FALSE MEDIATION

The resolution adopted by the lower house of the French parliament on November 30, 2022 is nothing but another provocation against Azerbaijan. Even though the document is unlikely to have any practical significance.

On November 15, a similar resolution was adopted by the French Senate. The set of accusations and demands is not new: condemnation of Azerbaijan's allegedly aggressive actions against Armenia, call for the recognition of the independence of the separatist regime in Garabagh, Azerbaijan, economic sanctions against Baku and so on.

Only facts

So what are the implications of this move of the French parliamentarians? First and foremost, no matter what was the rationale behind this decision, it is clear that they were well aware of risks that could undermine the fragile process of normalisation of relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia, and in general the efforts to establish peace and stability in the South Caucasus. Secondly, the French MPs are also aware that the content of the resolution was fundamentally contrary to the norms and principles of international law. Now Paris cannot claim the role of a neutral mediator after such a move. After all, France had co-chaired the OSCE Minsk Group established in 1992 to settle the Garabagh conflict peacefully between Armenia and Azerbaijan for almost 30 years and together with the US and Russia. Thirdly, we cannot (in diplomatic and civilised way) answer the question of where the French MPs were when before the Second Garabagh War (2020) Azerbaijan was constantly pointing from every platform to the occupation of its sovereign territories by the Armenian armed forces? What are their arguments now when Azerbaijan solved the conflict on its own, i.e. implemented the four UN Security Council resolutions on Garabagh? Needless to say, these resolutions were the de facto expression of opinion of the international community represented by the UN. More recently, during high-level meetings in Brussels, Prague and Sochi this year, both Baku and Yerevan reaffirmed their mutual recognition of each other's sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of borders. So what’s the point of statements coming from the French Senate and National Assembly?

Remarkably, the Azerbaijani Ministry of Foreign Affairs noted that one of the representatives of the French government actually supported the resolution during the hearings. According to Baku, this "once again demonstrates that the leadership of this country, which has recently openly advocated anti-Azerbaijani initiatives on various platforms, is behind the resolution”. The French Foreign Ministry responded that the resolutions of the French parliament calling for sanctions against Azerbaijan do not reflect the official course of Paris: "This initiative of a group of MPs is not an official position of the French government and was adopted quite independently, in accordance with the principle of separation of powers”. The French Foreign Ministry also recalled a statement by Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna: "France will continue to encourage the parties to move forward in the negotiations to seize the opportunity for peace”.

But it was official Paris that recently played a key role in dispatching a European observer mission to Armenia, while the French President Emmanuel Macron was involved in the recent negotiations in Prague. How should Baku feel about these ‘encouraging calls’? In fact, Baku has already responded to Paris and made its point quite clear. 

Apparently, the adopted resolution is an attempt of the French MPs to address their government, which is not even obliged to respond to it. The document is unlikely to realise in practice and is essentially a declaration of intention. It is also clear that the Armenian diaspora in France is traditionally strong and feels quite free and politicians have to reckon with it. No matter what, but it was an explicit move of France against Azerbaijan. And it was not the first time either. Many Armenian political analysts view the adopted resolutions as yet another chance to put pressure on Azerbaijan. What does it mean? Paris is actually exacerbating the aspirations of Armenian revanchists, hence delaying the adoption of adequate decisions that would lead to the conclusion of a peace agreement between Baku and Yerevan. This once again increases the risk of escalation and destabilisation in the entire region.

Political analyst Andrias Ghukasian believes that the resolution adopted in Paris actually demonstrates the increasing popularity among the French politicians of an idea of France’s ability and necessity to act as a guarantor of security for Armenia and Garabagh. "Today the Armenian government has more opportunities than it had two years ago. Armenia should take advantage of this situation and reach a new level of relations with France. France made the move first, the rest is up to the Armenian authorities," Ghukasian said.

Famous Armenian political observer Naira Ayrumyan goes even further and thinks that the French Senate vote indicates the internationalisation of the process from a pro-Armenian position. And while the international community should be persuading Armenia to abandon its attempts to undermine the normalisation process, French MPs decided to do the opposite. But only a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan can open the way to security and cooperation in the region. Isn't this what the EU wants?

Also, just days after the adoption of the resolution by the National Assembly, the leader of the Garabagh separatists, Araik Harutyunyan, was organised a visit to France, where he met with French senator Valérie Boyer, the chairman of the group of socialists, environmentalists and republicans in the Senate, Patrick Kanner, and even the French presidential candidate and head of Ile de France, Valérie Pécresse. Arutyunyan was also interviewed by France 24, Agence France-Presse and other media outlets. As noted by the Azerbaijani Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Paris in fact demonstrated its support to the promotion of separatism.

Facts worth thinking

On the other hand (and the French should know this), there are many Armenians dissatisfied with resolutions. Their rationale: "You have supported us only in words. What’s next? What are you ready to do in reality? But if you are not ready to do anything, then why promise?" Hilda Choboyan, founder and former head of the European Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy (EAFJD) and head of the Caucasus Centre for Law and Conflict Resolution in Paris, believes that the resolutions have purely moral significance, that’s it.

A closer look reveals that the French government continues the policy it pursued during the war. It is trying to appear impartial, even though it claims to support Armenia and makes statements calling for the withdrawal of the Azerbaijani troops from the Armenian territory, etc. But we should not expect Paris to deepen this support. By the way, the resolution of the National Assembly is more textually restrained than that of the Senate, because it was drafted and submitted by the ruling faction, which previously abstained from voting in the upper chamber. In other words, there is internal political competition here as well, Golos Armenii claims.

It is clear that a resolution with such content is unlikely to go further than the French parliament. And even if it does, there will never be a consensus on the issue. Was it France’s attempt to provide moral support to Armenian separatists through a group of MPs? Well, it was successful indeed. Paris has even publicly caressed Araik Harutyunyan, but just happened to forget that it was no stranger to separatist problems itself and risks to trouble trouble… Shall we remind the French about Corsica, Brittany and the so-called overseas territories?

Paris enjoys the fact that Baku has always been extremely delicate in the international arena as not to infringe the norms and rules of the international law. But honouring the leader of bandits and separatists in Paris was clearly an excessive move even for peaceful Baku.

Perhaps France is taking advantage of the Armenians to secure its interests in the South Caucasus. Maybe the French MPs just want the votes of Armenian voters. So what next? What will the French voters get as a result? How will this move benefit France at all? What about the foreign policy of the European Union? Apparently, French and European political analysts and politicians should think about these questions.