Search
Close this search box.

EU’s Inconsistent Stance on Constitutional Changes in North Macedonia and Armenia Raises Questions.


Brussels: It has long been no secret that the West manipulates democratic values, using them as a tool to serve its geopolitical interests. Over the past decades, the West, under the guise of heralding democratic values, has shown selective responses to similar situations depending on the countries involved, displaying double standards.

According to Azeri-Press news agency, hundreds of examples can be cited of this biased approach. One of the latest cases is the stance taken by Western countries, particularly the European Union, on the conflicting issues in Azerbaijan-Armenia and North Macedonia-Bulgaria relations. Currently, there are several contentious issues between North Macedonia and Bulgaria concerning the cultural and historical aspects of their bilateral relations. Official Sofia demands that the status of the nearly 120,000 ethnic Bulgarians living in North Macedonia be guaranteed as a national minority, requesting constitutional amendments to this end. For this reason, Bulgaria has vetoed North Ma
cedonia’s (which is prioritizing European integration in its foreign policy) negotiations with the European Union since it became a candidate for membership in 2005. Although Skopje does not agree with these demands, it is preparing to amend its Constitution under the European Union’s influence. The country’s Prime Minister, Hristijan Mickoski, has stated that relevant proposals for the amendment are being prepared.

What’s interesting is the European Union’s stance on this issue. During her meeting with Prime Minister Christian Mitskovski on October 24, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen expressed support for North Macedonia’s decision to pursue constitutional amendments to resolve issues with Bulgaria, indicating that this step would bring the country closer to EU membership. It’s curious, however, that while the EU shows understanding toward Bulgaria’s historical and cultural concerns and supports North Macedonia’s constitutional changes, it does not apply the same stance to Azerbaijan; the
re is no call for Armenia to make constitutional amendments.

Yet, elements in Armenia’s Constitution pose serious security threats from a national security perspective rather than a historical or cultural one and could pave the way for future military conflicts in the region. For example, in Armenia’s Constitution, adopted in 1996, there is a reference to the country’s Declaration of Independence. This document, accepted by the Supreme Council of the Armenian SSR on August 23, 1990, is based on the December 1, 1989 joint decision of the Supreme Council of the Armenian SSR and the “National Council of Nagorno-Karabakh” on the “unification of the Armenian SSR and Nagorno-Karabakh.” Thus, the Supreme Council of the Armenian SSR’s illegal decision, which violates both Soviet-era documents and international law norms, legitimizes territorial claims against Azerbaijan through a chain of references in Armenia’s Constitution.

The key obstacle to peace is precisely this-the Constitution of Armenia. Azerbaijan’s mili
tary-political leadership, led by President Ilham Aliyev, has repeatedly made statements on this issue, also conveying its stance to EU officials. However, official Brussels, including Ms. von der Leyen, has not responded to Baku’s concerns with any call directed at Armenia, which openly asserts territorial claims against its neighbor.

On the other hand, Armenia continues its manipulative theses instead of concretely responding to the legitimate demands of the official Baku in connection with the constitutional amendment.

This is related to Yerevan’s departure from the provision in the draft peace treaty that “no party can refer to its domestic legislation for failure to fulfill its obligations under the peace treaty.” Official Baku rightly reminds the fact that no international agreement is superior to the Constitution and invites Yerevan to real negotiations.

Another manipulative point is that the Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan and other officials propose to sign the peace agreement with the e
xisting conditions approved so far without agreeing on several important provisions and basic principles, including the provisions contained in the Constitution. This proposal, which sounds frivolous and even absurd, means that the problem in bilateral relations is being moved into the future.

On the other hand, it seems that it is in the interest of official Brussels that the provision containing the territorial claims of Armenia against Azerbaijan is not removed from the Constitution. Thus, Armenia, which receives political, diplomatic, and military support from EU and individual EU countries such as France, loses interest in participating in constructive negotiations and prolongs the process of signing a peace agreement. The EU officials seem to forget about the constitutional amendment and call official Baku to sign a peace agreement with Armenia as soon as possible, giving incentives to Pashinyan’s government.

The EU completely freezes the political-diplomatic influence it applies to North Macedonia ab
out Armenia, adversely affecting the process and seemingly deliberately blocking the issue of signing a peace agreement.

The European Union is taking steps that escalate the situation instead of trying to eliminate this problem that threatens peace. Under the guise of a monitoring mission, it has deployed a team made up of individuals who have served in military intelligence agencies in areas of Armenia bordering Azerbaijan, extending their stay there without Baku’s approval-despite the initial agreement that the mission would remain on the ground for only two months. As if that were not enough, the number of personnel has also been increased at the expense of individuals with questionable backgrounds.

Thus, the double standards of Europe, and the West in general, emerge in the context of constitutional changes.

In any case, regardless of the position of the European Union or other international actors, if Armenia’s military-political leadership is sincere about signing a peace agreement with Azerbaijan, i
t must decide to remove the reference to the Declaration of Independence, which will create new problems in the future, from the country’s Constitution and fulfill Baku’s just demand. Lasting peace in the South Caucasus can only be achieved in this way. The European Union and others must accept this truth once and for all.