FAVOURABLE REALITY

Undoubtedly, Azerbaijan established a new regional reality following the liberation of its lands from the Armenian occupation as a result of the 44-day war. The irreversible course of events now demonstrates an obvious shift in the approach of the global power centres traditionally considered pro-Armenian. This can be clearly seen in the position of the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group (MG) and the increasing number of countries showing an interest in joining the restoration of the liberated territories of Azerbaijan.

Accents of co-chairs

The recent visits of the ambassadors of these countries to the liberated territories of Azerbaijan has clearly demonstrated a shift in the positions of the Western co-chairs of the Minsk Group. Immediately after the end of the 44-day war, Washington and Paris made it clear that they rejected the new regional realities emerging after the war. The first and utmost reason behind this dissatisfaction was the fact that the years-long Nagorno-Karabakh conflict had finally been resolved as a result of Azerbaijan's victory in the war followed by the signing of trilateral agreements between Azerbaijan, Russia, and Armenia with the active participation of Turkey, which has significantly strengthened its position in the South Caucasus.

Another reason is associated with the internal political specifics of the US and France experiencing an impressive influence of the Armenian diaspora in these countries. Thus, American and especially French legislators demonstrate clearly anti-Azerbaijani positions, which go beyond the status of Paris and Washington as neutral mediators. However, the 44-day war has considerably diminished the significance of the MG's mediation mission, which for almost 30 years of the Armenian occupation had unsuccessfully and reluctantly tried to find a ‘peace formula’ without making any difference between the aggressor (Armenia) and its victim (Azerbaijan).

In fact, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict ended as soon as Azerbaijan implemented the UN Security Council resolutions on its own and restored its territorial integrity. Accordingly, Azerbaijan’s victory in the 44-day war made any further activities of the Minsk Group irrelevant. Yet Baku still invites the MG to contribute to the establishment of trusted relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia, including the solution of humanitarian problems existing in the post-conflict region. We can clearly see that the co-chairs accept the reality, as evidenced by the recent visits of the ambassadors of France and the US, Zachary Gross and Earl Litzenberger, to the liberated district of Aghdam. Note that not long ago the heads of diplomatic missions accredited in Baku, who do not hide their pro-Armenian sympathies and even openly position themselves as patrons of Armenians worldwide, would demonstratively refuse to join collective ambassadorial visits to the liberated lands.

The joint statements of the MG co-chairs made recently also demonstrate a noticeable change in the approach of world power centres, primarily the Western co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, to the new post-war situation in the South Caucasus and amid the ongoing Armenian-Azerbaijani reconciliation. They emphasise the need for taking measures to normalise Armenian-Azerbaijani interstate relations, intensify efforts contributing to the post-conflict development in the region. In this context, it is worth mentioning a joint statement by the foreign ministers of the co-chair states of the Minsk Group—Anthony Blinken, Sergei Lavrov, and Jean-Yves Le Drian. They invited Armenia and Azerbaijan to work constructively during the ongoing delimitation and demarcation process, restore economic and transport ties in the South Caucasus, and continue the contacts between the leaders of both nations to promote a lasting and long-term peace in the region. Moreover, they believe that it is necessary to maintain the relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan under the auspices of the MG co-chairs together with putting efforts to achieve tangible progress in the implementation of humanitarian initiatives.

By the way, Mr. Blinken has made a separate statement on the settlement of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations earlier. At the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting in Stockholm, he invited the parties to make progress on humanitarian issues, including the clearance of the liberated territories. He also focused on the need to facilitate the delimitation and demarcation of borders, restoration of economic and transport communications, cooperation with the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs to establish a lasting peace in the region.

Thus, neither joint nor separate statements made by the representatives of the co-chairing states contain a single word about the topics that Armenia is stubbornly trying to include in the current agenda, particularly about the so-called "status of Nagorno-Karabakh". Global power centres realistically assess the situation in the region, despite all their pro-Armenian attitude, and are well aware that the issue of status is no longer valid after the 44-day war. In fact, Azerbaijan, which put an end to this issue, has warned about this many times. Further stabilisation of the regional situation depends on the successful implementation of processes that Azerbaijan and the MG co-chairs insist on, including from the delimitation and demarcation of the Azerbaijani-Armenian border to unblocking transport communications to solution of humanitarian problems.

Currently, Azerbaijan’s priority is to ensure the liberated Garabagh. Internationally, a growing number of countries show a real interest in being involved in the ongoing process.

Restoration of Garabagh becomes quite attractive

With the liberation of Garabagh, Azerbaijan launched a series of large-scale projects to restore the cities and villages destroyed by the Armenian invaders. These include the construction of roads and airports, civil and military facilities, restoration of natural reserves, as well as various other infrastructure projects. Each and every endeavour is focused on restoring a full-fledged life on these lands, so that hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons would quickly return to their homes.

To implement all this large-scale works, Azerbaijan relies primarily on its own potential and resources. At the same time, Baku invites all friendly states to join the revival of the liberated lands as long as their efforts are focused on the restoration of infrastructure facilities, urban planning, agriculture, restoration of historical and cultural monuments, mine clearance, etc. Turkey, Pakistan, Italy, Britain, and a number of other countries—the closest allies and partners of Azerbaijan— immediately responded to this call. Obviously, this process progresses well, including not only the discussions on the involvement of fraternal and friendly countries of the post-Soviet space (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus), but also the concrete measures taken in this direction.

Despite the recent tension in Azerbaijani-Iranian relations in autumn, after the meeting of Presidents Ilham Aliyev and Ibrahim Raisi at the Ashgabat summit of the Economic Cooperation Organisation, Tehran confirmed its readiness to join the restoration of the liberated territories of Azerbaijan. Moreover, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian called this the beginning of a new chapter in economic relations between the two countries.

It is also worth mentioning the demonstrative interest of the US in participating in projects to restore the liberated territories of Azerbaijan. This interest was confirmed at the December 8 meeting of the Minister of Economy of Azerbaijan Mikail Jabbarov with the US Ambassador to Baku Earl Litzenberger.

Washington's position on this issue is yet another confirmation of the obvious shift in the policy of global power centres, which have traditionally taken into account the factor of the influential Armenian diaspora in respective countries. It is the national interest of these countries to broaden cooperation with Azerbaijan as the leader of the South Caucasus that prompts them recognise the regional realities after the 44-day war. As well as obvious geopolitical considerations, since if they choose to ignore Azerbaijan and its interests under the influence of the Armenian lobby, they risk being clearly in a losing position.