A lesson for the European Parliament Baku and Tbilisi against bias

The refusal of the Milli Majlis (Parliament) of Azerbaijan to participate in the 12th plenary session of the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly, scheduled for October 28–30 in Yerevan, was a natural step in response to the systematic stance of the European Parliament and its associated institutions, which over the past years have consistently adopted a biased position regarding Azerbaijan.

The Euronest PA, created as a platform for dialogue between the European Parliament and the countries of the Eastern Partnership programme (Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine), was initially intended as a mechanism for rapprochement and trust-building. Over time, however, this idea has been replaced by political pressure, declarative moralising, and tendentious resolutions, far removed from the principles of equality and mutual respect.

In recent years, the European Parliament has repeatedly adopted resolutions that distort facts concerning the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In its 2020, 2022, and 2023 resolutions, this body accused Baku of “aggression” against Armenia, while ignoring the fact that Azerbaijan was acting on its sovereign territory, internationally recognised as such.

The absurdity and cynicism of the European approach are particularly evident in its selectivity. The European Parliament pompously discusses the “rights of Karabakh Armenians” while completely ignoring the rights of Azerbaijanis who were forcibly expelled from Armenia—Brussels has never adopted a single resolution on this issue.

Moreover, the European Parliament has called to “suspend energy cooperation” with Azerbaijan, which not only undermines European energy security but also contradicts the spirit of the EU–Azerbaijan strategic partnership. Such actions by the EP are not merely mistaken—they erode trust and the neutrality of international institutions, turning them into platforms for lobbying by certain anti-Azerbaijani groups and the Armenian diaspora.

The position of the European Parliament and its structures becomes even more absurd given that Armenia itself officially recognises the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, as repeatedly stated by the country’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.

Moreover, in recent months, Baku and Yerevan have shown a readiness to establish lasting peace, following the historic meeting between President Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan in Washington, which took place with the participation of Donald Trump and concluded with the signing by the foreign ministers of both countries of the text of a peace agreement. This document offers a real opportunity to finally close the long-standing chapter of the conflict.

Azerbaijan has already taken concrete steps in this direction—lifting all restrictions on the transit of goods for Armenia through its territory, something that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. All of this demonstrates Baku’s commitment to good-neighbourliness and the integration of the region into a stable security architecture.

However, while the two countries, having endured decades of confrontation, are moving towards peace, certain European circles persist in trying to drag the South Caucasus back into the past, reigniting rhetoric of mistrust and hostility. In this context, Azerbaijan’s decision to abstain from the Euronest session in Yerevan is a measured and logical one. The head of the Azerbaijani delegation, Tahir Mirkishili, made it clear that the issue is not the location of the event, but its substance: “Half of the Euronest PA’s activities are based on documents that contradict the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.”

Indeed, what is the point of attending a forum where decisions are made under political pressure, and equal dialogue is replaced by diktat? Azerbaijan consistently advocates for honest and cooperative engagement, but not for a dialogue in which one side is deemed guilty from the outset.

Notably, Georgia made a similar decision, also refusing to participate in the session. Tbilisi, too, has grown weary of political lectures from the European Parliament. In particular, Georgian MP Levan Makhashvili stated directly that “the hostile rhetoric of certain members of the European Parliament  and their participation in protests in Tbilisi contradict the principles of mutual respect.”

This indicates that it is not only Azerbaijan that perceives the degradation of parliamentary diplomacy within Euronest. An increasing number of Eastern Partnership countries view this body as a tool of pressure rather than of cooperation.

The problem lies not only in the content of the resolutions but also in the mentality of European institutions, convinced of their own moral superiority. The European Parliament readily issues judgments on human rights in the South Caucasus, yet prefers to remain silent on migrant rights violations in Europe, the rise of Islamophobia, or discrimination against national minorities in its own countries.

When it comes to the South Caucasus, the Old Continent seems to forget that the same international principles apply here as anywhere else in the world—territorial integrity, non-interference, and respect for sovereignty. By replacing these principles with political moralising, European institutions only push away those they ostensibly sought to engage. The practical outcome of this flawed “strategy” is exactly what the European Parliament witnessed in the refusal of Azerbaijan and Georgia to participate in the Euronest PA session.