
International Organizations and Their Continued One-Sided Approach: The Case of UNESCO
UNESCO asked to visit Karabakh🇦🇿. Baku agreed offering travel through Aghdam to Khankendi, to document destruction in #Aghdam. Unesco refused,wanting to go only to Khankendi to assess condition of monuments there.
Is @UNESCO avoiding documenting destruction in Aghdam by Armenia? pic.twitter.com/8qxouCID2d— Nigar Arpadarai (@ArpadaraiNigar) November 19, 2023
In the post-conflict landscape between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the role of international organizations, particularly UNESCO, has come under scrutiny for what appears to be a continued bias against Azerbaijan. This concern was recently highlighted by Nigar Arpadarai, a Member of Parliament of Azerbaijan and Member of the Azerbaijani Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe. On November 19, 2023, Arpadarai reported on her X account an incident that exemplifies this ongoing issue.
UNESCO approached Azerbaijan with a request to visit the Karabakh region, a proposal initially welcomed by Azerbaijan. However, the Azerbaijani government’s suggestion that the UNESCO delegation also visit Aghdam to document the city’s condition after three decades of occupation was reportedly met with resistance. UNESCO opted to focus solely on Khankendi, bypassing Aghdam, known as the “Hiroshima of the Caucasus” due to its extensive devastation.
This incident is indicative of a deeper, systemic issue. Throughout the occupation, UNESCO turned a blind eye to the destruction of Azerbaijani lands and heritage by Armenians. Despite repeated requests from Azerbaijan, UNESCO refrained from visiting the affected areas to witness the destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage firsthand. The neglect of Aghdam, once a vibrant hub of Azerbaijani culture, now lying in ruins, stands as a testament to this disregard. Its desolation, resulting from the ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis and the subsequent razing of homes, cultural sites, and cemeteries, garnered little to no attention from UNESCO.
1/11 Recently @UNESCO approached Azerbaijan with a request for permission to visit the Karabakh region. Azerbaijan accepted UNESCO’s request but proposed that the delegation travel through Aghdam to witness and document the city’s condition after 30 years of occupation. However, pic.twitter.com/FmrRW80kjS
— Adnan Huseyn (@adnanhuseyn) November 19, 2023
UNESCO’s current focus on Khankendi, particularly following the voluntary departure of ethnic Armenians from the area, starkly contrasts with their previous disinterest in the broader context of destruction and loss suffered by Azerbaijan. This selective approach overlooks the significant difference between the ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis in the 1990s and the recent departure of Armenians, influenced by decades of indoctrination and hostility towards Azerbaijanis.
The Azerbaijani government’s stance, as reaffirmed during the Armenia v Azerbaijan hearing on October 12th at the International Court of Justice in Haague, and recognized by the Judge in the court’s Order on November 17th, stands in sharp contrast to UNESCO’s position. Azerbaijan has pledged to protect, rather than damage or destroy, cultural monuments and artifacts in Karabakh and has committed to safeguarding registration and private property documents. This commitment underscores the principle that Azerbaijanis are builders, not destroyers, a fact that is seemingly overlooked by UNESCO’s current agenda.
Mainstream Media: Shedding Light on Overlooked Narratives
A significant number of untold stories remain in the shadows, stories that could bring balance and fairness to mainstream media coverage.
One such story is the discovery that some of the ammunition found in the Karabakh region on October 26th was manufactured in 2021.
In the aftermath of local anti-terror operations in the Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, the Ministry of Defense of Azerbaijan conducted an examination, revealing that some of the identified TOS-1A heavy flamethrower system missiles were manufactured in 2021.
These findings provide irrefutable proof of illicit military transfers from Armenia to the Karabakh region before the enforcement of local anti-terror measures.
This revelation brings to mind another significant story, one that curiously went unreported by global media outlets despite their focus on the ecological protest on the Lachin road.
I was present at the ecological protest on the Lachin road from its inception until its conclusion. I reported daily from the site, consistently emphasizing the protesters’ primary goal: gaining access to Azerbaijan’s national resources, which had been illegally exploited by Armenians, and facilitating necessary monitoring of the site.
Another major concern of the protesters was the fact that, during the more than two years when Armenians freely used the Lachin road, they illicitly smuggled weapons from Armenia. This fact was vehemently denied by Armenians, who also refused to grant access for monitoring purposes and instead accused the protesters of blocking the Lachin road.
The answer to their refusal came last month when it was revealed that outbuildings belonging to the Base Metals company, which had been engaged in illegal activities for many years at the “Damirli” copper-molybdenum deposit located in the Kalbajar region, the very site the protesters had demanded access to, were used for military purposes.
This is yet another example of the biased and unjust approach taken by some media outlets. Throughout the protest and with the establishment of the Lachin border checkpoint, a massive anti-Azerbaijan campaign was propagated by mainstream media. However, when solid evidence emerged to support Azerbaijan’s position, none of it made the headlines.
It is also important to address the persistent and seemingly deliberate misinterpretation of the concept of Western Azerbaijan. Both the Western Azerbaijan Community itself and Azerbaijani officials have repeatedly refuted false accusations against the concept, explicitly stating that the community has no territorial claims against Armenia. They have underlined their commitment to the dignified return of the community, respecting Armenia’s territorial integrity and adhering to Armenian laws.
Armenia-Azerbaijan: Pursuing Peace through Balanced Engagement
In light of the recent developments and revelations regarding the involvement of international actors and organizations in the post-conflict period between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the role of these entities in facilitating peace becomes even more critical. The actions of France, the European Union, the United States, Canada, and the biased coverage by mainstream media, along with the selective approach of institutions like UNESCO, have all contributed to a complex geopolitical landscape where the necessity for a just and balanced engagement is paramount.
The majority of Azerbaijani refugees and internally displaced persons are still living, feeling neglected by the international community. Over the past three decades, their numbers have grown, with many now raising families of their own. Nearly every Azerbaijani knows someone — a neighbor, classmate, or coworker — who is a refugee or IDP, and they keenly observe this neglect. They see international advocacy for 100,000 Armenians, yet for almost 30 years, there has been an apparent indifference to their plight.
Recent developments, including the biased stance and the West’s temporary anti-Azerbaijan policies, indicate a deeper geopolitical game at play. Armenia finds itself increasingly dependent on Western support, a reliance that risks severing its ties with traditional ally Russia. This shift, driven by Western interests, stokes Armenian impulsiveness and false hope, potentially leading it into a precarious position. Azerbaijan, observing these developments, recognizes its strategic value and is prepared to assert its demands when the West inevitably turns its attention towards Baku.
This complex backdrop offers a critical yet possibly transient opportunity for Armenia and Azerbaijan to take charge of their destiny. Direct negotiations, free from the influence of biased mediators, could pave the way for a genuine peace treaty, the unblocking of communications, and the initiation of a normalization process. Such negotiations, potentially hosted in neutral locations like Georgia or along the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, would allow for discussions rooted in mutual respect and practical realities.
Azerbaijan, having regained sovereignty over its territories, is in a position of strength. It can afford to be patient, extending negotiations until its conditions are met. Moreover, Azerbaijan’s ability to establish a connection with Nakhchivan through Iran diminishes the urgency to route this connection through Armenia, further solidifying its negotiating power.
As Azerbaijan stands ready for direct dialogue, it is incumbent upon Armenia to recognize the evolving geopolitical landscape and seize this opportunity for constructive engagement. Failure to do so may result in Armenia’s continued isolation and loss of potential involvement in regional communication projects, a situation that has persisted since its independence.
