EU in the person of France tries to drive Russia and, why not, USA out of South Caucasus

PanARMENIAN.Net - One can understand the mediators: the world, particularly the U.S. and EU, and also Russia now has neither the time nor the interest to deal with the Karabakh issue, so the intermediaries are trying to revive the long overlooked process, thus justifying their own existence. The United States is simply unable to sort out either its economic policy, or the ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan. As for the EU, it mired in Libya and is obviously going to mire in Syria, too. But the 20th anniversary of independence of the Republic of Artsakh made it clear to even the most hesitant politicians that there is no going back; no basic principles can help Azerbaijan return what never belonged to her. However regretful it may be for the co-chairs, no specific efforts aimed at consolidation of ceasefire and recognition of basic principles for a peace agreement can change the long-established reality. The only thing that can cardinally change the situation is Azerbaijan’s reconsideration of its stance, which increasingly leads the peace process away from being implemented. Baku believes that settlement of the conflict lies in the return of Nagorno Karabakh within the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan; in other words, Stepanakert is a peace treaty itself. And, therefore, Baku appeals to the UN Security Council resolutions of 1993, which firstly have no legal force, and secondly, and most importantly, say nothing about Armenia’s withdrawing its troops from the “occupied territories”. International community and law do not view Armenia as a party to the conflict. The parties to the conflict are Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan. Except for the Azerbaijani media, no one else in the world uses the term “Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict”.

As for Philippe Lefort, he is a French diplomat of over 20 years’ experience. He has devoted much of his career to the Caucasus and Russia. As a Special Representative, Lefort replaced Pierre Morel and Peter Semneby for the period from 1 September 2011 until 30 June 2012. The decision on his appointment was based on a proposal from High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton. “I am confident that Philippe Lefort is an ideal choice for this position and that he will enhance the EU's role in this sensitive region,” Ashton said. Lefort noted that after long debates, the EU decided to preserve the post of special representative for the South Caucasus. “We decided to preserve it and combine it with the post of special representative for the crisis in Georgia. This post is very important as the EU attaches great importance to the region which has a great potential for economic and cultural development, after final establishment of peace,” said Lefort, not failing to add that EU supports both Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Meanwhile, the appointment of especially a French diplomat in the post of EU Special Representative for South Caucasus has certain grounds. OSCE Minsk Group co-chair Bernard Fassier is, apparently, reaching the end of his mission. So, Lefort’s appointment may imply either a wider and more impressive presence of France in the South Caucasus, or a probability to replace the co-chair country with the EU. However, it’s difficult to imagine that the European Union, having a number of problems, can actively and, what is most important, effectively participate in the Minsk Group mission. On the other hand, almost all the countries of the Minsk Group have already concluded for themselves the hopelessness of the current plan to settle the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict, and the shift of a co-chair country will lead to nothing, or rather, will bring to naught all the progress achieved over the past 15 years. In the long run, the OSCE Minsk Group managed to prevent a second war between Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh. And who knows what might happen if France really decides on a “deeper penetration” into the region. The Libyan developments should be a warning to everyone in the sense that not always the support of one tribe against another results in good.