After the meeting of the heads of foreign affairs of Azerbaijan and Armenia, which took place in New York on September 26 within the framework of the 79th session of the UN General Assembly, a traditional question arises: what was the result? Even before the meeting, it was clear that it was useless to have any special illusions about any revolutionary result. The parties’ opening statements also show that now the question “why was this meeting organized” sounds more relevant than “what was the result.”
“Caspian” newspaper article on the subject.
Blinken’s hopes
The superficiality and artificiality of the statement from the office of US Secretary of State A. Blinken, which commented on the results of the meeting, also confirms our conclusion: “Secretary of State Blinken highly values the progress made by the parties on the path towards sustainability and a dignified peace and urges both countries to finalize the final text of the agreement and asks to continue the activity. The Secretary of State points out that the peace agreement will bring stability and prosperity to the region. ..?
One of the main foreign policy problems of the great powers, especially the United States, is that they strongly and insistently want the “roadmaps” they prepared in their offices to become a reality, despite the fact that they do not have sufficient information and complete about the situation. history of processes such as the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Not only do they take concrete measures to achieve this, but they do not even shy away from actions that hinder the achievement of a positive result. For example, Blinken talks about future stability and prosperity, but “forgets” that his country’s military contingent is training the military of a quasi-state that has been an occupier for 30 years and lives with a sense of revenge. They “hope” for peace in Washington, but ignore the intensive arming of the occupying state by France, which has become its main ally in Europe. Despite having been defeated and having signed the act of capitulation, what kind of sustainable peace can we speak of in the context of the rapid militarization of the State, which ignored the agreement of 4 years ago?
The US Secretary of State is now declaring that peace will lead to regional stability and prosperity, including across the Strait, and we have been saying it for the past 30 years. Did the Washington administration not see this potential of the South Caucasus region all this time? If you saw it, why did the OSCE Minsk Group become a geopolitical tool to freeze the situation and remain in the de facto regime? What kind of prosperity should we talk about now that Azerbaijan has built and created the path to economic progress not only for itself, but for the entire region, and is at the forefront of all positive changes in the region? Isn’t it late?
“Peace agreement” for the US elections
Washington’s effort to sign, together with Paris, a framework document on definitive peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan is calculated more for holding elections in the United States than for solving the problem. It is a fact that during the last Democratic government, the world became a bloodbath that caused the death of hundreds of thousands of people. The United States is not the last cause of bloodshed in Ukraine, and the fact that Republican candidate Donald Trump has emphasized this fact in the election campaign is one of the main headaches for Harris, who replaced Biden. The Democrats need some geopolitical success, and it seems that in Washington they consider a possible agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia to be the most optimal option.
However, the reality is that the fate of the elections in the United States and the fate of the people of the region are being decided. Azerbaijan achieved political stability and economic progress even without a final peace agreement. He got it himself. What we need now is the restoration of historical justice instead of promises and predictions of prosperity. Regardless of what anyone in Washington or Paris thinks, we are restoring this justice, and such half-hearted “peace initiatives” cannot influence official Baku. Azerbaijan does not intend to participate in geopolitical adventures written according to someone’s electoral expectations.
Participatory “mediation”
In the reality where Blinken speaks of peace, unilateral US political actions and Armenian bias are among the biggest obstacles on the path to a final agreement. It is impossible to solve the problem, which is 30 years old and has ramified through at least two centuries of historical injustice, only with the will of Washington, which is also unjust. Now it is the 21st century. American cudgel geopolitics has lost its power. French colonial policy has failed. To reconcile two belligerent states, it is necessary at least to abandon one of them from the course of open defense. Otherwise, arm Armenia, increase financial aid, strengthen political and moral support and then hope that Azerbaijan signs a peace treaty with that country. You can fool your voters, but not us…
An obvious anti-Azerbaijani position
Today, the United States is a State with an evident anti-Azerbaijani position at both the legislative and executive levels. In the US Congress, various documents and legislative acts are adopted by people who have a hostile attitude towards the Azerbaijani people. The representatives of the escaped remnants of separatism, rooted in the territory of Azerbaijan, are accepted in the legislative body of this country, they are given their word, and today the Armenian pseudo-statesmen who make political gifts so that definitive peace can be achieved The document “worked” by Blinken is not a reality, revanchism is welcomed and encouraged. USAID, the top agency of the US government, doubles its financial aid to Armenia, deals with Yerevan’s cyber, energy and border security, and you sit in Washington and talk about peace? You increase the allocated aid from 120 million to 250 million dollars, the Pashinyan government pays these funds for its socio-economic needs and spends the huge money obtained from the transit of prohibited products on the purchase of weapons, and insists on turning the incomplete agreement into A historical document at any price?
A lasting peace treaty is signed when the territorial claim of one state against another is not reflected in its constitution. The real mission of peace is to try to eliminate those articles from the Armenian constitution. Once this problem is resolved, there will be no need for mediation in the signing of the final peace agreement. We’ve been waiting for a lot of elections, you should send one.
