Report
“Azerbaijan: 20 Years of Independence and the Struggle for Democracy”
House of Commons, London, 20 October 2011
Late on Thursday evening, 20 October 2011, a discussion hosted by the Henry Jackson Society took place at the House of Commons in Westminster, bringing together journalists, human rights defenders, civil and political activists to offer an analysis of the challenges faced by Azerbaijan as a youthful democracy 20 years after its independence from the Soviet Union.
“Azerbaijan: 20 Years of Independence and the Struggle for Democracy”, was chaired by Paul Flynn MP, whilst the panel of speakers was composed of notable figures such as the Deputy Programme Director at Amnesty International, John Dalhuisen, Head of Advocacy at Index on Censorship, Michael Harris and leading Azerbaijani – British political activist and Acting Director of Azerbaijan Democratic Association, Murad Gassanly.
In the immediate aftermath of the 20th anniversary of Azerbaijan’s independence, Murad Gassanly reminded the guests, which included members of the British Press, major NGOs, politicians and members of the British civil service, that Azerbaijan’s heritage of democracy stretched further back, before the rise of the Soviet Union, to the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic of 1918-1920. He noted that, “from universal suffrage, to universal education, the Azerbaijani state at the beginning of the last century already had Azerbaijan as a free democratic state with the principles of liberty, justice and rule of law” and that despite today’s Republic of Azerbaijan’s failure to embody all of these values, this heritage is undeniable and was acknowledged by an Act of Parliament on 18 October 1991.
John Dalhuisen highlighted the tightening noose on the media, NGOs, bloggers, religious groups, and significant political parties, by the Azerbaijani government’s “squeezing of any kind of space in which they might operate”. In this strategy, he noted, the government had resorted to not only “informal mechanisms of harassments and abductions “, but also to “more legal mechanisms”, through the closure of NGOs, increasing regulation of the press, religious groups and NGOs as well as political parties and their representatives, epitomized by the “abuse of the criminal justice system on activists and political leaders”. Most of these repressive tactics were employed in response to nascent movements for popular dissent. The arrests of 17 political activists, which Amnesty International recognized as prisoners of conscience, in the first 4 months of the year alone were a clear indicator of the Azerbaijani government’s lack of tolerance for any form of opposition which challenged the current hegemony.
John Dalhuisen specifically referred to the case of Jabbar Savalan, arrested for posting comments on Facebook calling for peaceful protests, as an example of the lengths to which the government was prepared to go to, in order to stifle dissent. Michael Harris repeated the recommendation of the International Partnership Group on Azerbaijan “for no journalists, media workers, bloggers nor any other citizen to be arrested for exercising their fundamental right to political expression”. The recent spate of arrests and the curbing on the freedom of expression and assembly could be seen as a snub to these recommendations. He noted, with a sense of disappointment that “most people would argue that Azerbaijan is going backwards and that the situation is getting worse and I think that this is the context in which this discussion is happening”. Indeed, the European Commission’s Working Paper on the Implementation of the European Neighbourhood Policy in 2010, spoke of the “deterioration” in areas of human rights and freedoms in Azerbaijan, echoing similar statements from the Working Paper’s for 2009.
The worsening situation was also spoken of by all the speakers when discussing press freedoms in Azerbaijan. Murad Gassanly talked about the effective ban on the BBC, Radio Free Europe and Voice of America in 2008, which had pushed out these powerful international broadcasters from the airwaves. Michael Harris repeated calls for a reversal of this ban but also spoke of the necessity for the de-criminalisation of defamation as an important step in cutting down the indirect pressure experienced by many independent journalists. The arrests, beatings and harassment of journalists were seen as key indicators of media repression, which together with enforced self censorship shaped the media environment in the government’s favour, by suppressing critical views. Indeed, one needs only to look at the declining ranking of Azerbaijan since 2002 in the Press Freedom Index, compiled by Reporters Without Borders, to understand the extent of intensifying government control of the media.
The Nagorno-Karabakh issue and the continuing conflict over the region continue to haunt both the Armenian and Azerbaijani societies, and the topic was touched upon by both Murad Gassanly and Paul Flynn. Paul Flynn was critical of the way in which the conflict is often used to ‘deflect from what the problems are in both countries”, and reiterated that, in no way could the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict be an “excuse for having atrocious records on human rights”.
Murad Gassanly expanded on the conflict’s influence in the region by reflecting on the “inability of the international community to mediate despite there being four UN Security Council Resolutions on the occupation of Azerbaijani territories”. He noted that such failure was also evident in the inability of the Council of Europe to enforce its decisions on Azerbaijan by a lack of action and willpower, or yet to even hold Azerbaijan to account for the most basic obligations, such as the admission of the Rapporteur on Political Prisoners in Azerbaijan, Christoph Strasser, into the country. This perceived failure of the international community, was echoed by John Dalhuisen, who had spent 6 years as a Special Advisor for the Commissioner on Human Rights prior to his work at Amnesty International. In his critical assessment of the strategy employed by the Council of Europe with regards to Azerbaijan, which he likened to a “loving embrace”, he questioned the effectiveness of this strategy and asked if “twenty years down the line, is this still really the sensible way of approaching states such as Azerbaijan”?
Both Murad Gassanly and John Dalhuisen were also quick to bring to attention the influence of key states on the effectiveness of the Council of Europe and the importance of individual relationships with such countries. The stability provided for foreign investors in Azerbaijan with the current regime was described as a motivating factor for the international community in turning a “blind eye” to Azerbaijan’s transgressions, by John Dalhuisen, who added that this was an environment in which “initiative was being stifled” and which could not be a “sustainable model for the current regime…[nor] a sustainable model for foreign partners”. Michael Harris reiterated these views by adding that, “only by upholding Europe’s rules, which are very clear, can we expect progress”.
With Britain providing more than 50% of all foreign direct investment in the country and thus being Azerbaijan’s largest foreign investor, he noted that the UK “needs to pay more attention to these issues”, adding that “there is a very significant margin for increasing pressure by the UK authorities and other European partners…on the Azeri authorities”. In reality, however, the UK government’s commitments to the promotion of human rights and democracy have been undermined by the openness of certain MPs to the advances of pro-government lobbying groups from Azerbaijan such as the European Azerbaijan Society (TEAS).
This was expanded upon by Michael Harris, who revealed that Mark Field MP, had taken “two trips in the last year costing £6000” and was joined by a delegation consisting of “Bob Blackman MP, Stephen Hammond MP and former Sports Minister, Labour’s Gerry Sutcliffe MP”, for each of whom the trip cost £3,500. Mark Field MP was particularly singled out for the section of his website dedicated to expenses allowances, which failed to mention his contract with TEAS worth between £5000 and £10,000 this year. He contrasted the ease with which Mark Field and his colleagues in parliament had made their trips to Azerbaijan with the continuous denial of entry to the Council of Europe’s Special Rapporteur on Political Prisoners, to Azerbaijan.
He referred to these questionable relationships forming between The European Azerbaijan Society and members of parliament in Britain, along with the importance of British commercial interests in Azerbaijan, as having a dampening effect on any critical assessment of Azerbaijan’s current government. In fact, Paul Flynn MP had also spoken of the way in which the impartiality and credibility of British MPs with close links to the Azerbaijani government and its lobbying groups in his opening speech. As he pointed out, the Early Day Motion put down by the All Party Parliamentary Group under the Chairmanship of Mark Field was full of praise for the Azerbaijani government, which was only amended after the intervention of other MPs more concerned with Azerbaijan’s abysmal human rights record. Murad Gassanly expanded upon this point by airing his disappointment with the incomplete picture painted by this motion, and his letters to his local MP Mark Field, as it turned out, went unanswered.
The event was concluded by a question and answer session, which elaborated on the necessity for change. One member of the audience questioned the expectations placed on Azerbaijan in light of the youth of the country as a democracy. Michael Harris’ response was to reinforce his earlier remarks regarding a regression in the fields of human rights and democracy in Azerbaijan by pointing to the far more successful transitions to functioning democracies from Soviet rule, exhibited by countries such as Latvia and Poland.
Former Azerbaijani prisoner of conscience, Emin Milli, in a display of optimism for positive change in the near future reflected on his hope for democracy in Azerbaijan within the next 3 years by directly quoting former president Heydar Aliyev’s assessment of the timeframe in which Azerbaijan could achieve democracy. The discussion successfully brought together groups sharing a major interest in Azerbaijan, and though the topic of discussion was a haunting reminder of the challenges Azerbaijan still faces as a democracy.
The success of the event was reflected in the interactions with representatives of the Embassy and the European Azerbaijan Society from the floor and with the young Azeris present, who spoke of their support for the aims of ADA, with great enthusiasm at the conclusion of the event. A representative of the Azerbaijani embassy rose up to question the make-up of the panel of speakers, to which Murad Gassanly responded by pointing out that “there have been three separate events organised by the Embassy, by the European Azerbaijan Society and by the conservative Friends of Azerbaijan and I don’t remember Amnesty International nor Index on censorship being invited to speak at these events”. For Murad Gassanly, this event was to address the lack of balance in the House of Commons to how Azerbaijan was perceived by Britain and the wider international community. Two gentlemen from TEAS seated beside the representative from the Embassy of Azerbaijan also rose up to defend the questions raised about the primary objectives of their lobbying group and to deny close affiliation with the government or with the business interests of the Heydarov family.
However, both parties also refused to take part in an open debate with the Azerbaijan Democratic Association, or with the representatives of Amnesty International, Index on Censorship and other NGOs working on Azerbaijan, instead complaining of a lack of coverage on Armenia by human rights organisations in an attempt to imply a lack of impartiality in observations. These ad hominem diversions however, as Murad Gassanly pointed out, did not undermine the very important points that were being made, and which had thus far been disgracefully ignored in British politics and assessments of the relationship between Azerbaijan and major international partners.
The enthusiasm displayed by many Azeri students gathered at the event was perhaps in response to a sense of destiny that many of them still feel, that is, of living in a truly democratic state; an unfulfilled dream. “Independence is a great achievement”, Murad Gassanly noted, but “freedom…is just a meaningless slogan if everyone doesn’t enjoy it”, a statement made more poignant by the recognition that the struggle for independence in Azerbaijan “came hand in hand with the struggle for democracy”. In effect, the struggle is ongoing and the shackles of authoritarianism from the Soviet era are yet to be unlocked.
It is clear that 20 years on, Azerbaijan has yet to achieve many of the freedoms its people spent decades struggling for. Shouts of freedom won us freedom 20 years ago. Tonight, 17 men will be spending the night in a prison cell for the very same act.
