FALLING MASKS

In recent months, Azerbaijan's relations with the European Parliament, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the German Bundestag have experienced problems, and there has been an exchange of rather harsh statements and mutual public criticism. Things have reached such a point that the deputy head of the Presidential Administration of Azerbaijan and head of the foreign relations department, Novruz Mammadov, and the head of the Azerbaijani delegation to PACE and chairman of the Milli Maclis committee on international and interparliamentary relations, Samad Seyidov, expressed doubts about the expediency of maintaining our country's membership in and relations with the abovementioned European entities.

Certain political forces in Europe and the United States decided to use the attention drawn to Baku due to the first European Games here for organizing a campaign of pressure on the government of Azerbaijan in connection with violations of the rights and freedoms of citizens and especially for putting forward demands for the release of so-called political prisoners. Initiative in this regard was demonstrated by the European Parliament. Then the German Bundestag came up with a statement. The latest in this series was a PACE resolution.

Note that the link between the European Games and the human rights issue is artificial and not entirely correct in itself. These questions lie in different planes. Undertaking to host a large-scale sporting event and with a deficit of time to prepare, Azerbaijan shouldered a large financial and organizational burden. Therefore, additional demands unrelated to sports look out of place in the eyes of Baku and were seen as an expression of ingratitude on the part of European parliamentarians and governments.

However, bias and double standards towards Azerbaijan during the 23 June discussions at PACE on the draft resolution "On the activity of democratic institutions in Azerbaijan" passed all bounds. At the insistence of the Armenians and European delegates patronizing them, the Monitoring Committee changed the wording "The Assembly is aware of the occupation by Armenia of Nagornyy Karabakh and adjacent seven regions" in the first paragraph of the draft resolution prepared by the co-rapporteurs Pedro Agramunt and Tadeusz Iwinski to a politically amorphous one: "The Assembly is aware of the consequences of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict." The amendment was passed after a bitter debate with a majority of just one vote (22 "for" and 21 "against"). The next day, the resolution "On the activity of democratic institutions in Azerbaijan" was approved at the plenary session of PACE.

It is impossible to say that the MPs who adopted the resolution are not aware of the nature of the problem. After all, in 2005 PACE adopted a resolution "On the conflict in the Nagornyy Karabakh region dealt with by the OSCE Minsk Conference". It pointed out that the occupation of foreign territory by any member state of the Council of Europe is a serious breach of the obligations of the state and provided links to UN Security Council resolutions 822, 853, 874 and 884, which reaffirmed the sovereignty, territorial integrity and internationally recognized borders of Azerbaijan. PACE members could not be unaware of the recent ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on the case "Ciraqov and others against Armenia", in which Armenia was named as a country that continues its occupation of the territory of Azerbaijan.

However, most of the delegates pretended that they do not understand or do not attach importance to the fact that the ongoing Armenian occupation; the presence in Azerbaijan of nearly a million refugees and displaced persons, who have been deprived for more than two decades of the elementary human right to live in their land; the fact that the very situation of "neither peace nor war" carries significant risks to the social stability and security of Azerbaijan and impedes the country's movement towards greater democracy, pluralism and freedom.

Some influential members of PACE did not conceal their hostile attitude towards Azerbaijan. Apart from Andreas Gross, who traditionally acts in this role, we can name PACE Vice-President from France Rene Rouquet, who illegally visited Nagornyy Karabakh and other occupied territories of Azerbaijan without the consent of Baku. But the new vice-president of PACE from Ukraine, Volodymyr Aryev, dares to make completely unacceptable appeals to the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan through his page on Facebook: "Overthrow your authoritarian governments."

Although Aryev is about 40 years old, he is no stranger to politics and has been a deputy of the Verkhovna Rada of three convocations in a row. The fact that this subject has no higher education cannot be considered a mitigating circumstance. There are a lot of deputies among supporters of Poroshenko in the Verkhovna Rada with the skills "of overthrowing a government", but there is clearly not enough people with knowledge and experience for practical work. Otherwise, they would not be inviting Vikings from Georgia, Lithuania and Canada to key positions in the government for management and reform in Ukraine. But whether they can make a difference is a big question.

The author - also through Facebook - replied to Aryev that instead of unwanted advice to the Azerbaijani people he had better care about the situation in Ukraine. After all, the people will soon need an answer to the question of who is to blame for the fact that as a result of the violent overthrow of President Yanukovych, Ukraine lost the Crimea, slid into war in the Donbass and fell to the last place in Europe by the standard of living. If no improvements are observed soon, the people will topple the government represented by MP Aryev before it can happen anywhere else at his call. The Azerbaijani people do not need Aryev's provocative advice and, thank God, have not lost the immunity they developed during similar events that occurred in the early 1990s.

These delegates of PACE, as well as others who do not consider it necessary to adhere to the norms of international law and basic political ethics in matters affecting the interests of Azerbaijan are getting a proper rebuff. The Foreign Ministry of the Azerbaijan Republic did not leave what happened at the PACE session without response and pointed out in a statement that: "... the demonstration of bias and double standards leads Baku to serious thoughts about how necessary is Azerbaijan's membership in the Council of Europe and structures of this organization."

Unfortunately, not only members of parliament but also some Western diplomats, not to mention journalists and experts, use a policy of double standards and are guided in the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict not by norms of international law, but by their own sympathy with the Armenians and antipathy towards Azerbaijanis. This is confirmed by the speech made at the Rose-Roth seminar of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly on 19 June in Yerevan by the ex-French chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, Jacques Faure, where he explicitly stated that the mediators think it impossible to restore the sovereignty of Azerbaijan in Nagornyy Karabakh, but they cannot force Baku to agree with that. "There is very little leverage to influence Azerbaijan," the retired French diplomat said, acknowledging that it is impossible to do so by means of financial pressure or through international organizations. For some reason, Faure does not even think that there is nothing to exert pressure on Azerbaijan for, because our demands are based on international law. Nor did he say that for the sake of fairness and in accordance with international law, Armenia itself, which has refused to withdraw its troops from the occupied Azerbaijani territories for more than 20 years in spite of UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, should face sanctions. States and international organizations have all possibilities for this as impoverished Armenia is heavily dependent on external financial and economic assistance.

But world powers and international institutions are not willing to resort to pressure against the Armenians, while they only inspire false hopes in the leaders of separatist Nagornyy Karabakh with their ambiguous resolutions, statements and flirting with them. The latest example is the invitation of a certain Bako Sahakyan, who presents himself as the "president" of the separatist regime created in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, to London to participate in hearings on the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict at the Chatham House Royal Institute of International Affairs. In this regard, the Foreign Ministry of the Azerbaijan Republic summoned British Ambassador Irfan Siddiq, where Deputy Foreign Minister Xalaf Xalafov expressed his strong protest to him.

Siddiq said the invitation of the self-styled leader of the secessionist entity to London does not mean a change in the policy of non-recognition and ruled out any official contacts with him in the UK. The French authorities gave a similar explanation when Bako Sahakyan visited a few months ago and even held meetings in the parliament. However, the explanations are not enough. After all, Brussels denied not only the unrecognized leaders of the Crimea and the Donbass, but even ordinary residents of these areas over which Kiev has lost control the right to enter the territory of the European Union and other Western countries. Similar restrictions apply to the leaders and officials of Abkhazia and South Ossetia who illegally proclaimed their independence from Georgia. Baku constantly draws attention to this fact, but, unfortunately, has not met the expected understanding yet.

Such ambivalence manifested itself at the end of May at the Riga summit of participants in the EU Eastern Partnership programme. Regarding the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, the final document used an amorphous formulation about the need to settle it within the framework of international law, although in relation to the Crimea and Donbass, a clear and fundamental position was expressed. This caused a fair amount of discontent in the Azerbaijani delegation, as a result of the protest of which a question mark was hanging over the adoption of the final declaration of the summit. Only after the appeal of EU chairman Donald Tusk directly to President Ilham Aliyev, did we, not to break the consensus, agree with the proposed wording stipulating the right to express our own position in the form of a special supplement to the final document of the summit. We can conclude from all this that the EU is not ready to use its enormous economic and political influence to advance the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict in accordance with international law.

On 29 June, Minsk hosted an informal dialogue of foreign ministers of member countries of the EU's Eastern Partnership programme. Addressing it, Deputy Foreign Minister Mahmud Mammadquliyev outlined the main directions of cooperation. This is the simplification of the cross-border movement of citizens, the creation of energy and transport links, as well as trade and humanitarian relations. At the same time, Baku is going to develop relations with Brussels only on an equal basis, without exhortations and taking into account mutual interests.