How "deeply" are they "concerned"? Activists say European statements on the human rights situation in Azerbaijan are inadequate.

Azerbaijani activists have used social media sites to mock some of the recent statements by European leaders on the human rights situation in Azerbaijan which they consider inadequate. But is it the Azerbaijani government which should now be "seriously concerned".

Over the last few days Azerbaijan has been criticised by a number of European politicians and government leaders for its human rights record, and particularly the arrest and questioning of activists. The criticism comes as Azerbaijan prepares to take over on May 14th the Chairmanship of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe is considered to be the foremost inter-state institution overseeing respect for human rights on the European continent.

On Monday (5 May), EU High Representative Catherine Ashton and Enlargement Commissioner Stefan Fule issued a joint statement:

"The High Representative and Commissioner are deeply concerned to note the detention on 19 April of Rauf Mirkadirov and the circumstances of the interrogation on 29 April of Arif Yunus and Leyla Yunus, well known human rights defenders in Azerbaijan. They note that steps taken by the Azerbaijani authorities in recent weeks seem to target civil society activists who are campaigning for greater respect for human rights, rule of law and fundamental freedoms in Azerbaijan as well as for a people - to - people dialogue as an essential component of reconciliation and conflict resolution. These are areas which lie at the heart of the EU's policy in the region. The EU calls upon the government of Azerbaijan to promote a national discourse in a spir it of inclusivity, in line with its responsibility as the incoming Chair of the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers. In particular, the EU urges the government of Azerbaijan to honour the obligations and commitments Azerbaijan subscribed to as a member of the Council of Europe and to act upon the recommendations of the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights, Nils Muižnieks, in his recently published report on Azerbaijan."

However within hours of the statement being issued, a court in Azerbaijan sentenced several young people to long term prison sentences for trying to organise peaceful protests last year. This triggered further reaction. In a statement, Britain's Minister for Europe, David Lithington stated in a statement issued on Tuesday (6 May),

I am deeply concerned by the sentences of 6-8 years imprisonment passed to eight members of the Azerbaijani NIDA Civic Youth Movement. We have monitored these cases closely throughout the trial. The Foreign Secretary raised his concerns about the detention of members of the NIDA Youth Movement during his visit to Baku in December 2013.

I am particularly concerned by reported shortcomings during the trials of these activists for the alleged organisation of mass disorder and illegal possession of firearms and narcotics. The UK will continue to raise its concerns about an increasingly worrying trend of apparently politically motivated detentions and prison sentences being issued in Azerbaijan.

The Government of Azerbaijan has dismissed the accusations, describing the criticism in the statement by Ashton and Fule as "absolutely unacceptable". A report by the APA news agency on Tuesday quoted the head of the press service of the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry Elman Abdullayev as saying that:

"the joint Statement was of a political nature falls short of the reality on the ground, and is an attempt to distort the true sense of the legal proceedings instituted with regard to Rauf Mirkadirov and call of Leyla Yunusova and Arif Yunusov as witnesses in this process." He noted that investigation launched by the General Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Azerbaijan is not related to their journalistic or civil society activities.

"While the case is under the investigation, any early judgments and politically motivated statements are nothing but attempts to interfere into and to exert pressure on the investigation. It is also absolutely unacceptable from the rule of law's point of view. As it is well-known, Azerbaijan has always been supportive to inter-communal dialogue between Azerbaijani and Armenian communities of the Nagorno-Karabakh region of the Republic of Azerbaijan. We believe that such a dialogue conducive to mutual understanding and confidence, will significantly contribute to the peace process as a whole."

In the meantime human rights activists in Azerbaijan have taken to social media sites mocking the overuse of the word "concerned" by European officials and politicians when describing the situation in Azerbaijan, and insisting that the response is inadequate given the gravity of the situation.

Commonspace.eu political editor said in a comment,

There is no doubt that the frequent use of the word "concerned" in official statements, especially those issued by officials of European institutions, have tended to diminish their value. However these statements are not off the cuff comments. They reflect a full analysis of the situation in Azerbaijan by the governments and institutions that are issuing them. In this sense therefore they now define the official position towards the government of Azerbaijan, with implications on all asspects of relations. There is a drip, drip affect that impacts more than simply on Azerbaijan's image. Perhaps it is now the turn of the Government of Azerbaijan to be "seriously concerned".


source: commonspace.eu

photo: Azerbaijani activists blame western dependence on Azerbaijani oil exports for a weak response to the human rights situation. A protestor in Baku makes the point. (Photo courtesy of Turkhan Karimov)


 

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Finland’s decision to buy one million landmines creates a serious contradiction in the policy of the European Union, and is symbolic of a bigger dilemma facing European countries as they get used to the need to acquire “hard” power to face an increasing threat from Russia. Finland is seeking to acquire one million anti-personnel mines at a cost of 100 million euros. Finland, together with Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia last year abandoned the Ottawa agreement, the international framework that bans the use of anti-personnel mines, which the EU had been instrumental in establishing and supporting. All five countries cite the threat from Moscow as the reason. Colonel Riku Mikkonen of the Army Command told Finland’s national news agency STT that officials are now gathering information from suppliers regarding the deal, the AFP news agency reports. Helsinki would like domestic manufacturers to supply the mines, with contracts signed by the end of 2027 and production up and running by 2028. “It would be useful in many ways if Finnish companies produced the anti-personnel mines in Finland,” Mikkonen said. About half a dozen Finnish firms qualify, he told STT. “However, at this stage, buying the mines from abroad is not totally ruled out,” he added. LANDMINES PROVIDE THE EU WITH BOTH A CONTRADICTION, AND A DILEMMA Eliminating landmine contamination worldwide is one of the EU’s main soft power postures, and it basks in its record as the biggest funder of anti-landmine action in the world. But the fact that 5 of its 27 member states  have now left the Ottawa Treaty dents the EU moral high ground. It is a contradiction that is too big and important to be ignored. It also presents the European Union with a deeper dilemma. The threat from Russia is changing what the EU has stood for decades, namely a force for good able to mobilise its considerable soft power for the greater good of humanity. How the Union will implement this change will define its future. In the meantime landmines have not become any less lethal, benign, or unimportant. They remain in many parts of the world a major threat to life, an impediment to prosperity, and a potential trigger to further conflict. The 22 EU members states that still adhere to the Ottawa treaty must regroup, and be more assertive in their quest against anti-personnel land mines. All the reasons why they supported the Ottawa treaty in the first place still exist. The message must be clear: NO TO LANDMINES!
Editor's choice
News
Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Armenia should sign and ratify a peace treaty with Azerbaijan before 2031, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. He described the objective as the top priority for his administration. Earlier, the Armenian prime minister also spoke about a possible land-swap with Azerbaijan Armenia and Azerbaijan should agree to establish a clear, conventional border without enclaves or exclaves, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. Armenia controls three Azeri enclaves inside its borders while Baku controls one Armenian enclave – those could be subject to a land swap, Pashinyan announced.

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)