The Minsk Group has exposed itself

On May 12, the Azerbaijani Army's attempt to resume the process of demarcation of state borders, which began in December but was suspended due to the harsh winter season and difficult geographical relief, caused a serious resonance in Armenia.

All forces, including the Pashinyan government, which had a normal approach to the demarcation process on the border with Azerbaijan in Armenia, which is currently entering the election stage, competed in a serious and noisy attitude.

These forces want to take advantage of the situation and win the upcoming elections. In fact, Armenian politicians know the real picture and the fact that the Azerbaijani side has provided accurate maps and documents for demarcation, and the process will be carried out using a GPS system in accordance with international standards. They are also well aware that these maps are available not only in Azerbaijan but also in the Russian General Staff and Armenia. But the forthcoming elections and fascist revanchist thinking prevent them from acknowledging the truth. Armenia, which was devastated in the 44-day war and lost a significant part of its army, is taking advantage of the current situation to reduce the scale of these losses and gain in the field of propaganda and information.

Unfortunately, Armenia has been able to make a fuss at the international level because our legitimate steps have not been provided with proper diplomatic and informational support. As a result, both regional and international organizations commented on the situation on the Azerbaijani-Armenian border. Among them, along with international organizations, the relations of the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group also attracted attention. In a statement on May 12-15, Russia took a more restrained stance than other co-chairs, France and the United States. The ultimatum statements of France and the United States, which did not express a specific attitude to the occupation of Azerbaijani lands by Armenia for 30 years (with some exceptions in 1993), were perhaps unexpected for the Armenians themselves. Because even the statements made by Armenia were more restrained than the statements of the United States and France.

Such that on May 14, the representative of the US Department of State, Jalina Porter, called Azerbaijan's actions a "provocation" where Azerbaijan is trying to determine the state borders after the war. She said that, "Washington is closely monitoring the situation on the Azerbaijani-Armenian border and considers any movement of troops in the region irresponsible." She called on Azerbaijan to withdraw its troops from the Armenian border: "Washington expects Azerbaijan to immediately pull back its forces from the Armenian border and refrain from provocations." I wonder what happened the day before when the normal attitude of the US government changed in the course of trilateral talks in less than a day? Or has the US defined the borders of Azerbaijan and Armenia and does it now confirm that Azerbaijan violated it? What is the purpose of this amateurish and provocative approach when negotiations are conducted with the Soviet maps and the participation of Russia, the successor to the Soviet Union?

The United States did not make such a harsh statement even during the occupation of seven regions of Azerbaijan in 1992-93. This position of the current US administration, which is intertwined with the Armenians, can be considered as one of the first steps to the problems we may face in the future. Unable to digest the November 10 agreement, the United States wants to enter the process in the form of statements such as "the status of Karabakh", "direct assistance to Karabakh", etc. in order not to be left out of the game. In particular, an official response should be given to the initiative of Samantha Power, a former US Ambassador to the United Nations and current head of USAID, who dedicated a chapter of her book to the Armenian terrorist, to provide direct assistance to Karabakh and to the views of the US Ambassador to Armenia who support this view. The US Ambassador to our country should be told that such actions are unacceptable and disrespectful to the sovereignty of Azerbaijan.

The support of France, which sent weapons and ammunition by plane under the guise of humanitarian aid during the 1988 earthquake in Armenia, for the Armenian occupation and its hostile stance against Azerbaijan during the last war and beyond had us already run out of patience. France, which was involved in the construction of defense and engineering fortifications in Karabakh during the occupation, demeaned itself enough through Macron’s mouth by accusing Azerbaijan of "collaborating with jihadist terrorists from Syria and Libya" without providing evidence during the 44-day war. After November 10, the French parliament and senate recognized the so-called regime by ignoring international law. Although the French government said that the decision was not binding and tried to cut loose from it, its true nature soon reappeared. The protest against the opening of the Military Trophy Park in Baku and, finally, the recent reaction to the demarcation of the state border around the Black Lake once again showed the face of France: In support of the Armenian uproar, President Macron shared in Armenian that he "supported and will continue to support the Armenians". Not content with this, he said in a telephone conversation with Pashinyan that they would consider "putting the issue on the agenda of the UN Security Council" and that "if necessary, France can intervene militarily under a UN mandate to resolve the issue".

This is no longer the position of a mediator but of the enemy. The enemy must be treated according to its steps. So far, France has done most of the evils it can do against Azerbaijan. Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider relations with France. The steps to be taken in this direction can be as follows:

1. France's withdrawal from the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs should be demanded based on the fact that it has lost its neutrality in the process from the beginning as a co-chair, has become an open enemy in the last year, and has involved Francoist states in this policy.

2. As a country with the largest trade turnover among the countries of the South Caucasus, the relations with France should be minimized. It should be noted that we will not be harmed because we have a negative trade balance. French wine, cognac, cars, perfumes, and other French-made goods should be boycotted, their imports should be restricted.

3. Privileges granted to French companies, especially TOTAL, in the oil and non-oil sector and more than 50 contracts worth billions of dollars should be reviewed and canceled, and these opportunities should be given to companies from friendly countries.

The attitude of the co-chairs to Azerbaijan, in the example of France and the United States, once again showed that the activities of the OSCE Minsk Group are no longer needed. For 28 years, this organization tried to legitimize the Armenian occupation by freezing the problem. These days, it has exposed itself in the example of France and the United States.