Azernews.Az

By Asim Aliyev | AzerNEWS

In the changing geopolitics of the South Caucasus, a rare and consequential development is gradually but positively taking shape. After decades of conflict, mistrust and intermittent escalation, the process of normalisation between Azerbaijan and Armenia has begun to move from aspiration to reality. The peace agreement, initialled on 8 August 2025, coupled with the gradual restoration of economic ties, signals more than a diplomatic milestone. It points to the emergence of a new regional order that is grounded in negotiated coexistence.

For the South Caucasus, which was long defined by geopolitical rivalry and unresolved grievances, this moment now carries genuine historical weight. Nevertheless, it is precisely at this fragile juncture that external political interventions risk complicating, and potentially slowing, the momentum towards peace.

Here, the European Parliament’s resolution of 30 April 2026 offers a telling example. Framed as support for Armenia’s democratic trajectory, the document nonetheless adopts a sharply critical tone towards Azerbaijan, raising questions about balance and intent. Criticism, in itself, is not unusual in international politics. But the asymmetry embedded in such resolutions risks reinforcing perceptions that external actors are less concerned with fostering stability than with advancing selective political narratives.

This matters because peace processes are not conducted in a vacuum. They are shaped by the wider political environment in which those decisions are interpreted, legitimised or contested. When that environment becomes polarised, even well-intentioned interventions can carry unintended consequences.

What we are witnessing, then, is not simply a divergence of diplomatic views, but rather something closer to political interference in an emerging post-conflict settlement. At a moment when the foundations of stability are still being laid, external messaging that appears unbalanced risks distorting the incentives for compromise. It can embolden maximalist positions, complicate trust-building efforts and introduce new layers of uncertainty into an already delicate process.

The controversy surrounding Luis Moreno Ocampo illustrates this dynamic. As a figure of international legal standing, his interventions carry weight beyond the usual realm of political commentary. Besides, his recent statements on Azerbaijan have been widely criticised as one-sided, prompting debate about the extent to which legal discourse is being drawn into broader political contestation. Reports and circulated materials suggesting links with diaspora lobbying networks have only intensified these concerns, feeding a perception that what is presented as legal analysis may, in fact, be shaped by political alignment.

Whether or not such perceptions are fully justified, their impact is real. In conflict and post-conflict settings alike, the credibility of external voices matters as much as the content of their arguments. Once the line between legal objectivity and political advocacy becomes blurred, trust in international actors begins to erode, and with it, their ability to contribute constructively to peace.

Moreover, this credibility challenge does not exist in isolation. It intersects with broader questions surrounding the integrity of European institutions, particularly the European Parliament. The fallout from the Qatargate scandal exposed structural vulnerabilities in the way lobbying influence operates within the institution. Despite subsequent reforms, lingering doubts remain about whether existing safeguards are sufficient to ensure transparency and impartiality.

In such a context, resolutions and political statements cannot be divorced from the institutional environment in which they are produced. Perceptions of bias, whether rooted in reality or not, are amplified when trust in institutional processes is already under strain. This, in turn, complicates the role that such institutions seek to play in sensitive geopolitical contexts like the South Caucasus.

The result is a region now moving along two parallel tracks. On one track, there is a tangible, if cautious, process of normalisation between Azerbaijan and Armenia. This includes efforts to reopen economic links, expand regional connectivity and establish a framework for long-term coexistence. It is a process driven primarily by regional actors themselves, reflecting a growing recognition that sustainable peace cannot be outsourced.

On the other track, there is an external layer of political engagement that risks pulling the process in a different direction. This is not necessarily a coordinated effort, nor is it always driven by overt strategic intent. But the cumulative effect of unbalanced rhetoric, lobbying influence and institutional positioning is to introduce friction into a process that depends, above all, on trust and gradual confidence-building.

The tension between these two tracks is likely to define the next phase of the South Caucasus transition. The question is not whether external actors have a role to play. It is whether that role supports or complicates the emerging regional equilibrium. Constructive engagement requires a degree of restraint, an awareness of local dynamics and a commitment to balance that goes beyond declaratory politics.

Azerbaijan’s approach to normalisation, whatever its critics may argue, reflects a broader shift towards pragmatic engagement. The emphasis on economic reintegration and infrastructure connectivity is not incidental; it is central to the logic of post-conflict stabilisation. Trade routes, investment flows, and cross-border cooperation create incentives that make a return to conflict less attractive and, over time, less feasible.

This is why the current moment matters. Peace in the South Caucasus is not yet secure, but it is no longer abstract. It is being built, step by step, through political decisions that carry both risk and opportunity. External interventions that fail to recognise this delicate balance may not be able to halt the process altogether, despite the fact that they can slow it, complicate it, and, in doing so, prolong the very instability they ostensibly seek to address.

This suggests that the challenges go beyond merely preserving peace. The key element lies in taking practical measures against forces that obstruct, or seek to obstruct, the peace process, or in deterring them from the positions they currently hold. Everyone must recognise that the conflicts which once emerged as a result of misguided decisions imposed a high cost on the region; similar missteps in the future could well produce equally damaging consequences.