Tension in the world politics is gradually rising. On the one hand, the big powers are engaged in a fierce rivalry over the global leadership, while on the other, according to observations, no criteria are being developed for fair resolution of certain conflicts. There is a different approach to the issues of identical substance. So what is the purpose of the global leadership struggle under such circumstances? How much longer would the humanity tolerate such falseness?
Geopolitical Nonsense: Small Nation Disrespecting The World
These days the Western powers have been frequent in expressing their concern with the Armenian-Azerbaijani, Nagorno Karabakh conflict being unresolved, including the American and French co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. However, a broader evaluation of the issue from the political standpoint reveals inconsistency between declarations and real actions. And that political logic fails to produce pragmatic steps.
The reasons behind the conflict remaining unresolved are well known. First and foremost, Armenia has always protracted and derailed the negotiations – something witnessed by the Minsk Group co-chairs. When it comes to real action, the Armenian leadership rejects the promises made during direct meetings. This contradicts to political-diplomatic etiquette and its principles. More interestingly, co-chair nations, with longstanding diplomatic traditions, choose not to condemn Yerevan.
Armenia does not stop there. For example, official Yerevan flagrantly dismisses resolutions by the UN SC and decisions and resolutions of other international organizations by simply ignoring these institutions. Failure to implement decisions adopted by a prominent international organization (e.g. United Nations) is an act requiring punishment in line with the international law. Because otherwise, it serves as negative example for others and creates fertile ground for similar actions. On the other hand, it is thought-provoking that Armenia’s illegal activity is being condoned against the background of immediate actions taken regarding other nations. Iraq was bombarded right away, while Afghanistan has grappled with political strife for years.
Such cases directly affect the performance of those involved in conflict resolution. Statements of the co-chair nations’ presidents regarding the inadmissibility of the status-quo fall on Yerevan’s deaf ears, despite that those statements were made on several occasions. Can a tiny country like Armenia actually challenge leader nations of the world? Absolutely not. The fundamental reason is their attitude towards Armenia.
There are particular reasons why the EU and the West buttress Armenia in this process. Testimony to that can be found in the ideas of the European officials expressed using diplomatic language. European Union’s Enlargement and Neighborhood Policy Commissioner Stefan Füle once declared that the EU laid no preconditions for establishing high-level cooperation with Armenia. He also added that he understood why Armenia sought Eurasian Union membership. Swedish Foreign Minister considers Armenia’s decision to join the Eurasian Union as a substantiated step. Then why did he place Armenia in the third position in the framework of Eastern Partnership? Subjective attitude and diplomatic ruses are evident here.
Western politicians are forgetting one thing though. Such behavior impacts geopolitical dynamics far beyond local geography and complicates the situation around the world, just like now. Strife is deepening in different parts of the world. Ethnic and religious affiliation is associated with false political-ideological objectives. Global political environment is filled with fake parameters. As a result, development of common geopolitical, political and diplomatic criteria for resolution of emerging conflicts becomes inconceivable.
Double Standards: Contradictions of Discrimination Policy
Today the experts are suggesting different theories regarding the establishment of the new world order, while recognizing that the process is actually stalling. So what is the reason of this contradiction? The answer must be searched for within the very double standards we have mentioned above. From different rostrums the Western politicians speak of democracy, justice, ”soft power” and dialogue but in reality they patronize the Armenians.
By doing so, they significantly undermine the effectiveness of regulating mechanisms of international relations. Thus, an impression is formed that ”confidence-building measures”, so frequently mentioned by the West, serve some special interests because this proposition constitutes an effort aimed at reconciling with the current situation instead of urging the liberation of the occupied territories. Actual mutual confidence can be built only upon the withdrawal of the Armenian troops from the Azerbaijani territory. Otherwise, the principle of justice is violated under any other circumstances.
There is one noteworthy aspect here. When double standards are not duly confronted in the political-diplomatic activity the opposite side attempts to impose validity of its claims. Therefore, the Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan must demand that the West demonstrate its position on the Nagorno Karabakh issue based on justice and international law. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of our country must come up with a firm position. Alas, we are yet to see such a performance.
International experience demonstrates that position of the Foreign Ministry can have a serious impact on the processes. Dynamic diplomatic channels are the best possible means of conveying position, ideas and principles of the head of state. Foreign ministries of respective nations promptly respond to the ongoing geopolitical process within their geography and put forth a concrete position. Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan can ensure engaged and just approach to the resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict through consistent and pragmatically productive efforts.
It must be admitted that favoring of double standards by the Western powers and international institutions has provoked a dire geopolitical situation in the world. And lately, it has become so obvious and pronounced that it is visible to the naked eye. Different attitude towards the conflicts that are similar in substance is a telling example. Western political quarters are utterly sensitive to the conflicts in Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. Heads of state of big nations and high-ranking diplomats immediately showed support to Georgia in 2008. Some of them visited Tbilisi. International organizations declared their support to the territorial integrity of Georgia, engaged in an active dialogue with Russia and brought an end to the aggression.
Still, leaders and top officials of the global dominance aspiring nations that are locked in a bitter rivalry must know that present and ever-deteriorating tension in the world was provoked by the fact that segregated, biased, subjective and irresponsible approach to the same sort of problems was considered a norm. The present situation in the international relations and the prospect of further exacerbation stems from the approach to the Armenian-Azerbaijani, Nagorno Karabakh conflict. This is the outcome.
