Tweet
CAUCASUS IN THE UNION: HUNGARIAN PREMIER IGNORED ADVICE IN AZERI EXTRADITION ISSUE
by Robert Friss
Nepszabadsag
3 September 2012
Hungary
[Translated from Hungarian]
We know what happened, but we do not know what led to the events that
occurred. That in scarcely the space of a few hours the ill-considered,
idiotic implementation of a seemingly simple extradition request grew
into an international scandal, with unforeseeable consequences.
One thing is certain: Hungary can expect to lose out immensely, in
a political and moral sense. The first sign of this is something
unprecedented in human memory, a country breaking off diplomatic
relations with Budapest. It is possible that on paper, there is truth
in Fidesz's normal evasive rhetoric, whereby it tries to excuse itself
by saying that it considers the affair "to be settled and concluded
in terms of international law". (And Jobbik [Movement for a Better
Hungary] agrees with this excuse).
Since we know, as they say, that Hungary followed the rules of
international law in all regards in connection with the extradition
of Ramil Sahib Safarov, and that the relevant ministry in Baku,
in an official letter (which Magyar Nemzet's online edition gained
access to on Saturday and published) had earlier said that "it
would not convert" Safarov's sentence of life imprisonment handed
down in Hungary but instead would continue to enforce it. Yet there
could have been debate on Thursday evening over the question of what
possibilities international law offers, the possibilities that the
Hungarian government would avail itself of, how it would assess these,
and what real guarantees it could get that this promise would be kept.
According to the rules of international law, as Peter Hack says,
"There is no Hungarian rule or international treaty or agreement which
requires Hungary to hand over the perpetrators of crimes committed on
its territory to another country". The events since Friday afternoon
have downgraded the official letter into an empty scrap of paper. It
is not the legal issues which must be lectured on retrospectively, but
the serious international political consequences of the extradition,
the country's moral discrediting and the method whereby the decision
itself was taken. Either the decision-maker was unaware of, or was
aware but did not pay attention to, the possible consequences of
the decision.
The responsibility in both cases falls on the government. One of the
international political consequences is the unconfirmed report from
several sources that there was shooting on the Azerbaijan-Armenian
border because a murderer using an axe to kill a sleeping Armenian
fellow-soldier in Budapest was given a presidential pardon, indeed
he was immediately promoted, as a national hero, from lieutenant to
major. The affair stirred up the bloody Azeri-Armenian enmities,
and this, for example, alarms Washington, because it has no wish
whatsoever for the bloody differences in the Caucasus to flare up,
for whatever reason, in a strategically important region.
We are scarcely wrong to suppose that Moscow shares this concern, as
it would not welcome the development of an armed conflict along its
borders again. Thus, we cannot be surprised if the US administration
has turned to Budapest voicing increasingly resolute concerns on the
part of not even the secretary of state, but the president. Brussels
(the European Union) cannot stay quiet for long, since in the wake of
the extradition it could easily happen that it finds, in the centre
of Europe, a conflict in the Caucasus which international diplomacy
had been able to localize more-or-less,although it clearly had not
been resolved.
The Hungarian Foreign Ministry finally spoke out after some delay,
in a statement issued jointly with the Ministry of Justice on
Saturday afternoon. It considered it regrettable that Armenia had
broken off diplomatic relations (according to other sources it had
suspended them but in practice the difference is negligible) with
Budapest. Then, perhaps sensing the international outrage, on Sunday
afternoon Zsolt Nemeth, state secretary for foreign affairs, handed
over a diplomatic note to the Azeri ambassador, condemning with shock
the Azeri procedure, saying that the action taken by the Azeris was
not in accordance with the atmosphere of trust "which had developed
between our countries recently and could be a good condition for our
cooperation which started off in a promising way".
Perhaps this was the problem. The atmosphere of trust and the
cooperation which started off in a promising way was important,
and on the Azeri side a condition of this in all likelihood was the
extradition. Just as it might be worthwhile to conduct business with
dictatorships on the basis of resolute interests, it is not worthwhile
to make friendly gestures to them. The Ministry of Justice spoke
earlier about the matter, referring to the already-mentioned Azeri
promise, and in the light of events, all that we can conclude from
this is that Baku conned Budapest. Possible naivete does not do a
government credit, and it is not alone in this.
"Azerbaijan took an unusual decision by pardoning a murderer who
killed an Armenian in Hungary. The principle of the rule of law must
prevail,", the Swedish foreign minister wrote on Twitter, according to
the information of the Armenian news agency Armenpress. Carl Bildt's
naivete is the naivete of democracy, which aims to call a post-Soviet
"constitutional" dictatorship to account over the principle of the
rule of law. Knowing the Hungarian prime minister's theoretical and
practical attraction to the authoritarian systems in the east, we can
scarcely suppose that he is naive. Now, however, he has experienced
directly how seriously the real dictatorships take the currying of
favour by the semi-democracies of Europe.
What is apparent at first glance is that the Hungarian government,
in a morally humiliating way, either sold the axe-wielding murderer
for Azeri investments of two to three billion dollars, or it is so
dilettante that it was unable to assess all the possible scenarios
resulting from the extradition. In any case, IlhamAliyev can rub his
hands, he could even pay Budapest but does not have to since it would
not accept the money... There also is another explanation: the state
apparatus warned the prime minister, but he disregarded the advisers,
he himself decided in the matter, and with his commitment to the east
ran, with the country, into a pitchfork which he had not expected.
This is confirmed by Novruz Mammadov, the head of the Azerbaijani
president's foreign affairs department, who told an Azeri news portal
that there had been secret negotiations over the extradition for a
year, under special supervision by the Azerbaijani president. "Ilham
Aliyev supervised the consultations between the Hungarian and Azeri
police forces. A determining role in the matter was played by the
agreement", which was reached during the visit by Prime Minister
Viktor Orban to Azerbaijan in June. From then on, it is not possible
to envisage a scenario which would not highlight the prime minister's
full responsibility in the matter.
This is in a matter which he handled in a way so as to eliminate not
just himself but the whole country from Europe's political and moral
order for a long time, and for which we will pay an enormous price,
after his possible downfall too. Neither the passage of time, nor
forgetting it, nor Fidesz's very ingenious PR policy, will resolve
this scandal in the short term. We know what happened, and we must
know how it happened - who decided the way they did, when and why,
what influenced the decision, and what is true about us extraditing
the murderer for money. Moreover, it is not just the Hungarian public
that expects a truthful answer to these questions, instead of excuses.
[Translated from Hungarian]
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
by Robert Friss
Nepszabadsag
3 September 2012
Hungary
[Translated from Hungarian]
We know what happened, but we do not know what led to the events that
occurred. That in scarcely the space of a few hours the ill-considered,
idiotic implementation of a seemingly simple extradition request grew
into an international scandal, with unforeseeable consequences.
One thing is certain: Hungary can expect to lose out immensely, in
a political and moral sense. The first sign of this is something
unprecedented in human memory, a country breaking off diplomatic
relations with Budapest. It is possible that on paper, there is truth
in Fidesz's normal evasive rhetoric, whereby it tries to excuse itself
by saying that it considers the affair "to be settled and concluded
in terms of international law". (And Jobbik [Movement for a Better
Hungary] agrees with this excuse).
Since we know, as they say, that Hungary followed the rules of
international law in all regards in connection with the extradition
of Ramil Sahib Safarov, and that the relevant ministry in Baku,
in an official letter (which Magyar Nemzet's online edition gained
access to on Saturday and published) had earlier said that "it
would not convert" Safarov's sentence of life imprisonment handed
down in Hungary but instead would continue to enforce it. Yet there
could have been debate on Thursday evening over the question of what
possibilities international law offers, the possibilities that the
Hungarian government would avail itself of, how it would assess these,
and what real guarantees it could get that this promise would be kept.
According to the rules of international law, as Peter Hack says,
"There is no Hungarian rule or international treaty or agreement which
requires Hungary to hand over the perpetrators of crimes committed on
its territory to another country". The events since Friday afternoon
have downgraded the official letter into an empty scrap of paper. It
is not the legal issues which must be lectured on retrospectively, but
the serious international political consequences of the extradition,
the country's moral discrediting and the method whereby the decision
itself was taken. Either the decision-maker was unaware of, or was
aware but did not pay attention to, the possible consequences of
the decision.
The responsibility in both cases falls on the government. One of the
international political consequences is the unconfirmed report from
several sources that there was shooting on the Azerbaijan-Armenian
border because a murderer using an axe to kill a sleeping Armenian
fellow-soldier in Budapest was given a presidential pardon, indeed
he was immediately promoted, as a national hero, from lieutenant to
major. The affair stirred up the bloody Azeri-Armenian enmities,
and this, for example, alarms Washington, because it has no wish
whatsoever for the bloody differences in the Caucasus to flare up,
for whatever reason, in a strategically important region.
We are scarcely wrong to suppose that Moscow shares this concern, as
it would not welcome the development of an armed conflict along its
borders again. Thus, we cannot be surprised if the US administration
has turned to Budapest voicing increasingly resolute concerns on the
part of not even the secretary of state, but the president. Brussels
(the European Union) cannot stay quiet for long, since in the wake of
the extradition it could easily happen that it finds, in the centre
of Europe, a conflict in the Caucasus which international diplomacy
had been able to localize more-or-less,although it clearly had not
been resolved.
The Hungarian Foreign Ministry finally spoke out after some delay,
in a statement issued jointly with the Ministry of Justice on
Saturday afternoon. It considered it regrettable that Armenia had
broken off diplomatic relations (according to other sources it had
suspended them but in practice the difference is negligible) with
Budapest. Then, perhaps sensing the international outrage, on Sunday
afternoon Zsolt Nemeth, state secretary for foreign affairs, handed
over a diplomatic note to the Azeri ambassador, condemning with shock
the Azeri procedure, saying that the action taken by the Azeris was
not in accordance with the atmosphere of trust "which had developed
between our countries recently and could be a good condition for our
cooperation which started off in a promising way".
Perhaps this was the problem. The atmosphere of trust and the
cooperation which started off in a promising way was important,
and on the Azeri side a condition of this in all likelihood was the
extradition. Just as it might be worthwhile to conduct business with
dictatorships on the basis of resolute interests, it is not worthwhile
to make friendly gestures to them. The Ministry of Justice spoke
earlier about the matter, referring to the already-mentioned Azeri
promise, and in the light of events, all that we can conclude from
this is that Baku conned Budapest. Possible naivete does not do a
government credit, and it is not alone in this.
"Azerbaijan took an unusual decision by pardoning a murderer who
killed an Armenian in Hungary. The principle of the rule of law must
prevail,", the Swedish foreign minister wrote on Twitter, according to
the information of the Armenian news agency Armenpress. Carl Bildt's
naivete is the naivete of democracy, which aims to call a post-Soviet
"constitutional" dictatorship to account over the principle of the
rule of law. Knowing the Hungarian prime minister's theoretical and
practical attraction to the authoritarian systems in the east, we can
scarcely suppose that he is naive. Now, however, he has experienced
directly how seriously the real dictatorships take the currying of
favour by the semi-democracies of Europe.
What is apparent at first glance is that the Hungarian government,
in a morally humiliating way, either sold the axe-wielding murderer
for Azeri investments of two to three billion dollars, or it is so
dilettante that it was unable to assess all the possible scenarios
resulting from the extradition. In any case, IlhamAliyev can rub his
hands, he could even pay Budapest but does not have to since it would
not accept the money... There also is another explanation: the state
apparatus warned the prime minister, but he disregarded the advisers,
he himself decided in the matter, and with his commitment to the east
ran, with the country, into a pitchfork which he had not expected.
This is confirmed by Novruz Mammadov, the head of the Azerbaijani
president's foreign affairs department, who told an Azeri news portal
that there had been secret negotiations over the extradition for a
year, under special supervision by the Azerbaijani president. "Ilham
Aliyev supervised the consultations between the Hungarian and Azeri
police forces. A determining role in the matter was played by the
agreement", which was reached during the visit by Prime Minister
Viktor Orban to Azerbaijan in June. From then on, it is not possible
to envisage a scenario which would not highlight the prime minister's
full responsibility in the matter.
This is in a matter which he handled in a way so as to eliminate not
just himself but the whole country from Europe's political and moral
order for a long time, and for which we will pay an enormous price,
after his possible downfall too. Neither the passage of time, nor
forgetting it, nor Fidesz's very ingenious PR policy, will resolve
this scandal in the short term. We know what happened, and we must
know how it happened - who decided the way they did, when and why,
what influenced the decision, and what is true about us extraditing
the murderer for money. Moreover, it is not just the Hungarian public
that expects a truthful answer to these questions, instead of excuses.
[Translated from Hungarian]
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress