BAKU, Azerbaijan, May 4. The Temporary Commission of the Azerbaijani Parliament against Foreign Interference and Hybrid Threats has issued a statement on the hybrid attack campaigns carried out against Azerbaijan by pro-Armenian circles based in the West.
Trend presents the statement.
Against the backdrop of the continuous successes achieved by Azerbaijan under the leadership of President Ilham Aliyev and the implementation of the peace agenda between Azerbaijan and Armenia, as well as on the eve of the 13th session of the UN World Urban Forum (WUF13) to be held in Baku, the use of hybrid threat elements against Azerbaijan by pro-Armenian circles based in Western countries has been recently observed.
The similarity of the observed activity with the activities carried out on the eve of and during the COP29 conference held in Azerbaijan necessitated an investigation by the Temporary Commission of the Azerbaijani Parliament against Foreign Interference and Hybrid Threats (the commission) within its powers.
At that time, two main types of hybrid threats against Azerbaijan were widespread - "Lawfare", that is, pressure through legal means, and disinformation campaigns.
The commission issued a statement on May 2 of this year regarding the coordinated disinformation campaign conducted by pro-Armenian circles. At the same time, the Azerbaijani Parliament gave the European Parliament, the House of Representatives of the Belgian Federal Parliament, and the House of Representatives of the Netherlands, who wanted to put pressure on Azerbaijan, the appropriate responses, took the necessary steps, and expressed its strong protest against the unfair and anti-Azerbaijani resolutions adopted.
The commission first exposed fraud after a comparative analysis of the texts of both the draft version (04.02.2026) and the adopted version (16.04.2026) of the resolution adopted by the Chamber of Representatives of the Belgian Federal Parliament, which also has no legal force and is not binding.
Thus, while the draft was presented to the committee by author Michel De Maegd and four other co-authors with a mild language, a neutral title ("Resolution calling on Belgium to use the European Union-Armenia and European Political Community summits to be held in Yerevan in May 2026 to strengthen the peace process between Armenia and Azerbaijan"), the final version was more radical, "enriched" with demands for tough steps against Azerbaijan and interference in the internal affairs of the country.
The purpose of using such tactics was to pass the draft resolution through the Foreign Affairs Committee and recommend it to the plenary session in a convenient form.
Another fact that increases the doubts in this regard is related to the processes that took place during the plenary session on April 16. First of all, according to the rules of procedure in the Belgian parliament, all issues put to a vote during the plenary session (whether a resolution or another document) are put to the vote at the end of the session, not immediately after the discussion.
As can be seen from the video footage of the discussion and voting on this resolution against Azerbaijan, the meeting hall was almost empty during the discussions, and only 30-35 out of 150 MPs were present. This suggests that for about 80% of Belgian MPs, neither the speeches made on the resolution nor its content were important. However, since there were other important issues on the agenda that day and participation in the vote was necessary, all MPs in the hall (134 people) automatically voted for the resolution against Azerbaijan.
Another noteworthy point about this resolution is that it explicitly calls for "acting in accordance with the examples of the Netherlands and Luxembourg in relations with Armenia." The inclusion of such a phrase in the resolution suggests that MPs from a number of European Union member states, operating under the influence of the Armenian lobby, have formed a coordinated "pro-Armenian bloc".
The facts established that the lobby organization "European Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy (EAFJD)", headquartered in Brussels and operating in 13 European countries, played a key role in this matter, that it had close relations with several members of the Belgian Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee, and that it made a presentation to that committee in April 2025.
Considering Michel De Maegdin's activities in parliament from 2019 through 2026, seven of all the draft resolutions he authored or co-authored were exclusively against Azerbaijan. Within the framework of this activity, he addressed a total of six written questions to government officials of Belgium regarding anti-Azerbaijani issues or issues mentioning Azerbaijan. The number of verbal questions he asked during plenary sessions was three, and the number of such questions during committee meetings was 19.
The investigation determined that De Maegd was in institutional cooperation with Armenian officials and Armenian lobby groups operating in Belgium, including the "EAFJD". The analysis of his social media and media activities showed that he often gave interviews to Armenian media outlets and unequivocally displayed a pro-Armenian position. De Maegd's statements in an interview with Armenian media in March last year clearly demonstrate that the parliamentarian was used as a tool of a hybrid threat by the Armenian lobby.
"We must raise our voice. We must increase the pressure on
Azerbaijan by all possible means. I have discussed this issue again
with the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister. This issue is
urgent. This draft resolution serves this purpose precisely. It
calls on the Belgian Government to take action and use its
influence. The resolution calls for sanctions against the Aliyev
regime. I will be as active on this issue as ever, and I will never
give up in this fight," he said.
The investigation into the "motion" document against Azerbaijan,
initiated by Don Ceder in the Dutch House of Representatives, has
determined that the Armenian lobby was behind these activities.
First of all, such documents, called "motions," are a form of
proposal addressed in writing by MPs and adopted by vote on any law
or policy document in committee meetings, and on any issue
discussed in plenary sessions.
On April 16, one of the "motions" voiced by Don Ceder was against
Azerbaijan, and the other was against Türkiye, mentioning
Azerbaijan by name. A noteworthy fact about the second "motion"
regarding the recognition of the so-called "Armenian genocide" by
the Dutch Government is that it also calls for using the experience
of other states, as in the resolution of the Belgian Parliament
dated April 16. If the experiences of the Netherlands and
Luxembourg were referred to there, Don Ceder's proposal requests
"to turn to Belgium and Luxembourg for advice and expert support,
if necessary."
An analysis of his anti-Azerbaijani and anti-Turkish activities in the Dutch Parliament, written requests (Note: 12 of the total requests he has submitted since he was elected as a member of parliament have been anti-Azerbaijani and anti-Turkish), social media and media posts and posts shows that, within the framework of close cooperation with the lobby organization "Federation of Armenian Organizations of the Netherlands (FAON)", he's also used as a tool of hybrid threat against Azerbaijan, like his Belgian colleagues. The official website of the Dutch Parliament indicates that on January 28, 2024, he accepted two concert tickets as a gift from the "Armenian Foundation of the Netherlands".
An analysis of the resolution "Supporting democratic stability in Armenia", adopted by the European Parliament (EP) on April 30, also revealed a number of interesting points.
The European Parliament consists of 720 members (currently this figure is 719), which unite eight political groups and independents.
The first striking point about the aforementioned resolution was the date of the proposed changes to its draft. Thus, although each of the six political groups represented in the EP submitted their proposals separately, the fact that the date coincides with the anniversary of the so-called Armenian genocide - April 24 - and the reference there to the EP resolution "100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide" dated April 15, 2015, further increases suspicions about the role of the global Armenian network.
Examination of the identities and connections of a total of 36
people who submitted the proposals determined that almost all of
them had connections with the Armenian lobby and occasionally spoke
out with pro-Armenian positions.
On April 28, the final draft of the resolution was proposed by 42
people represented in diverse political groups and submitted to the
plenary session. On April 30, out of the actual 719 MPs, 571 people
participated in the vote, of which 476 were in favor of the
resolution, 47 were against, and 48 abstained. Later, two MPs also
expressed their intention to vote in favor of the document.
The country representation of those 42 people is as follows:
• Poland – 8 people;
• Belgium and Lithuania – 5 people each;
• Czech Republic and Slovakia – 3 people each;
• Germany, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Croatia, and France – 2
people each;
• Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, and Romania – 1
person each.
By political group:
• European People's Party – 19 people;
• European Conservatives and Reformists – 9 people;
• Renew Europe – 8 people;
• Socialists and Democrats – 5 people;
• Greens/European Free Alliance – 1 person.
Although the resolution is directly related to Armenia, all points criticizing the country's domestic policy in the proposals for the draft were removed from the final version.
At the same time, although two of the projects proposed by the six political groups do not contain any negative points regarding Azerbaijan, the analysis of the proposals of 34 MPs representing the Left, Socialists and Democrats, European People's Party and European Conservatives and Reformists groups shows that they contain several unfair, biased and extremely biased statements regarding Azerbaijan, which imply interference in the internal affairs of the country, contradict the norms and principles of international law. The parliamentarians who came up with the most strongly anti-Azerbaijani initiatives were Giorgos Georgiou (Cyprus) and Marina Mesure (France) on behalf of the Left group.
The analysis of the initiatives used against Azerbaijan in the resolution itself and the proposed annexes to it determined that they are identical to the theses periodically voiced by the global Armenian network and individual lobby groups.
The facts regarding the individuals represented in all three parliaments once again give reason to say that they are active members of the Armenian lobby network, act in a coordinated manner in accordance with the anti-Azerbaijani and anti-Turkish agenda, and are used as hybrid threat tools.
Analysis of these networks shows that the same organizations and individuals demonstrated similar "activity" in the anti-Azerbaijani processes in 2024. Detailed information about them can be found in the report "Hybrid attacks against COP29: Our society must not fall victim to hybrid threats!", presented by the commission in December 2024.
(https://meclis.gov.az/news.php?id=5851&lang=az)
Forces that don't want the implementation of the peace agenda between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the process to reach its logical conclusion, certain circles that oppose the cooperation, development, and prosperity in the region, and the happy future of the peoples, are trying to undermine the relations that are being formed between the two countries in every possible way.
According to the сommission's conclusion, such activities are being carried out purposefully and aim to attract attention ahead of the "European Political Community" Summit and the European Union-Armenia Summit in Armenia.
The extent to which the Armenian authorities are involved in these processes is also a serious question and subject to doubt. The Armenian officials should take serious steps to prevent such situations that will undermine the peace agenda, or clarify the issue. Otherwise, this may be perceived as a disingenuous approach to the peace agenda.
Finally, the Commission against Foreign Interference and Hybrid Threats appeals to its parliamentary colleagues in foreign parliaments and asks them not to support the false and "peace-loving" initiatives of some of their colleagues on issues that could undermine the fragile peace process between Armenia and Azerbaijan, as a result of the theses and activities of the Armenian lobby, as well as relations between the countries.
