France's global ambitions and Armenian revanchism
Review by Serhey Bohdan

ANALYTICS  21 November 2022 - 17:00

On November 15, the French Senate adopted the second resolution in two years, calling for the recognition of the independence of the Karabakh separatists. The new resolution threatens Azerbaijan with more sanctions and embargoes. The document itself has no direct legal consequences, but it vividly illustrates the irresponsible and pseudo-humanitarian flirting of French politicians with Karabakh separatism.

The resolution reflects the mood of the French elites

The current resolution (adopted almost unanimously by the upper house of the French parliament) calls for the French government to impose sanctions against Azerbaijan, including an embargo on gas and oil imports from Azerbaijan, and also calls again for the recognition of the Karabakh separatists. At first glance, the resolution appears to be little more than a high-profile pathetic step, as it has no legally binding effect.

Nevertheless, on the whole, this incident should be taken very seriously, as the resolution reflects the mood of the French elites and their more than controversial attitude towards the issue. In addition to the resolution itself, the French establishment has made similar speeches in other venues in recent times. In July this year, for example, sixty French MPs wrote an open letter to the leading newspaper Le Monde opposing the Azerbaijan-EU gas deal because Baku, they said, was thereby "desperately seeking to finance the weapons used to destroy Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh and the Republic of Armenia". In October a group of French "intellectuals and politicians" first issued a collective letter to the media accusing Azerbaijan of genocide plans and declaring that "a new war and occupation is unfolding at the gates of Europe" - implying Baku's actions to restore the country's territorial integrity. Then the chairman of the National Defence Commission of the French Parliament Anne Genette wrote a program article accusing Azerbaijan of "trying to advance its troops by force, which calls into question the territorial integrity of Armenia, as well as the right of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to self-determination".

It is these symptoms that should worry all those interested in building a peaceful and inclusive South Caucasus. Yes, the current resolution is non-binding, but it reflects the rather stable sentiments of the French elites.

There is another important aspect. One can find many examples of when parliaments and different state bodies of some countries take decisions that are contrary to the actual policy of the government. In this case, the Senate does not contradict the course of President Macron at all.

The adopted document fits perfectly into the logic of Paris' short- and long-term actions. As for the first perspective, it, among other things, suggests that President Macron's government should take urgent measures to ensure Armenia's security, particularly through the "deployment of interposition forces under the aegis of the international community", i.e. suggests doing what Macron is exactly trying to do in recent months by sending a mission to the region (and even better military) of the EU-NATO countries. Paris itself is trying to become the arbiter in Azerbaijani-Armenian relations and is being supported in this by the collective West. All this is not to save anyone, but to limit Russia's role in the region (including its military presence).

As for the long-term perspective, the Senate did not do anything out of the ordinary in terms of French policy. It is enough to recall Paris' attitude towards the liberation of Azerbaijani lands, which had been seized and devastated by Armenian radical nationalists. So, just after the start of the 44-day war Macron declared Azerbaijan responsible for the conflict and demanded to stop these attacks. On November 25, 2020, the same French senate passed a non-binding resolution urging the government to recognize the independence of the Karabakh separatists.

The attitude did not change thereafter either. The French ambassador (together with the US ambassador) was absent from conferences for foreign diplomats held in July 2021 in liberated Fuzuli and Shusha, and again in August this year in Shusha. The Russian ambassador was absent from the 2021 events. Paris' behaviour thus stands out even against the background of other major world players.

In September, France initiated a UN Security Council review of the clashes between Azerbaijan and Armenia. And it is hardly possible to speak in this case of an impartial attitude on the part of Paris to the issue in question, as can be seen from Macron's statements later the same month. Receiving Armenian PM Pashinyan in late September, the French president said: "I do not forget that exactly two years ago, on September 27, 2020, a terrible war broke out, which was fatal for the region. It actually led to a new situation in the region with an expanded Russian military presence." Not a word about the liberation of Azerbaijani lands from years of occupation! Not a word about the fact that it is Armenia that has one of the largest Russian military contingents!

In October, French President Macron first met with President Aliyev and Prime Minister Pashinyan in Prague and then actually accused Azerbaijan of starting the war. Baku raised the issue of the impossibility of Paris continuing to play any kind of role in the settlement process between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Commenting on the simultaneous efforts of the French side to resuscitate the OSCE Minsk Group, President Aliyev stated that its main goal was apparently always to freeze the conflict (in the interests of Armenian extremists, not the Armenian people), rather than to solve it.

Let's add that it's not about some mysterious Armenophilia, but that Paris — like other world powers — would not mind turning Armenia into one of its pieces on the notorious great chessboard of global politics. The logic of imperialism is currently at work, and peoples and countries are being destroyed in the name of the interests and squabbles of the "great ones of this world".

Already during the Karabakh war of 2020, as Western publications noted, French President Macron was intervening in the conflict not only for the sake of the Armenians themselves but also for the 'purposeful opposition' to Türkiye. For Macron, it was an element of strategic and ideological confrontation, as Türkiye, in his view, was "pursuing increasingly anti-European policies and at odds with European interests in the surrounding region". In recent months, Paris has also started to blame Russia: in October, Macron said it was in Azerbaijan's interest to provoke September tensions and clashes. Other French politicians have also accused Türkiye and Russia of supporting Azerbaijan.

Another alliance of Armenian nationalists and Western imperialists?

Of course, the Armenian diaspora, which has serious structures in France, especially in the form of the Coordinating Council of Armenian Organisations of France (CCAF), played a certain role in the adoption of another anti-Azerbaijani resolution. The extremist sentiments of some of its members are obvious - as recently as September there was an attack by Armenian radicals on the Azerbaijani embassy in Paris.

However, we should not exaggerate the role of the diaspora; rather, we should talk about the role of radical segments within the Armenian establishment itself, which clearly did not mind working with the French establishment to achieve their truly suicidal idée fixe for Armenia - the internationalisation of Armenian problems. The Palestinians, Afghans, and many other nations have successfully achieved a similar internationalisation of their problems with the participation of Western forces. The outcome is well known.

In general, after the adoption of the new resolution, revanchist circles in Armenia rejoiced: "In fact, the resolution of the French Senate, the speech of Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Valdai forum, the anti-Azerbaijani statements of the Iranian leadership show that Armenia and the Armenian people have friends and potential allies among many global and regional players. And no matter how much the current Armenian authorities led by Pashinian try to convince them otherwise, the Armenian side has every opportunity to fight for the Karabakh people's right to self-determination and a safe life outside of Azerbaijan."

To this list of imaginary friends and allies of the Armenian radicals (and in no way of the Armenian people) can be added the efforts made by the EU and the US to take some kind of place in the Azerbaijani-Armenian settlement process. At first glance, this policy may appear to be a benign effort to help the neighbouring peoples of the South Caucasus to find peace. Things do not just happen in the modern imperialist policy and peacemaking goes hand in hand with brutal expansionism. Here, for example, on November 16, the first US Secretary of State Blinken called President Aliyev to, as the Armenian media happily reported, urge Azerbaijan to "observe the ceasefire" and "discuss the outcome and next steps in the bilateral Armenian-Azerbaijani peace talks". And then, on November 16-17, Major General Daniel Lasika, director of the US European Command for Strategy, Planning, and Policy, traveled to Yerevan, as the Armenian media also reported significantly. He met the Armenian defence minister, chief of staff, and secretary of the Security Council.

Armenian historian and former presidential advisor Armen Ayvazyan had recently spoken of the perniciousness of relying on external benefactors: "Staking on international guarantees means throwing the Armenian people into an open fire. There were such guarantees in 1880 and 1918, and Woodrow Wilson and many others". However, strange conclusions are made from this, as if "the main thing is a security system by one's own forces, i.e. #NationArmy". Strange conclusions, as Ayvazyan himself admits: "There is no operational depth in Armenia, and the enemy can be anywhere at any time, and the entire population, at least 250 thousand people, should be ready for this."

Needless to say, it is impossible to withstand a confrontation with neighbouring countries in such a scenario. Especially, taking into account that at one time the Armenian radicals made sure that the Republic of Armenia from its birth got into problems with two neighbouring countries much superior in all respects - Azerbaijan and Türkiye at the same time. I remember encountering Armenian "think tanks" about twenty years ago, I was struck by how some analysts talked about the "Turkic sea" in which Armenia was floundering. The idea of making peace with the Turkic neighbours and simply living side by side was, alas, not mentioned. Nor was it mentioned by Ayvazyan.

But this idea is gradually penetrating into the minds of at least some of Armenia's leaders. Armenian publicist of radical views Hayk Khalatyan recently wrote that some "Armenian public", rejoicing over the resolution of the French Senate, stressed that such a document would not have got the majority in the Armenian parliament of today. He said "such scepticism is understandable, given the pro-Azerbaijani statements on the status of Karabakh by the Armenian prime minister, MPs from the ruling Civil Contract Party... Neither Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan nor the Armenian Foreign Ministry and Council of Ministers (all those who are actively involved in the negotiation process with Baku and Ankara) have so far reacted and welcomed the pro-Armenian step of the French Senate... The only official who commented on the vote of his French colleagues was Parliament Speaker Alain Simonyan who thanked his French colleagues".

Indeed, Pashinyan had said in an interview with Public Television a few days earlier that no country in the world was prepared to recognise the Karabakh separatist entity. And he was hardly happy about this French resolution. Unlike radical nationalists who dream of a "Great Armenia", Pashinyan has to lead the real Armenia. And the latter for its survival and development vitally needs normalisation of relations with Azerbaijan and Türkiye, on which the French Senate dealt a serious blow.

Paper tigers

In response to the anti-Azerbaijani actions of France, the Azerbaijani parliament has adopted an almost unanimous resolution that proposes the Azerbaijani government exclude France from the Azerbaijani-Armenian settlement process, reconsider the participation of French companies in energy projects in the country, revise existing relations with France and raise the issue of crimes committed by French colonialism and imperialism in international forums.

To begin with, the directions are right, and they can work if they do not remain on paper, but are implemented in many appropriate steps. My colleague Samit Aliyev lamented recently that "our weight categories are different, we cannot fight directly with Paris". But international politics is not just about arithmetic, according to which a comparison of the parameters of Azerbaijan and France obviously ends up with a conclusion about the strength of the latter. Just as mathematics is not limited to arithmetic, but also includes such sections as algebra, differential calculus, etc., so international politics is not reduced to a comparison of ostensibly single-valued statistics. Let us point out only two points, which show how ambiguous everything is with the Paris threats - but in fact, the points are much more.

Firstly, Baku has a serious trump card - energy resources. Paris is a party to a large-scale agreement in the field of energy cooperation between the EU and Azerbaijan, signed on July 19 this year, which envisages "doubling the capacity" of the Southern Gas Corridor, which begins in Azerbaijan, and then goes through Georgia and Türkiye to the EU. The deal envisages the supply of at least 20 billion cubic metres of gas per year to the EU by 2027 and opens the door for Azerbaijan to play on the differences within the EU. Azerbaijan has already emerged as an important gas exporter to southern Europe, and its importance to other European countries will grow in the future.

Secondly, moral supremacy - the proverbial power of truth - is most important and the main thing is not to stoop to petty grievances in such disputes, but to take a principled line that can be understood in the world. For a start, let us reiterate that the seizure, ethnic cleansing, long-standing occupation, and devastation of Azerbaijani lands by Armenian radical nationalists will be more than a convincing argument against any flirtation with Karabakh separatism in the West. And no tales of ancient greatness can justify this expansionism of Armenian extremists. Further, if France (and some other powers) are trying to take a moralistic stance - then here too it makes sense to bet on the truth and tell about the bloody and unflattering past and present of western and eastern imperialism. Azerbaijan has suitable platforms and partners for this, such as the Non-Aligned Movement. With a long-term approach to its work, it will provide many opportunities to protect Azerbaijan from actions even more dangerous than the current Paris resolution.

In short, French flirting with Karabakh separatism has a long history and has nothing to do with human morality and humanitarian considerations. Azerbaijan, of course, cannot ignore this. Moreover, if it responds with a strategic and long-term approach to such actions, it could well neutralize this new remake of the alliance of Armenian extremists with Western imperialists. As history has shown more than once (and Ukrainians are showing again now), sooner or later all imperialist superpowers turn out to be "paper tigers".

Caliber.Az