European Parliament “annexing” Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia - ANALYSIS
Baku – APA. The European Parliament is considered to be the most unsuccessful project of the European Union. The basis for this failure has been laid during the formation of the principles of the European Parliament. Inequality in representative quote of the member countries has always stimulated political crisis and consequently, the Old World covered up this failure with the thesis of characterizing of European Parliament’s decisions as declarative, but not obligatory. The European Parliament, which was firstly considered to be a powerful political superstructure, then accepted its fate and thought its activity ends with adoption of declarative decisions. Despite this low status, the West always uses the European Parliament as a means of political pressure and benefits from its activity to form a public opinion (the status of the European Parliament does not allow usage of this structure in other form). And, the European Parliament is trying to fulfill its small mission by adopting statements, declarations and resolutions.
Therefore, the document adopted over upcoming parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan, should be seen as part of the EP’s policy on forming standard public opinion. It’s disputable how this structure’s role as a ‘propaganda machine’ affects the public opinion. Because, it’s difficult to form an untrue public opinion as the people’s access to internet has increased. These opportunities also confirm that the European Parliament’s decisions on Azerbaijan are biased. It’s sufficient to look through the documents regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Back in 1988 – during the beginning of the active phase of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict – the European Parliament adopted the first biased resolution on Azerbaijan (Soviet Azerbaijan). The European Parliament’s resolution on the situation in Soviet Armenia appreciated the demonstrations held in Yerevan and other cities on the annexation of Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia. The EP considers that the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Province was illegally annexed to Azerbaijan in 1923 and actually, it was part of Armenia. The European Parliament even called Sumgayit events “massacre against Armenians”, claiming that Armenians underwent pillage and there was no guarantee for their security. As a result of this approach, the document said with the clear text that Armenians’ demands on Nagorno-Karabakh are supported.
It is noteworthy that the European Parliament's demands from the leadership of the Soviet Union in the resolution have been fully implemented by Moscow.
The third paragraph of the resolution says that "we urge the Supreme Council to study the compromise proposals of the Armenian delegation in Moscow on temporary management of the central administration of the Nagorno-Karabakh in Moscow since joining the Russian Federation, or the introduction of presidential rule. Subsequently, the proposals of the European Parliament have been implemented in the form of presidential rule in Nagorno-Karabakh and laid the foundation for the occupation of these territories.
This resolution, published in the official magazine of the European Communities in July 1988, affirms that even during the Soviet times the European Parliament had taken a biased position against Azerbaijan and was under the influence of the Armenian lobby. This document also shows that the occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh was planned by the West during the Soviet era, and it was part of a plan prepared in order to weaken and divide the Soviet Union from within. The European Parliament’s resolution on the situation in Soviet Armenia of 1988 is indicative of the West's attitude toward the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and Azerbaijan. This ratio has remained constant for years. And in the years of independence, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT HAS NOT TAKEN A SINGLE RESOLUTION ON THE NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT THAT IS BASED ON THE NORMS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW RATHER THAN THE DEMANDS OF THE ARMENIAN LOBBY. But the reason is not only the lobby’s pressure; the European Parliament which prefers to operate as a "Christian club" has always been rife with anti-Turk and anti-Islamic sentiment. As the national and religious factors are emphasized in the approach, it does not matter to the West and its institutions; they will like to oppose to any significant event taking place in Azerbaijan, even energy projects and that the European Games that directly correspond to European interests. So the political assessment the European Parliament has given to the upcoming parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan is not surprising at all. This is only regrettable.
Vuqar Masimoglu, APA Analytic Center
Related news releases
- 13.03.2017Trace of "Armenian Connection" in Strasser fantasy
- 06.03.2017The Armenian Connection: How a secret caucus of MPs and NGOs, since 2012, created a network within PACE to hide violations of international law - ANALYSIS
- 19.09.2016Failed rallies that proved unworthy of being called ‘mass’ - ANALYSIS
- 24.08.2016Referendum Act: The Cabinet of Ministers could not change to locomotive of economic reforms – ANALYSE
- 24.06.2016Tseghakronism – fascist doctrine of Garegin Nzhdeh - ARTICLE
- 08.06.2016More people displaced than at any time since WW2- Global Peace Index
- 07.05.2016Sargsyan’s failed attempt of demarche against Kremlin - ANALYSIS
- 13.04.2016Helsinki Final Act – the main factor in breaking Karabakh deadlock - ANALYSIS
- 07.04.2016‘Four-day war’: Changed status quo, balance against Armenia
- 02.07.2015Expectations arising from a default in Greece - ANALYSIS
- 29.06.2015US legalizing ISIL de facto - ANALYSIS
- 22.06.2015Rebecca Vincent – problem of anti-Azerbaijani network - ANALYSIS
- 22.06.2015Western technologist’s lies proved by figures
- 18.06.2015Democracy and human rights lessons from totalitarian Poland under democracy guise - ANALYSIS
- 17.06.2015The Guardian and principles of journalism - ANALYSIS
- 10.06.2015National Endowment for Democracy - generator of coups and chaos - ANALYSIS
- 09.06.2015BBC: Anti-Azerbaijan campaign deriving from Islamaphobia
- 22.05.2015‘Good’ and ‘bad’ separatists classified by West, Azerbaijan’s right to change partners - ANALYSIS
- 27.04.201524 April: Who won? Who lost? - ANALYSIS
- 18.04.2015Human Rights Watch – joint organization of Soros and Obama - ANALYSIS
- 16.04.2015European Parliament’s resolution incapable of changing realities in the region - ANALYSIS
- 02.04.2015“Georgian expert card” against Georgia - ANALYSIS
- 13.02.2015Southern Gas Corridor: unique project of common interests to all parties - ANALYSIS
- 16.01.2015Azerbaijan-US relations: Tension after returning to bipolar world order - ANALYSIS
- 10.12.201421st member of G20: Azerbaijan - ANALYSIS
- 05.12.2014Putin's visit to Turkey: messages, offers, opportunities ... - Analysis
- 03.12.2014Panoramic notes (second part) - ANALYSIS
- 02.12.2014Panoramic notes (first part) – ANALYSIS
- 01.12.2014Pope: Against Turkey, Beside Armenia – ANALYSIS
- 28.11.2014Conflicting interests of Turkey and Iran against background of Syrian crisis - ANALYSIS
- 24.11.2014Indirect diplomacy: Turkey’s plan of third border crossing point with Armenia - ANALYSIS
- 14.11.2014Downed Armenian helicopter consequence of Yerevan’s military-political provocation - ANALYSIS - PHOTOSESSION
- 17.09.2014How will EU sanctions affect Russian economy? – Comment
- 30.06.2014Two Europes, double Europe…. - ANALYTICS
- 14.04.2014Actual international view as a result of the occupation of Azerbaijani territories
- 10.09.2013The Republic of Azerbaijan: A Model of Good Governance - ANALYSIS
- 04.09.2013Will Armenia’s choosing Customs Union change Europe’s attitude towards Nagorno Karabakh conflict? - ANALYSIS
- 14.08.2013Five visits balancing Azerbaijan’s foreign policy course - ANALYSIS
- 13.06.2013Nagorno Karabakh – “new Afghanistan” of the region - ANALYSIS
- 09.04.2013Whose future was determined in Baku: South Caucasus and Central Asia, or European economic area? - ANALYSIS
- 22.09.2015Russian military support to Syria: A second Afghanistan?
- 11.02.2016Turkey and Israel: Rapprochement arising from mutual need - ANALYSIS
- 02.04.2016Azerbaijani president’s visit to Washington: Maximal use of all opportunities of essential platform for dialogue - ANALYSIS
- 09.09.2015Europe’s migration policy: Is Schengen area regime being abolished? - ANALYSIS
- 26.08.2015Who benefits from Greece’s exit from Eurozone? - ANALYSIS
- 10.07.2015Representatives of Azerbaijani community in Nagorno-Karabakh will also address Chatham House, says FM