The European Union’s diplomacy clearly demonstrates double standards. Peter Stano, the representative of the European Commission on foreign policy issues, commenting on the fighting in the Kursk region of Russia, stated that the EU does not oppose the actions of Ukrainian forces in the Kursk region and that “Ukraine has the legitimate right to defend itself, including striking the aggressor on its territory.”
Of course, the right to self-defense and to respond to an aggressor has not been canceled. But how consistent is the EU in this position?
Azerbaijani territories were under Armenian occupation for over a quarter of a century. During all this time, European politicians consistently urged Baku to resolve everything exclusively through negotiations, to make concessions, etc. The right to armed response to the aggressor and even more so to transferring hostilities to its territory was not even mentioned.
Moreover, when Azerbaijan was fulfilling the four UN Security Council resolutions on its own and liberating the occupied territories, the EU again did not recall the right to self-defense or the right to respond to the aggressor. Moreover, the European Parliament stamped and continues to stamp resolutions in support of the aggressor, albeit defeated, and there are constant threats of sanctions against Azerbaijan. Other EU structures are not far behind.
A full-blown hysteria erupted when Azerbaijan had to respond to Armenian provocations along the conditional border. But in the case of Ukraine, the EU suddenly remembered international law? If the EU considers itself principled opponents of aggression and seizure of foreign territories, then why does it not demonstrate the same principle regarding the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan? If Peter Stano so fundamentally and decisively supports the right to protect territorial integrity, then why does he not comment on, to put it mildly, the strange and contradictory statements of Josep Borrell? Is he afraid of angering his boss?
And is this an issue where the EU can afford double standards? That these double standards exist is unfortunately beyond doubt. One only needs to recall the statements of Josep Borrell, the scandalous interviews of Toivo Klaar, and much more. Moreover, EU structures, which panicked after the visit of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán to Shusha for the OIC summit, are somehow not in a hurry to distance themselves from, for example, the scandalous statements of official Paris.
All of this, at the very least, does not do credit to European diplomacy.
A. Shakur
