The European Union (EU) loves to see itself as a value-driven normative power on the global stage. It does not just do politics; it preaches values. According to Professor of Political Science Ian Manners, the EU’s whole brand is to shape the international arena with its beloved values, both at home and abroad. One of its favourite tools to do this is the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). The ENP promises stronger ties with nearby countries, as long as everyone plays nice and shares those “European values”.
Just like the EU loves talking about values, we cannot forget its other great passion, its interests, especially its economic and energy interests. The ENP is also a strategic framework that keeps Europe’s needs front and center. The EU’s energy deals with Azerbaijan are a perfect example. While democracy and human rights are technically still on the agenda, it’s clear that under the ENP, Brussels is constantly trying to balance its moral halo with its interests.
Unfortunately for the EU, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict couldn’t be ignored. The 2023 end of hostilities, courtesy of Azerbaijan’s military offensive, led to Armenia’s accusations of human rights violations. The EU, of course, condemned Azerbaijan, but not before signing a deal to double gas imports from Baku by 2027. Talk about “do as I say, not as I do”. Unsurprisingly, Azerbaijan called out the EU’s “hypocrisy and double standard”.
The European Parliament wasn’t about to stay quiet either. As the loudest moral voice in the EU’s foreign policy choir, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) joined the condemnation, urging Brussels to hold Azerbaijan accountable while pushing for a stronger human-rights stance. With 720 members representing 27 nationalities, the Parliament likes to see itself as the Union’s conscience, and, increasingly, its megaphone. Over the past two decades, it’s evolved into a “formidable power” in external relations, gradually chipping away at a field long dominated by member states.
Recently, President Trump announced a peace agreement between Yerevan and Baku, adding a new layer of American mediation to the South Caucasus puzzle. But while Washington plays peacemaker, the European Parliament’s reaction matters for an entirely different reason. When the Parliament speaks with one voice on issues like this, it signals a rare moment of unity in a house usually marked by fragmentation. After all, inside the Parliament, national interests and ideological loyalties often run deep, and when you scratch beneath the surface, there’s a lot more division than you might think. In the following section, I will dive into the dynamics, history, and underlying political tensions that shape the European Parliament’s approach to the EU-Azerbaijan relations.
Background
The Nagorno-Karabakh region has been recognised internationally as part of Azerbaijan for decades. In 1921, following the Bolsheviks’ occupation of Armenia and Azerbaijan, the region was declared an autonomous region within the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan despite the predominant Armenian population. In 1988, mass demonstrations in the region led to anti-Armenian violence in Azerbaijan.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, Armenian authorities in Nagorno-Karabakh declared the independence of the region, leading to a full-scale war from 1991 to 1994. Since the ceasefire of 1994, it had been controlled by ethnic Armenians. In 2020, during the second Nagorno-Karabakh war, Azerbaijan gained the territory that was lost in the last decades, and until 2023 the tensions persisted. Azerbaijan started a military offensive in the region that ended that September, leading to one of the major exodus of ethnic Armenians from the region.
For Brussels, Azerbaijan is both indispensable and indefensible. As the bloc scrambles to replace Russian gas, Baku has become its go-to energy partner. But the marriage of convenience comes with moral headaches. The EP denounces Azerbaijan’s crackdowns on free speech and opposition voices, even as it quietly applauds each new energy deal that keeps the gas flowing westward.
Europe’s capitals are equally split. Italy is Azerbaijan’s second-biggest gas customer and it prefers pragmatism over ethical principles, recently signing an energy deal between Ansaldo Energia and Azerenerji. France, on the other hand, takes the moral high ground, heavily influenced by its large Armenian diaspora and Paris’s public sympathy for Yerevan. These clashing national preferences inevitably filter into the European Parliament, where MEPs’ votes tend to echo their domestic political climates.
The cherry on top was COP29, hosted in Baku. It was supposed to polish Azerbaijan’s international image but ended up breaking up a storm of irony and outrage. Critics blasted the summit as “greenwashing on Caspian oil,” as activists struggled to protest in a country known for silencing dissent. The summit descended into scandal after President Ilham Aliyev accused France of “neocolonialism” and blamed Paris for unrest in New Caledonia, prompting President Emmanuel Macron and his climate minister to boycott the event entirely. The drama reminded everyone that behind the climate pledges lies a raw struggle for influence, energy, and narrative control.
The European Apparatus
MEPs are directly elected by the citizens of the 27 member states. They are organized by ideology, not by nationality. The political groups were created in order to achieve several objectives following common values under one ideology. Yet, national loyalties don’t simply vanish at the supranational level. MEPs often find themselves navigating between two worlds, the ideological expectations of their European party group and the political demands of their national governments.
The GAL-TAN political spectrum consists of the cultural and social ideological division that complements the traditional left-right economic dimension in party politics. GAL stands for
Green, Alternative, and Libertarian values and it is related to the progressive positions that prioritize civil liberties, human rights, social justice, environmental protection, and pluralism. TAN stands for Traditional, Authoritarian, and Nationalist values, which emphasize law and order and social cohesion through traditional values.
In the case concerning this paper, MEPs from left-wing groups, typically aligned with GAL values, emphasize human rights and democratic values and often criticize countries like Azerbaijan for human rights abuses. On the other hand, right-wing MEPs, associated with TAN values, tend to prioritize energy security and economic interests. They sometimes frame human rights issues just to justify closer economic and energy ties with Azerbaijan.
Figure 1. Member States by Armenian Diaspora Influence and Energy Dependence. (Own Creation)
National factors also play a significant role. Diaspora communities, especially those with strong national identities like the Armenian diaspora, play a crucial role in shaping policy debates. MEPs from countries with large Armenian diasporas frequently mention Armenia in parliamentary debates, reflecting domestic pressure from their constituents. Conversely, MEPs from countries with higher energy dependency often focus on energy security and advocate for stronger cooperation with energy powers, aligning their positions with national economic and strategic interests. MEPs from these countries may evoke the importance of energy cooperation agreements, like the EU-Azerbaijan agreement.
So what do the MEPs actually say?
Speeches in the EP reveal much more about the true views of MEPs than roll-call votes. While voting records show the final decision, they often reflect party discipline; MEPs are expected to vote as their political group dictates, limiting the visibility of individual opinion or national influence. Speeches, on the other hand, are moments where MEPs speak in their own voice, justify their positions, and address both ideological and national concerns without the immediate pressure of their political groups.
Right-wing vs left-wing MEPs
Right-wing MEPs such as Angel Dzhambazki (ECR, Bulgaria) and Silvia Sardone (EPP, Italy) expressed their stance through a historical and religious lens. Dzhambazki references the Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) as an “indigenous historically Armenian territory” and emphasizes the Armenian nation’s Christian heritage. Sardone mentions that “the ethnic cleansing, war crimes, destroyed churches, conveying a strong moral indictment of Azerbaijan that is grounded in a shared Christian identity.
Among left-wing MEPs, the articulation is more uniformly framed in explicit human rights terms and international law. Costas Mavrides (S&D, Cyprus) argued that Azerbaijan´s aggression has forced the displacement of the indigenous Armenian population, and is a crime against humanity. Similarly, Pernando Barrena Arza (The Left, Spain) stated that Azerbaijan could make “a country disappear overnight (with) a complete ethnic cleansing of the entire Armenian population”. Furthermore, Marie Toussaint (Greens/EFA, France) argued that the EU should have boycotted COP29 in Baku and suspend any kind of agreement with Azerbaijan until “Armenia’s territorial integrity is fully and absolutely respected”.
It can be said that while the right-wing critiques are motivated by religious and historical ties with Armenia, the left-wing MEPs’ critiques are based entirely on human rights principles. Still, both groups converge in maintaining a negative stance on EU-Azerbaijan relations.
Armenian Diaspora and Energy Dependency
Looking at national influences, it can be highlighted that MEPs from countries with significant Armenian diasporas, especially French representatives, are particularly vocal on the issue. Nathalie Loiseau (Renew Europe, France) condemned Azerbaijan’s trials against Armenians as being exclusively ethnically motivated, while Marina Mesure (The Left, France) emphasized the forced displacement of Armenians. Similarly, Tomasz Froelich (ESN, Germany) described Armenians as “proud people, attacked by Azerbaijan and abandoned by the EU”. However, humanitarian concerns extend beyond diaspora influence, with MEPs like Jordi Solé (Greens/EFA Spain) or Klemen Groselj (Renew, Slovenia) who stressed the importance of guaranteeing the rights and security of the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Even when energy issues were mentioned, they were framed critically. Catarina Vieira (Greens/EFA, Portugal) warned that EU values were being sacrificed because of energy interests. Anna Bonfrisco (Identity and Democracy, Italy), on the other hand, criticized the energy partnerships, pointing out that they lacked conditions to protect the Armenian communities in the region. Even MEPs like Peter van Dalen (EPP, The Netherlands) described the EU’s energy agreements with Azerbaijan as a “geopolitical mistake”. It can be concluded that human rights continue to override the necessity of energy deals.
Specific cases
In the border chorus of condemnation over the relations between Azerbaijan, a few MEPs stand out. As the EP´s standing rapporteur for Azerbaijan, Zeljana Zovko (EPP, Croatia) occupies a sensitive spot. In the 2023 report on EU-Azerbaijan relations, she acknowledged that “while it is in the EU´s interest to build on the strategic cooperation and economic integration with Azerbaijan, it should also continue to promote democratic standards in the country”. She has a nuanced position that reflects the tension that the EU is going through.
Other MEPs made particularly forceful statements that highlight edge cases or unusually strong rhetoric. Nathalie Loiseau (Renew, France) compared the trials of Armenian hostages in Azerbaijan with the mock trials during the rule of Stalin, and urged the EU not to remain silent. Another notable feature of the debates was the frequent mention of third countries, especially Türkiye and Russia, as key culprits of the conflict. Greek MEP (non-aligned) Ioannis Lagos criticized the EP’s tolerance of the “unacceptable stance of Türkiye in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.” Dutch MEP (EPP) Peter van Dalen and Portuguese MEP (EPP) Paul Rangel repeatedly called for EU sanctions against Türkiye, warning that President Erdoğan harbors “neo-Ottoman ambitions.” Polish MEP (ECR) Ryszard Czarnecki highlighted Russia as the real beneficiary of the conflict: “it is not the Armenians, not the Azeris, but Russia.” Slovakian MEP (EPP) Vladimir Bilčík observed that “the conflict had its true origin in Soviet times and in Moscow,” while Italian MEP (S&D) Alessandra Moretti argued that “Russia has exerted its influence over years and has failed to maintain stability.”
These statements illustrate that the debate around the EU-Azerbaijan relationship has become a projection screen for far bigger anxieties within the European Parliament. The result is a chorus that’s anything but harmonious. But, entirely reflective of an EU that still needs to figure out how to balance values and interests with its own internal disagreements.
Conclusion
In the end, it can be said that how MEPs talk about Azerbaijan reveals far more than simple foreign-policy disagreements. The EP’s debates lay bare a Union torn between its proclaimed mission as a defender of human rights and its dependence on an authoritarian energy supplier. The reality is that a global actor has found itself between democratic values and realpolitik. In the case of Azerbaijan, the members of the EP may speak with passion, and even conviction, but their voices reflect a broader truth about Europe’s identity crisis. The EU can condemn, negotiate or sanction, but as long as its moral compass and interest point to different directions, its foreign policy agenda will remain exactly what the debates show it to be: complicated.
Photo by jorono via https://pixabay.com/photos/international-banner-flag-2690851/
