Tweet
EU AND AZERBAIJAN: SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT PDF PRINT E-MAIL
AzeriReport , Azerbaijan
Aug 6 2013
By Eldar Mamedov, Eurasianet.org
BAKU. August 8, 2013: At a cabinet meeting in mid-July, Azerbaijani
President Ilham Aliyev lashed out at the European Parliament for
supposedly conducting a "dirty campaign" against Baku. The shrill tone
of Aliyev's comments indicate that European pressure on Azerbaijan
to respect basic rights is stinging the Aliyev administration.
The latest EU parliamentary resolution critical of Azerbaijan came
in June, when European officials called for the release of Ilgar
Mammadov, a jailed leader of the opposition Republican Alternative
movement. Euro-criticism in 2012 included the loud and public
condemnation by European MPs of an officially orchestrated smear
campaign against independent investigative journalist Khadija
Ismailova.
Aliyev, who is expected to travel to Brussels to confer with top EU
officials in the fall, showed himself to be sensitive to criticism. At
the July cabinet meeting, he dismissed the recent European assessments
of Azerbaijani policy as the work of a jealous few. "There are still
prejudiced people, [European] parliamentarians who do not accept
Azerbaijan's success, and they are systematically trying to make
attacks on Azerbaijan," he groused, according to comments broadcast
on state television.
While official statements critical of Baku's behavior have succeeded in
vexing government officials, if European criticism is actually going
to be effective in getting Aliyev & Co. to change its authoritarian
ways, it's important for European officials to dispel some persistent
myths among Azerbaijani policymakers surrounding EU actions.
Here are a few widely held assumptions in Baku that European officials
should keep in mind as they consider taking the next steps:
1) European criticism of Azerbaijanīs human rights record is
the work of the pro-Armenian lobby and other actors who wish to
undermine Azerbaijanīs "independent foreign policy". Not true. There
is no evidence that the members of the European Parliament who are
critical of Azerbaijanīs rights practices have any connections to the
Armenian lobby or to Russia, which is believed to want to re-integrate
Azerbaijan into its own sphere of political and economic influence. In
fact, some critical Euro MPs, such as the Austrian Green Ulrike
Lunacek, are on record as demanding the withdrawal of Armenian forces
from occupied Azerbaijani territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh.
The reason for European criticisms is simple: the situation of the
human rights is deteriorating, in spite of the commitments undertaken
voluntarily by Azerbaijan. When the EU offers criticism, it is simply
assessing the country on its own merits.
2) Demands for democratization and respect for human rights are nothing
but a smokescreen to promote the regime change. Not by a long shot. The
last thing the EU wants is a new source of instability in an already
combustible part of the world. In fact, the EU is quite comfortable
with the Aliyev administration, as long as it delivers on energy
cooperation and regional security -- particularly counter-terrorism,
Afghanistan and Iran. But for the sake of its own credibility, the EU
cannot completely ignore human rights issues. It is also in the EUīs
self-interest: it needs a government in Baku with enhanced domestic
legitimacy as its partner. Its message to Aliyev seems to be: better
to start reforms today, while you can manage a controlled transition
from a position of strength, rather than to risk a popular explosion
tomorrow. But if the government persists in tightening the screws,
and in the meantime, a viable opposition emerges, the calculus might
shift in favor of the latter.
3) Azerbaijan is unfairly singled out and is a victim of double
standards. Yes, there are double standards, but they actually work
in favor of Azerbaijan. For instance, the European consensus holds
that Belarus has nine political prisoners. In Azerbaijan, there are
at least several dozens of them. Yet several Belarussian officials
are subjected to EU travel bans and an asset freeze, while the EU has
never even considered similar measures against Azerbaijani officials.
Furthermore, ODIHR, the OSCE's democracy watchdog, has never recognized
presidential and parliamentary elections in both Belarus and Azerbaijan
as free and fair. But it is only the Belarussian parliament that is not
recognized as such by the European Parliament, and which is banned from
participation in EURONEST, the parliamentary dimension of the Eastern
Partnership. Azerbaijanīs Milli Mejlis delegation, on the other hand,
enjoys full participation rights in inter-parliamentary bodies.
4) The EU ignores the Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani lands and the
human rights of Azerbaijani IDPs. Not true. The European Parliament
adopted a resolution in 2010 on the need for an EU strategy in the
South Caucasus (known as the Kirilov Report) in which it clearly calls
for the withdrawal of Armenian forces from all occupied territories of
Azerbaijan, and upholds the right to return for Azerbaijani IDPs. In
2012, in addition to these demands, the European Parliament for
the first time linked the conclusion of association agreements with
Armenia to progress in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace talks, including the
withdrawal from occupied territories of Azerbaijan and return of IDPs.
Of course, Azerbaijan could have won more converts to its cause had it
stopped sending wrong messages, such as the pardon and promotion of
Ramil Safarov, an army officer guilty of the murder of an Armenian
counterpart, and the state-orchestrated campaign against Akram
Aylisli, a writer who dared to depict a more nuanced picture of the
Azeri-Armenian conflict than is usually accepted in Azerbaijan.
5) There is no point in satisfying EU demands, since Azerbaijan will
never be admitted to the EU anyway. Too simplistic. It is true that
the EU has lost its appetite for enlargement, and the example of
Turkey's stalled candidacy lends credence to this assertion. But
current fiscal troubles will not last forever, and Europeans
might still change their mind on enlargement. Meanwhile, there are
other forms of association with the EU that can be beneficial for
Azerbaijan, such as association agreement, free-trade agreement and
visa liberalization. Most importantly, reforms that conform to EU
norms are needed not to satisfy Brussels, but to improve the quality
of life of Azerbaijanis. If implemented consistently, they might
even help Azerbaijan to win over hearts and minds of the residents
of Nagorno-Karabakh, and solve the long-festering conflict on terms
that are more favorable to Baku.-0-
* Eldar Mamedov is a political adviser to the Socialists & Democrats
Group in the European Parliament, who writes in his personal capacity.
http://azerireport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4081&Ite mid=48
From: A. Papazian
AzeriReport , Azerbaijan
Aug 6 2013
By Eldar Mamedov, Eurasianet.org
BAKU. August 8, 2013: At a cabinet meeting in mid-July, Azerbaijani
President Ilham Aliyev lashed out at the European Parliament for
supposedly conducting a "dirty campaign" against Baku. The shrill tone
of Aliyev's comments indicate that European pressure on Azerbaijan
to respect basic rights is stinging the Aliyev administration.
The latest EU parliamentary resolution critical of Azerbaijan came
in June, when European officials called for the release of Ilgar
Mammadov, a jailed leader of the opposition Republican Alternative
movement. Euro-criticism in 2012 included the loud and public
condemnation by European MPs of an officially orchestrated smear
campaign against independent investigative journalist Khadija
Ismailova.
Aliyev, who is expected to travel to Brussels to confer with top EU
officials in the fall, showed himself to be sensitive to criticism. At
the July cabinet meeting, he dismissed the recent European assessments
of Azerbaijani policy as the work of a jealous few. "There are still
prejudiced people, [European] parliamentarians who do not accept
Azerbaijan's success, and they are systematically trying to make
attacks on Azerbaijan," he groused, according to comments broadcast
on state television.
While official statements critical of Baku's behavior have succeeded in
vexing government officials, if European criticism is actually going
to be effective in getting Aliyev & Co. to change its authoritarian
ways, it's important for European officials to dispel some persistent
myths among Azerbaijani policymakers surrounding EU actions.
Here are a few widely held assumptions in Baku that European officials
should keep in mind as they consider taking the next steps:
1) European criticism of Azerbaijanīs human rights record is
the work of the pro-Armenian lobby and other actors who wish to
undermine Azerbaijanīs "independent foreign policy". Not true. There
is no evidence that the members of the European Parliament who are
critical of Azerbaijanīs rights practices have any connections to the
Armenian lobby or to Russia, which is believed to want to re-integrate
Azerbaijan into its own sphere of political and economic influence. In
fact, some critical Euro MPs, such as the Austrian Green Ulrike
Lunacek, are on record as demanding the withdrawal of Armenian forces
from occupied Azerbaijani territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh.
The reason for European criticisms is simple: the situation of the
human rights is deteriorating, in spite of the commitments undertaken
voluntarily by Azerbaijan. When the EU offers criticism, it is simply
assessing the country on its own merits.
2) Demands for democratization and respect for human rights are nothing
but a smokescreen to promote the regime change. Not by a long shot. The
last thing the EU wants is a new source of instability in an already
combustible part of the world. In fact, the EU is quite comfortable
with the Aliyev administration, as long as it delivers on energy
cooperation and regional security -- particularly counter-terrorism,
Afghanistan and Iran. But for the sake of its own credibility, the EU
cannot completely ignore human rights issues. It is also in the EUīs
self-interest: it needs a government in Baku with enhanced domestic
legitimacy as its partner. Its message to Aliyev seems to be: better
to start reforms today, while you can manage a controlled transition
from a position of strength, rather than to risk a popular explosion
tomorrow. But if the government persists in tightening the screws,
and in the meantime, a viable opposition emerges, the calculus might
shift in favor of the latter.
3) Azerbaijan is unfairly singled out and is a victim of double
standards. Yes, there are double standards, but they actually work
in favor of Azerbaijan. For instance, the European consensus holds
that Belarus has nine political prisoners. In Azerbaijan, there are
at least several dozens of them. Yet several Belarussian officials
are subjected to EU travel bans and an asset freeze, while the EU has
never even considered similar measures against Azerbaijani officials.
Furthermore, ODIHR, the OSCE's democracy watchdog, has never recognized
presidential and parliamentary elections in both Belarus and Azerbaijan
as free and fair. But it is only the Belarussian parliament that is not
recognized as such by the European Parliament, and which is banned from
participation in EURONEST, the parliamentary dimension of the Eastern
Partnership. Azerbaijanīs Milli Mejlis delegation, on the other hand,
enjoys full participation rights in inter-parliamentary bodies.
4) The EU ignores the Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani lands and the
human rights of Azerbaijani IDPs. Not true. The European Parliament
adopted a resolution in 2010 on the need for an EU strategy in the
South Caucasus (known as the Kirilov Report) in which it clearly calls
for the withdrawal of Armenian forces from all occupied territories of
Azerbaijan, and upholds the right to return for Azerbaijani IDPs. In
2012, in addition to these demands, the European Parliament for
the first time linked the conclusion of association agreements with
Armenia to progress in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace talks, including the
withdrawal from occupied territories of Azerbaijan and return of IDPs.
Of course, Azerbaijan could have won more converts to its cause had it
stopped sending wrong messages, such as the pardon and promotion of
Ramil Safarov, an army officer guilty of the murder of an Armenian
counterpart, and the state-orchestrated campaign against Akram
Aylisli, a writer who dared to depict a more nuanced picture of the
Azeri-Armenian conflict than is usually accepted in Azerbaijan.
5) There is no point in satisfying EU demands, since Azerbaijan will
never be admitted to the EU anyway. Too simplistic. It is true that
the EU has lost its appetite for enlargement, and the example of
Turkey's stalled candidacy lends credence to this assertion. But
current fiscal troubles will not last forever, and Europeans
might still change their mind on enlargement. Meanwhile, there are
other forms of association with the EU that can be beneficial for
Azerbaijan, such as association agreement, free-trade agreement and
visa liberalization. Most importantly, reforms that conform to EU
norms are needed not to satisfy Brussels, but to improve the quality
of life of Azerbaijanis. If implemented consistently, they might
even help Azerbaijan to win over hearts and minds of the residents
of Nagorno-Karabakh, and solve the long-festering conflict on terms
that are more favorable to Baku.-0-
* Eldar Mamedov is a political adviser to the Socialists & Democrats
Group in the European Parliament, who writes in his personal capacity.
http://azerireport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4081&Ite mid=48
From: A. Papazian