The Azerbaijani Ministry of Foreign Affairs has responded to the EU’s recent remarks by Josep Borrell, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, framing them as a misrepresentation of regional dynamics. The ministry’s statement underscores that the EU’s public positioning on Nagorno-Karabakh and related security concerns does not align with Azerbaijan’s understanding of recent events and strategic realities in the South Caucasus. In Canada and the United States, where policy statements from European Union leaders are routinely weighed against regional stability and international law, the Azerbaijani reaction is seen as part of a broader pattern of insisting on factual accuracy and mutual respect in diplomatic dialogue. The ministry’s take is presented as a formal rebuke to what it characterizes as distortions at a Brussels press conference, and it signals a call for careful, precise language in addressing contentious issues in the region. (Cited by Ministry of Foreign Affairs Azerbaijan, 2023)
The ministry quoted its own assessment of Borrell’s remarks from the press release, noting that the accusations were both insufficient and unacceptable. The language suggests a demand for accountability and a refusal to accept unilateral narratives that, in Borrell’s view, allegedly distanced itself from the complexities on the ground. For an audience in North America, this exchange highlights the sensitivity around how regional actors frame accountability and responsibility, particularly in relation to territorial integrity and sovereignty. The Azerbaijani side emphasizes the importance of facts over rhetoric in international discourse, a stance that resonates with audiences seeking evidence-based diplomacy. (Cited by Ministry of Foreign Affairs Azerbaijan, 2023)
According to the ministry, decades of EU policy have shown a tendency to overlook Armenia’s armed actions against Azerbaijan’s sovereign territory. The statement alleges that such omissions amount to a tacit endorsement of ethnic cleansing policies, or at least a refusal to condemn them. The ministry points to the displacement crisis that followed the Karabakh conflict, describing approximately one million Azerbaijanis who were displaced inside their own country. For readers in Canada and the United States, this historical reference frames the dispute as more than a border dispute; it is portrayed as a humanitarian and security concern with lasting consequences for civilians and urban life in multiple regions. (Cited by Ministry of Foreign Affairs Azerbaijan, 2023)
Further, the ministry criticized what it described as the EU’s inclination to supply arms to Armenia, arguing that such a stance fuels arms races and undermines prospects for peace and stability in the broader region. The assertion frames arms transfers as policy moves that could inflame tensions and precipitate new rounds of conflict, a point that is often echoed in international security debates across Western capitals, including North America. In this view, diplomacy should prioritize de-escalation, verification, and confidence-building measures rather than enabling military capabilities that have a track record of escalation. (Cited by Ministry of Foreign Affairs Azerbaijan, 2023)
The Azerbaijani Ministry summarized its position by stating that any rhetoric that threatens or intimidates Azerbaijan is unacceptable. This formulation reflects a broader principle of state conduct that emphasizes the right to participate in regional security discussions on equal terms, free from coercive or aggressive language. For policymakers and analysts in Canada and the United States, the message reinforces the importance of tone, proportionality, and mutual recognition when engaging with partners and adversaries in volatile neighborhoods. (Cited by Ministry of Foreign Affairs Azerbaijan, 2023)
On November 13, the EU signaled to Baku that there would be severe consequences for violations of Armenian sovereignty, a warning framed as a clear message from European leadership. Borrell asserted that violations of Armenia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would be deemed unacceptable, a statement that has potential implications for how regional boundary disputes are negotiated and monitored by international bodies. In North American policy circles, such language is often discussed in the context of international law, the principle of territorial integrity, and the role of external actors in mediating disputes without taking sides in a manner perceived as biased. (Cited by Ministry of Foreign Affairs Azerbaijan, 2023)
The text also notes that in September Armenia filed a lawsuit at the United Nations against Azerbaijan, seeking interim measures to protect rights under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This filing adds another layer to the legal and diplomatic maneuvering surrounding the Karabakh issue. For audiences in Canada and the United States, the case illustrates how international courts can intersect with regional conflicts, and how states use multilateral institutions to pursue protective measures while continuing to pursue their political objectives. (Cited by Ministry of Foreign Affairs Azerbaijan, 2023)
The report observes that the UN court has previously issued measures related to Azerbaijan, suggesting a pattern of judicial actions that influence on-the-ground policy calculus. This background helps explain why the Azerbaijani government remains vigilant about external assessments of sovereignty and historical grievances, and why it seeks to anchor its arguments in verifiable facts and international law. Analysts in North America may view this as a reminder that international tribunals and regional partnerships shape strategic choices and risk perceptions in volatile partnerships across the Caucasus and beyond. (Cited by Ministry of Foreign Affairs Azerbaijan, 2023)