Brussels: On December 2, a significant document titled ‘Strategic Agenda for Armenia-EU Partnership’ was signed between the European Union (EU) and Armenia. The Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs emphasizes that this 64-page document is aimed at deepening bilateral cooperation. It outlines a cooperation framework and sketches the geopolitical contours of the future political course for both parties. While the document includes goals related to economic reforms, democratic governance, and political integration, it also contains provisions that could potentially harm the peace process in the region.
According to Azeri-Press News Agency, the document controversially describes the voluntary relocation of Armenians from Karabakh to Armenia as ‘being displaced,’ a mischaracterization that Armenia orchestrated through encouragement from leaders of the illegal regime in Karabakh and the activities of structures funded by the Armenian state budget. This narrative aims to place the issue within a geopolitical context, creating a biased perception of Azerbaijan’s legitimate military operations while downplaying Armenia’s responsibility and strengthening manipulative rhetoric.
Azerbaijan’s government has expressed strong opposition to the document’s approach, labeling it as an unfounded criticism directed at Azerbaijan and a biased accusation. The Azerbaijani stance is unequivocal: international organizations or partner countries cannot speak of Azerbaijan in an ultimatum or accusatory tone, as it contradicts international law and the principles of mutual respect. This applies to the EU and its leadership as well.
A historical reminder is warranted regarding the EU leadership’s unbalanced position and Joseph Borrell’s role as the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Borrell’s statements on Azerbaijan historically lacked factual basis and emerged under political influence, undermining the EU’s role as a neutral mediator. This approach failed to contribute to the peace process, eroding trust instead.
One of the most concerning aspects of the EU-Armenia document is the inclusion of a military school in Armenia named after Monte Melkonian, a figure notorious for grave war crimes, into the EU’s training and education network. This step’s purpose and consequences raise serious questions, as legitimizing such a figure contradicts EU values and may negatively affect the region’s sensitive security balance.
The document’s use of the term ‘Nagorno-Karabakh,’ which no longer exists, calls into question the EU’s objectivity and professional principles. This term’s usage distorts facts and sends a political message that undermines Azerbaijan’s sovereignty. Furthermore, while the document emphasizes Armenia’s humanitarian needs amidst the Karabakh issue, it completely ignores Azerbaijan’s legitimate security concerns, such as Armenia’s former armed presence in Karabakh, threats to territorial integrity, and security risks.
The Azerbaijani Ministry of Foreign Affairs is expected to issue an additional statement on these matters, urging the EU to provide a clear and unbiased explanation of the document’s contradictory elements. The EU’s 2 December document also appears to overshadow the positive dynamics achieved in Washington on August 8, mediated by President Ilham Aliyev, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, and US President Donald Trump. The August agreement strengthened the prospect of real stability in the South Caucasus, but the new EU-Armenia document risks undermining this progress.
Political analyst Sultan Zahidov, a leading adviser at the Center of Analysis of International Relations, criticized the EU-Armenia strategic agenda. According to Zahidov, the document reflects the EU’s geopolitical ambitions and biased approach toward Azerbaijan. It does not consider regional balance, contradicting security and political realities. The EU’s support for Armenia’s defense and security sectors, coupled with geopolitical objectives in non-traditional areas, further complicates the situation.
The document’s clauses regarding ‘Armenian prisoners’ and the use of the term ‘Nagorno-Karabakh’ are also seen as manipulative, ignoring Azerbaijan’s security concerns and downplaying historical context. Zahidov emphasized that the EU’s actions do not serve peace, as they prioritize geopolitical ambitions over pragmatic politics and act under the influence of the Armenian diaspora. For lasting peace, Armenia must build trust with Azerbaijan, while the EU must recognize Azerbaijan’s central role in regional transport and energy routes.
In conclusion, the EU-Armenia document demonstrates the EU’s departure from pragmatism under political influence, further complicating the peace process in the South Caucasus. The EU’s unilateral support for Armenia, its disregard for Azerbaijan’s security concerns, and legally ambiguous commitments indicate a biased stance that threatens the potential for lasting peace in the region.