Tweet
OP-ED: EU AND AZERBAIJAN, SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
Independent European Daily Express
Aug 15 2013
Thursday, August 15, 2013 - 20:26Inter Press Service
BAKU, Aug 15 (IPS) - 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 indicates 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. [Editor's Note:
Ismailova has worked as a contributor to EurasiaNet.org].
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 democratisation 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 EU's 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 favour 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 favour 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 recognised
presidential and parliamentary elections in both Belarus and Azerbaijan
as free and fair. But it is only the Belarussian parliament that
is not recognised 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 liberalisation.
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 favourable to Baku.
Editor's note: Eldar Mamedov is a political adviser to the Socialists &
Democrats Group in the European Parliament, who writes in his personal
capacity. This story originally appeared on EurasiaNet.org.
http://www.iede.co.uk/news/2013_2745/op-ed-eu-and-azerbaijan-setting-record-straight
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Independent European Daily Express
Aug 15 2013
Thursday, August 15, 2013 - 20:26Inter Press Service
BAKU, Aug 15 (IPS) - 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 indicates 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. [Editor's Note:
Ismailova has worked as a contributor to EurasiaNet.org].
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 democratisation 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 EU's 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 favour 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 favour 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 recognised
presidential and parliamentary elections in both Belarus and Azerbaijan
as free and fair. But it is only the Belarussian parliament that
is not recognised 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 liberalisation.
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 favourable to Baku.
Editor's note: Eldar Mamedov is a political adviser to the Socialists &
Democrats Group in the European Parliament, who writes in his personal
capacity. This story originally appeared on EurasiaNet.org.
http://www.iede.co.uk/news/2013_2745/op-ed-eu-and-azerbaijan-setting-record-straight
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress