The OSCE Minsk Group and the European Union have nothing to do in the Karabakh settlement

After the completion of the military phase of the Karabakh conflict, when the Azerbaijani army returned to the liberated areas, and the rest of the territories were taken under the control of the Russian and Turkish peacekeeping forces, Europe suddenly opposed the mediation of the two named countries in the long-standing conflict. The head of EU diplomacy, Josep Borrell, believes that Russia and Turkey are squeezing the European Union out of the settlement in Nagorno-Karabakh, Syria and Libya, calling it the "Astanaization" of regional conflicts. He draws an analogy with the Astana format for the settlement of Syria, where Turkey and Russia themselves resolve issues without the participation of Europe and the United States. Borrell challenged the EU: "We need to fill many of the gaps in our capacity and be present and proactive where our interests are at stake," he added.

In this discussion in absentia, Moscow said its word through the lips of President V. Putin and his representative D. Peskov: the ownership of Nagorno-Karabakh has been determined for a long time by the resolutions of the Security Council (Resolutions 822, 853, 874 and 884).

Baku has to decide which side to take. The OSCE Minsk Group issued a statement in which there is a desire to take control of the processes in Karabakh again. Moscow and Turkey believe that the Karabakh issue is generally closed, the phase of restoration of good-neighborly relations and the economy in the region has begun, in which these countries are actively participating.

Turan appealed to the director of the East-West analytical center Arastun Orujlu with a request to explain the reasons for the late activity of the European Union.

- What is the reason for J. Borrel's unexpected statement?

- The concern of the head of the EU diplomatic mission is understandable. It is no coincidence that he suddenly started talking about the role of the EU in resolving conflicts right now, although the Karabakh problem has not been resolved for 30 years. His activity is not so much connected with the situation around our conflict as with harsh criticism of his department and him personally. Such criticism in the European media today is far from uncommon. The fact is that the common foreign policy of the European Union actually remained in the shadow of the foreign policy activities of the countries, members of this organization. Moreover, this activity aimed at realizing the national interests of the EU member states is far from ideal.

France, which is also one of the co-chairing countries of the OSCE Minsk Group, openly supports separatism, both in the Karabakh conflict and in Libya. Let me remind you that in Libya, France openly supports the rebellious General Haftar, who is fighting against the internationally recognized Government of the National Trust of this country. Two chambers of the French parliament and the president of this country sided with the Armenian separatists in Karabakh. Then President Macron disavowed his pro-Armenian statement, but the upper and lower chambers of the French parliament take a position aimed at the collapse of the Azerbaijani state.

Unfortunately, the EU foreign policy department is completely incapable of pursuing a common European foreign policy, in connection with which countries such as Russia and Turkey, thanks to their effective foreign policies, fill the resulting geopolitical and diplomatic vacuum. This is exactly what happened in recent history with the resolution of the Karabakh conflict.

- What is the difference between the activities in Karabakh of the European Union and the Russia-Turkey partner duo?

- It is noteworthy that Mr. Borrell sincerely admits his intention to signify the priority of the European Union in the Karabakh process, despite the fact that the EU has done little to resolve it. I mean his remark about the interests of the European Union. As far as I understand, efforts to resolve any conflict should be aimed primarily at relieving tension and reducing the suffering of residents in the conflict countries, and not at looking for some geopolitical interests. The last one was occupied by the EU before in Karabakh, they want to continue to do this further.

Turkey and Russia are doing differently. Contrary to all our critical assessments, Ankara and Moscow in the Karabakh case achieved real peace and separation of the warring parties along internationally recognized borders and a time line of demarcation in accordance with the trilateral Statement. Even if it will be a fragile peace, but even it still looks much more attractive than a bloody confrontation, especially from the point of view of ordinary people who are the victim of such a confrontation.

From this point of view, apparently, the EU will have to reconsider its approach to conflicts in general and, above all, abandon the incomprehensible tactics of "conflict management". Still, conflicts need to be resolved, not "managed".

Regarding the objection of the OSCE Minsk Group, I think that this structure will not be efficient even with a great desire. At least, the behavior of the co-chairing countries of this group does not promise anything good in this regard. Russia acts separately, France actually acts almost as a party to the conflict, and the United States makes just "routine" statements. This alignment leaves little chance for the revival of the OSCE Minsk Group institution in Karabakh, especially since Russia, Turkey and Azerbaijan have complied with the Madrid principles and four UN Security Council resolutions on Karabakh. — 0—