Theme

Monday Commentary

Monday commentary by Dr Dennis Sammut, Director of LINKS Europe and Managing Editor of commonspace.eu.

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: UN Peacekeeping must be protected in more ways than one

Monday Commentary: UN Peacekeeping must be protected in more ways than one

The news that six members of UNIFIL – the UN Peacekeeping force in Lebanon – have been killed in the last few weeks, has been overshadowed by the broader desperation of the situation in the Middle East. In March Israel launched an orgy of violence in Lebanon, killing thousands of people, and forcing the displacement of more than a million Lebanese.  Yet, the killing of the six UNIFIL members is a significant indicator of the gravity of the situation facing UN peacekeepers in numerous trouble-spots around the globe. Israel and Hizballah are blamed for the killing of the six UNIFIL soldiers – four Indonesian and two French – in separate incidents. Their death unfortunately is symbolic of a dangerous trend: UN peacekeepers are increasingly specifically targeted. They are in the eyes of belligerents a legitimate target. They are not. Killing peacekeepers is a violation of international humanitarian law. The perpetrators of this crime must be pursued. The UN had 11 peacekeeping operations with 61,197 peacekeepers in 2025. This number is set to decrease. It is financial constraints that are a more existential threat to UN peacekeeping operations. The impact of the UN’s liquidity crisis on UN peacekeeping operations is a major concern. The UN is expected to run out of cash in July if member states, and particularly the US, do not pay their dues. The Secretary-General has warned that the organisation faces a major risk of “imminent financial collapse”, a situation that would have catastrophic implications for its peacekeeping missions. The crisis in UN peacekeeping, and the broader UN financial crisis, reflects a deeper problem in the UN, and particularly in the leadership of the UN Security Council, and  its legitimacy. it is financial constraints that are a more existential threat to UN peacekeeping operations. The impact of the UN’s liquidity crisis on UN peacekeeping operations is a major concern. The UN is expected to run out of cash in July if member states, and particularly the US, do not pay their dues. The Secretary-General has warned that the organisation faces a major risk of “imminent financial collapse”, a situation that would have catastrophic implications for its peacekeeping missions. The crisis in UN peacekeeping, and the broader UN financial crisis, reflects a deeper problem in the UN, and particularly in the leadership of the UN Security Council, and  its legitimacy. (click the image to read the full Monday Commentary)

Monday commentary by Dr Dennis Sammut, Director of LINKS Europe and Managing Editor of commonspace.eu.