Spying camouflaged as observation: EU mission in Armenia Expert insights

The EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas has proposed extending the deployment of the European Union's spying mission in Armenia for another two years, according to the press service of the High Representative. “The member states have welcomed the proposal and are now discussing the necessary legal acts with the relevant bodies of the Council of the European Union. The Council’s decision around the extension is expected in the coming days,” the media report said.

To recall, Baku accuses the mission of espionage and destabilizing the region, demanding the cessation of its destructive activities along the conditional border.

So, the European Union aims to extend the mission's mandate along the conditional border between Armenia and Azerbaijan, occurring amid Armenia's drift toward the West, its rearmament, and preparations for legislative changes concerning the country's potential future membership in the European Union. In Brussels, it is claimed that "the mandate of this EU delegation in Armenia is crystal clear: to observe and report on the situation at the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, as well as to assist the EU's efforts for a resolution between Armenia and Azerbaijan." But is this really the case? Or is the EU observer mission in our region fulfilling other roles as well?

Prominent regional political experts shared their insights on these questions addressed by Caliber.Az.

Russian political scientist and expert at the Caspian Institute for Strategic Studies, Alexander Karavaev, noted that the situation is indeed complex.

"For Baku, there are no guarantees that the observers will be impartial. The goal of such a mission is to gather information about Azerbaijan's actions in establishing its security system and border control. Where are the guarantees that this information won't be passed on to the Armenian military? After all, there is no peace treaty signed – that's one.

Secondly, there is no mechanism that would alleviate Baku's concerns about the buildup of Armenia's military potential. Moreover, there are not even any negotiations regarding such a mechanism, for example, on the '3+3' platform, which aligns with the strategy of relying on regional balances, the feasibility and solidarity of the countries in the region with one another.

Therefore, it turns out that, on the one hand, this mission creates risks for Azerbaijan's border security system – collecting field data to analyze the positions of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces. On the other hand, it creates a ground for imposing external 'presence' services, which Baku has no need for. It's not the 1990s anymore.

Besides, the issue of compensations for the affected Azerbaijani communities – the fate of refugees and displaced persons from the Syunik region (Zangezur – Ed.), from the Meghri district, is of no concern to European diplomats," Karavaev reminded.

According to international affairs expert and head of the South Caucasus political scientists' club, Ilgar Valizade, as practice shows, supported by numerous sources and confirmed by international experience, it is usually the parties to the conflict (or, in our case, the former conflict) who reach out to mediators to carry out their mission of resolving relations. At least, the experience of conflict mediation in recent decades confirms this.

"But look at what is happening with the European Union. One of the parties to the former conflict, Azerbaijan, asked the EU not to interfere in the negotiation process, as well as other potential mediators, and emphasized the need for bilateral negotiations with Armenia to resolve all the remaining issues from the conflict.

But in our case, the actions of the EU are, to put it mildly, puzzling. That is, they were not invited — specifically, by Azerbaijan — to assist in resolving the remaining issues. So why are they so insistent that the resolution should take place with their participation? Moreover, if one of the interested parties refuses these services, it clearly signals that European mediation is unwanted. Such intrusive behavior by the European Union, first of all, does not reflect well on it. Secondly, it is more likely to undermine diplomatic efforts to resolve the remaining issues rather than contribute to their resolution," says the expert.

The fact that the European Union's monitoring mission raises many questions for Azerbaijan is true, he says.

"And the answers provided by Brussels representatives do not satisfy the Azerbaijani side. Therefore, in such conditions, the activities of the European monitoring mission are more likely to undermine efforts to resolve the situation rather than contribute to its resolution.

As for Yerevan's position, it is quite clear. Armenia wants to please the European Union, wants to be as loyal as possible to Brussels, and will do everything to strengthen the EU's position in the region, including in the military-political sphere. The mission's activities are aimed precisely at strengthening the EU's military-political positions. This has nothing to do with facilitating the resolution of the situation, as they claim (especially in conditions where one of the parties is categorically opposed to the involvement of this monitoring mission).

It is very sad that EU representatives continue to insist on implementing matters related to the extension of the mission's activities and the enhancement of its functions. Once again, the Azerbaijani side believes that its activities are against Baku's interests. It would probably be more logical, taking into account Azerbaijan's concerns, for the EU to change its stance on this mission and disband it," Valizade said.