CHAMELEONS OF GEOPOLITICS

Separatism, along with terrorism, remains one of the ills of modern humanity, which seriously erodes international security - the basis of global community life. However, the reason for this is not only the activities of separatist movements in different countries, but also the policy of the global centres that often act in their own interests when they assume the mediation functions in settling territorial, ethnic and inter-state conflicts inflamed by separatism. The situation in the post-Soviet space is no different, as witnessed by the Azerbaijani people that have been the target of Armenian aggression for almost a quarter of a century and continue to suffer from entrenched Armenian separatism.

The OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries, acting as mediators in settling the Karabakh issue, have repeatedly demonstrated that they have a soft spot for double standards. Russia, the United States, and France have always expressed a proactive stance on the issues of territorial conflicts on the territory of the former Soviet Union. Nonetheless, in defending the fundamental principles of international law as applied to such conflicts, such as the territorial integrity of states, the right of peoples to self-determination and non-use of force, they take a different attitude towards similar manifestations of separatism. Consider, for example, the position of the United States, which asserts itself as a world power responsible for the global order.

In the case of the rebel Georgian autonomies - Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the United States favours their submission to Georgian sovereignty and requires Russia, which recognised the independence of the breakaway entities, to withdraw its troops from the internationally recognised territory of Georgia. A few days ago US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki, once again confirming Washington's position, urged Moscow to comply with the ceasefire regime agreed with Georgia in 2008, to withdraw Russian troops from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and not to recognise these breakaway regions of Georgia as independent states.

The reason for this statement was the so-called presidential election in Abkhazia. Most of the international community, including the leading Western actors such as NATO and the European Union, has not recognised the election. A similar position is held by Azerbaijan. The country's Foreign Ministry stated the "definitive support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia." Official Baku thus reaffirmed its principled stand on any conflicts caused by separatism. In particular, this position finds its expression in support for the territorial integrity of Serbia and the non-recognition of breakaway Kosovo as an independent state. Accordingly, Azerbaijan continues to consistently defend the ultimate norms of international law with respect to the conflict in Ukraine. Baku did not support the annexation of Crimea by Russia and expressed respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine within its borders recognised by the United Nations.

However, the great powers including the United States, Russia and France allow themselves to act like veritable political chameleons in their approach to certain separatist conflicts. In relation to the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, the United States, for some reason, do not display the same principled position in defending the territorial integrity of the state suffering from separatism and subjected to external aggression, as is the case with Washington's position on the conflicts in Georgia and Ukraine.

Moreover, the California State Senate passed a resolution recognising the independence of the separatist regime of Nagornyy Karabakh and urged the United States Senate to follow suite. By the way, the legislative body of this US state has always been notorious for its anti-Azerbaijani position due to the strong influence of an Armenian lobby. According to the Consulate-General of Azerbaijan in Los Angeles, California State senators were threatened and blackmailed by two Armenian members of this legislative body and pressured by the Armenian lobby. However, even that had not secured overwhelming support for the resolution, as 17 out of 40 senators refused to vote in favour of it. It is clear that the resolution does not affect the foreign policy priorities of official Washington, which recognises the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.

Nevertheless, in the 22 years of its participation in the work of the OSCE Minsk Group, the United States has never called on Armenia to unconditionally and irreversibly end the occupation of the territories of our country and has not required Yerevan to withdraw the Armenian armed forces from the internationally recognised territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The United States does not even think about putting pressure on Armenia by various kinds of sanctions and isolation on the international scene.

In the opinion of former US ambassador to Azerbaijan Matthew Bryza, it is the United States - along with other co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, namely France and Russia - that bear the primary responsibility for implementing the well-known four UN Security Council resolutions demanding the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the Azerbaijani territory. However, non-implementation of these resolutions, Bryza believes, has to do with the activity of the Armenian diaspora, in particular the Armenian National Committee of America, which has been carrying out a one-sided propaganda campaign from the beginning of the Karabakh conflict, presenting Azerbaijan as the aggressor and Armenia as a victim. The US diplomat has linked the fact that the United States does not insist on the implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions and the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the occupied Karabakh with expectations of achieving a peaceful settlement under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group.

Of course, the impact of the Armenian diaspora, as well as hopes for successful peaceful settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict through the mediation of the Minsk Group, do affect the position of the United States and its partners in the mediation process, albeit to a varying degree. Meanwhile, these aspects do not fully disclose the motivation of the policy of double standards, to which politicians in Washington, Moscow, Paris and other great-power capitals are clearly committed, as participation in the settlement of various conflicts is considered by the influential players in world politics primarily in the context of their geostrategic interests. Depending on these interests, the principles of settlement of international disputes acquire one or another interpretation in order to please the major global centres of power.

Is it possible - given the duplicity of major powers that have undertaken responsibility for mediation in resolving conflicts - to rely on the establishment of lasting peace in the crisis regions with their support? It is hard to believe in such a possibility, as demonstrated by the Karabakh settlement, which has been marking time for more than twenty years already.

In the meantime, Matthew Bryza put forward a seemingly sensible proposal calling on the United States to expand its efforts in achieving a breakthrough in the peace talks on Nagornyy Karabakh, which may include the personal involvement of President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry in the dialogue with the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia. However, can personal participation of the Heads of Co-Chair States in the negotiating process kick-start a peaceful settlement of the conflict? In any case, previous experience of mediation at the highest level - for example, personal mediation efforts of the presidents of Russia and France - has failed to bring about positive results in the Karabakh settlement. Not least because of the double standards practiced by the United States, Russia and France, which make them to be more concerned with their own influence in the region rather then with the solving of the problem on the basis of the principles of international law, which they allegedly advocate.

Given all this, Azerbaijan requires the major centres of world politics to co-participate in solving urgent problems of the contemporary world order and in the fight against terrorism and separatism in strict compliance with international law, making no distinction between different manifestations of extremism in favour of the interests of the great powers.