How EU's politicians cast shadow over influence of Union?

Against the background of recent processes in the South Caucasus, the inadequate steps taken by European and Western politicians have had a negative impact on the image of the continent's political figures in general. In particular, the biased behaviour of some politicians in important international organisations has led to the weakening of pan-European politics as a whole.

Today, if you look at any organisation in Europe, taking a biased position with pro-Armenianism and political orders has become a brand. The normalisation of corruption has made influential politicians and leaders dependent on certain forces, and influential leaders are no longer present.

The Garabagh economic region of Azerbaijan was still the main subject of some political tribunes until it was freed from the occupation. Although some politicians hide their behind-the-scenes roles and allegedly express their displeasure with the processes in Garabagh, in fact, the situation until November 10, 2020, was completely in their favour.

Meanwhile, although France's openly biased position was lucid and more attractive, Germany's subsequent similar position began to create a different impression on the European Union. For example, at a time when the French side is trying to form a serious threat in the South Caucasus, it is a paradoxical phenomenon that people like Emmanuel Macron are trying to behave as the main politician of Europe. Even for a country like Germany to have a foreign minister at this level is a big blow to the country's image.

It should be recalled that, although the Federal Republic of Germany has been among the countries that have gained prestige with great achievements in the economic and technological fields during the last forty years, today it is losing that image due to some half-hearted politicians.

Mutual relations between Azerbaijan and Germany in the field of scientific, political, and economic cooperation have always developed at a high level since 1992. The leaders of both countries have taken serious steps to further develop this cooperation. But today, the fact that Germany has turned itself into an imitator of French policy has shaken confidence in the Union. It is a shame for a country like Germany that its foreign minister lies about meeting refugees and internally displaced persons in Azerbaijan. In fact, the matter is this: she was offered a meeting, but she refused the meeting for "some reason".

In addition, the situation in which the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Annalena Baerbock, is infected by the financial influence of foreign lobbyists also causes some doubt and threats about Germany's foreign policy. On the eve of Armenia recognizing and even respecting the territories of Azerbaijan, it is an extremely ridiculous fact that the German FM acted against this. The first question that arises is: why does Minister Annlena Baerbock distort the names of Azerbaijani cities? By the way, in her speeches, she mentions Shusha as "Shushi" and Khankendi as "Stepanakert"?

This once again casts some doubts about the possibility of Germany's having its own political will. and it shows more that the political system of this country is led by France. Germany's changing position and non-objective approach give a clear sign that it has no independent foreign policy. In addition, the deliberate misrepresentation of topographical names by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany clearly demonstrates how the German FM uses the political status of Germany for her personal interests.

This is not only the thinking of politicians like Annelena Baerbock, but also the way of looking at the world in Europe as a whole, which is infected with the disease of biased politics. If it were not so, they would not fund some so-called NGOs and public associations that serve themselves in countries in vain.

When she was in Azerbaijan, the meeting with representatives of a number of so-called NGOs, who were national traitors and ready to do anything for the sake of a grant, opposed to the liberation of Garabagh, is an example that makes Germany's political course transparent. The working principle is very simple: cursing Azerbaijan a lot means a lot of grants. All things aside, they should at least not call themselves representatives of civil society. Civil society organisations should, in fact, think about the needs of citizens rather than serving political ambitions. Is it not true? If this is the case for them, why are these so-called NGOs indifferent to the events in Palestine?
Germany, which today supports the Israeli operation in Gaza, should now be ashamed. The saddest thing is the ban on pro-Palestine actions in Germany. Is this the value they give to human rights? Is this what they are talking about—freedom of speech, the right to free assembly?

It can be said with certainty that Germany and its foreign minister personally have a hand in the blood shed in Gaza today. When there was a statement calling for a humanitarian ceasefire within the EU, it was Berbok who spoke out against it.

This means that the democratic principles of the EU are implemented only on the basis of certain orders and interests, and neither in Europe nor in the conflict centres of the world where the EU intervenes, no steps are taken outside of those interests.

It is no coincidence that the steps taken by the EU in the post-conflict period regarding Garabagh are identical with the issue of Palestine today. Because politicians in the leadership position of the European Union, as well as leading representatives representing organisations and institutions, serve the principles of the political course determined on the basis of common interests.