Azerbaijan after Eurovision: avoiding the hangover. Eurovision 2012 has been a good party, but Azerbaijan should be left with a positive legacy.

In the third and last part of this article on Azerbaijan LINKS Analysis looks at the options open to the Government of Azerbaijan once the curtain falls on Eurovision 2012.

The first reaction of the government of Azerbaijan to the European Parliament’s resolution, adopted on Thursday (24 May 2012) which was critical of the human rights situation in the country, was predictable. It threatened to cut relations with the European Parliament, and to suspend the negotiations on the Association Agreement with the EU. Indeed isolating itself from Europe is one option that the country that has put so much effort to host Eurovision 2012 has.

There has been a school of thought within the Azerbaijani government that has been against further relations with Europe, rightly suspecting that this will require political concessions at home. Indeed the European Union does not mince its words when it talks about conditionality with regards to countries with which it signs Association Agreements. That is why perhaps the negotiations between the EU and Azerbaijan have been moving at a much slower pace than with other countries in the region. Those in Azerbaijan who do not want to pay this political price point sometimes to Russia as an alternative model, and more bizarrely sometimes to the oil sheikhdoms of the Gulf. They forget that it was Heidar Aliev who put Azerbaijan on a European course, implementing enough reforms to enable the country to join the Council of Europe in 1997, and sending a clear message of the importance he attached to this, by sending his son, the current President, as Head of Delegation to the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly.

Part of the problem is that an important section of the Azerbaijani government does not understand Europe, let alone the values that underpin it. One can see this by the contempt heaped on European civil society organisations who have spearheaded the campaign against human rights abuses in Azerbaijan, many of whom are now being accused of being part of the Armenian lobby. These officials, for example, cannot understand why European governments and politicians take the views of NGOs seriously.

So with Eurovision out of the way there is a possibility that Azerbaijan will redefine its relations with Europe, which would probably be accompanied by a crackdown against critics at home. A complete break in relations is not possible, but a repositioning which will freeze political relations is. Ironically this comes at a time when Europe’s position on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is closer to the Azerbaijani position then it has ever been. The same European Parliament that is now being derided was only a few weeks ago praised in Baku for adopting an important resolution that sets new benchmarks for the EU’s position on the issue.

There is ofcourse an alternative scenario, one which does not even entail a change of policy or discourse on the part of the Azerbaijani government, just a change of methodology. Azerbaijan is already committed to respect for human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of media and free and fair elections. It has signed up to every single European convention or principle that is going. The President continuously reaffirms his commitment to these principles and commitments. All Azerbaijan has to do is to implement its own policies, respect its own constitution, honour the commitments it has signed up to and put its words into action.

The hiatus on political reform that the President of Azerbaijan announced at the beginning of his presidency has lasted long enough. It should now become the next objective of the government. The government should announce a road map for reforms.

A first step could be the appointment of a new Ombudsman. The current holder is well meaning and has done some good work, but it is important now to have somebody who has the trust of the whole society and who can champion human rights robustly from within the government.

The second step should be the launch of a national dialogue. The split and polorisation in Azerbaijani society that has been exposed by all the shenanigans around Eurovision is dangerous for the country. How a national dialogue can evolve is not clear since the institution that could provide the stimulus for such an endeavour, the Parliament, is the least prepared for it. The President can set up a credible Commission of wise men (and hopefully women) to help prepare for this. For this process to be credible it needs to have a defined time-frame and an end game. Given all the problems associated with the last parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan holding early parliamentary elections is necessary. Parliament must be restored as soon as possible as the forum where political dialogue in the country takes place and this is only possible if free elections are held and all legitimate political forces are represented.

Eurovision 2012 has been a good party. It is important that after the Party Azerbaijan is not left with a hangover but with a positive legacy.

This is the third and last part of a three part article on Azerbaijan prepared by LINKS Analysis for commonspace.eu ©

The first part: "Azerbaijan's parallel worlds. Part 1: The successes" is available here.

The second part: "Azerbaijan's parallel worlds. Part 2: The failures" is available here.

source: LINKS Analysis

photo: Young Azerbaijanis celebrating Europe Day in Baku earlier this month (picture courtesy of Mehman Husseynov)

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Israeli parliament votes to bring back the death penalty, but only for Palestinians

Israeli parliament votes to bring back the death penalty, but only for Palestinians

srael’s parliament approved a bill on Monday that would allow the execution of Palestinians convicted on terror charges for deadly attacks, a move that has been criticized as discriminatory and immediately drew a court challenge. Sixty-two lawmakers, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, voted in favor and 48 against the bill, championed by far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir. There was one abstention and the rest of the lawmakers were not present. Ben Gvir in the run-up to the vote had worn a lapel pin in the shape of a noose, symbolising his support for the legislation. “We made history!!! We promised. We delivered,” he posted on X after the vote. The bill would make the death penalty the default punishment for Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank found guilty of intentionally carrying out deadly attacks deemed “acts of terrorism” by an Israeli military court. The bill says that the sentence may be reduced to life imprisonment under “special circumstances.” Palestinians in the West Bank are automatically tried in Israeli military courts. Meanwhile, under the bill, in Israeli criminal courts anyone “who intentionally causes the death of a person with the aim of harming an Israeli citizen or resident out of an intention to put an end to the existence of the State of Israel shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment.” Criminal courts try Israeli nationals, including Palestinian citizens and residents of east Jerusalem. The bill sets the execution method as hanging, adding that it should be carried out within 90 days of the sentencing, with a possible postponement of up to 180 days. - ‘Parallel tracks’ - The bill appears to conflict with Israel’s Basic Laws, which prohibit arbitrary discrimination, and shortly after it was passed, a leading human rights group announced that it had filed a petition with the Supreme Court demanding the legislation’s annulment. “The law creates two parallel tracks, both designed to apply to Palestinians,” the Association for Civil Rights in Israel said in a statement. “In military courts — which have jurisdiction over West Bank Palestinians — it establishes a near-mandatory death sentence,” the rights group said. In civilian courts, the law’s stipulation that defendants must have acted “with the aim of negating the existence” of Israel “structurally excludes Jewish perpetrators,” the group added. The association argued the law should be annulled on both jurisdictional and constitutional grounds. During the debate in parliament, opposition lawmaker and former deputy Mossad director, Ram Ben Barak, expressed outrage at the legislation. “Do you understand what it means that there is one law for Arabs in Judea and Samaria, and a different law for the general public for which the State of Israel is responsible?” he asked fellow parliamentarians, using the Israeli name for the West Bank. “It says that Hamas has defeated us. It has defeated us because we have lost all our values.” - ‘Discriminatory application’ - Lawmaker Limor Son Har-Melech from Ben Gvir’s party, who years ago survived an attack by Palestinian militants in which her husband was killed, urged fellow parliamentarians to approve the bill. “For years, we endured a cruel cycle of terror, imprisonment, release in reckless deals, and the return of these human monsters to murder Jews again ... And today, my friends, this cycle has come full circle.” The Palestinian Authority condemned the law’s adoption, saying that “Israel has no sovereignty over Palestinian land.” “This law once again reveals the nature of the Israeli colonial system, which seeks to legitimize extrajudicial killing under legislative cover,” it added. In February, Amnesty International had urged Israeli lawmakers to reject the legislation, citing its “discriminatory application against Palestinians.” On Sunday, Britain, France, Germany and Italy expressed “deep concern” over the bill, which they said risked “undermining Israel’s commitments with regards to democratic principles.” While the death penalty exists for a small number of crimes in Israel, it has become a de facto abolitionist country — the Nazi Holocaust perpetrator Adolf Eichmann was the last person to be executed in 1962. Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967 and violence there has soared since Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on Israel triggered the Gaza war. (read more by clicking the image above).

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)