Interview: LIZ MERMIN. Nick Maltby speaks to the American filmaker about her latest film, "Amazing Azerbaijan."

Liz Mermin is an American documentary filmmaker based in London. Her latest film, Amazing Azerbaijan!, investigates human rights in Baku at the time of the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest. Nick Maltby interviewed her about the film and its context.

What was the original motivation to make the film - was it social, or did it come from an interest in Azerbaijan?

My films are always on different subjects. I'm always looking for something new and interesting to take on, so I didn't really know anything about Azerbaijan at all.

Some friends of mine who are involved in the activist campaign that was building up in and around Eurovision said, 'this would be an interesting time to pitch a documentary about Azerbaijan - do you know anything about it?' And then I started doing a bit of research and it just seemed like the more I learned about how strategically important Azerbaijan was, the more this Azerbaijan-Europe tie became interesting: what does Europe mean? What does Europe stand for? How do countries like Azerbaijan fit into it? And of course, with Eurovision coming up, we had one of those narrow windows where broadcasters were actually willing to consider a film on Azerbaijan because it's not a story that's very easy to pitch under ordinary circumstances!

How do you characterise Eurovision? It's kind of a comic event in the UK. How can the Azerbaijani government see it as a propaganda tool?

It was interesting to see how the government stacks up victories and how they put Eurovision in rhetorically the same category as being invited to the G20 meeting and all these sort of much more significant achievements. But of course they know the difference between a song contest and something more meaningful.

It's a government that likes to celebrate victories of any sort. I mean, building the tallest flagpole in the world and making a big deal out of that - before Tajikistan broke the record - there is a pride in odd victories, which I think the activists who I was filming with all found embarrassing and ridiculous. But somehow the government trades on that, in the same way that they've made a Baku Magazine, published by Conde Nast. They're trying to compete on the world platform in every level. And somehow Eurovision just seemed to fit into that.

I think also there's this question of ‘Why?' I mean all these people involved in Eurovision were saying that they were part of Europe; it's easy to laugh at that, but it does raise questions about what Europe means?

Do you see Azerbaijan as part of Europe?

I suppose Europe is struggling with a question of what it is and who belongs in it. The Council of Europe creates a definition of Europe, which is essentially that countries should be willing to adopt Europe's values and act on them. It's a strong concept but if it doesn't have any teeth in it, then why bother? So I don't think there's any reason why Azerbaijan couldn't be part of Europe, but they haven't done anything to show that it's anything more important to them than a status symbol; and, similarly, Europe hasn't done anything to show that they really care that people are following the rules. I see the film is as strong an indictment of European values and how they're slipping, as much as it's an indictment of Azerbaijan.

You say that those European values are deteriorating; at which point in history do they begin deteriorating? It seems to be that Europe's always been quite self-interested in a way that most major Western powers are?

I suppose that's probably true, but there's that idealistic moment after World War Two, about creating these organisations that would keep the peace and would raise the discourse to a higher level and prevent horrible things from happening within Europe; I guess it's been a slow decline from that. I'm American and there's a lot more lip service given to human rights here than there is in America. I think that's a good thing - at least some people are fighting to try to keep the principles meaningful - but I'm not enough of a political historian to say when it slipped. I mean, I guess after the end of the Cold War, there was another moment of idealism, where people thought, 'Now we're not breaking everything into this black-and-white world, it's a moment where we can come together and make the world a better place'. And that obviously coincided with the enlargement of Europe.

You were able to gain access from Eurovision: what restrictions were there?

I used Eurovision as a way to get in and see what the government had to say for itself. It's very difficult to get journalist visas to Azerbaijan: the authorities are very suspicious. We got our visas the night before we were supposed to fly out and it was very touch-and-go whether we were going to get them at all. I think there must have been calculations about whether they could trust us or not. It was before they picked up on the fact that Eurovision was being used to launch a human rights campaign.

I know that about two months after we went, the BBC started trying to go and they couldn't get visas. They made that an element of the documentary they eventually made for Panorama. We were there officially as guests of the television channel that was hosting Eurovision: they provided us with a driver and they were the official reason that we were allowed to be there, and they set up the interviews. My plan was always that this was a film about Azerbaijan's place in Europe and we were using Eurovision to explore that. And the authorities kept saying, 'it's not political, is it?' And I said, ‘As far as Azerbaijan's place in Europe is political, it's political'.

I didn't try to meet with any activists and dissidents while we were in Baku because I had a good network of those people once we were out of the country. We were playing it really safe, partly because I was interested in how people in the government would represent themselves.

You obviously focus on what Khadija Ismayilova calls the right ‘side of the happy belt', is there any recognition of what's going on in other areas of Azerbaijan? What was the wider national response to Eurovision?

I didn't run around talking to loads of people on the streets, but the impression I got and from the conversations I had with other people is that, overall, it was, 'this is cool, we won something!' Jamal, the musician, says, 'we don't have a football team, we don't have a volleyball, we're terrible at everything, at least we've finally won something - great!'

I think there's as much of a pride in the Eurovision victory as there would be in any country. My impression was that although people were pleased with it, if you said to them, ‘Should the government be spending tens of millions on the Eurovision contest?' they would probably say, ‘no'. And then of course the young dissidents who were sort of cool and hip: Eurovision is far beneath them!

The victory of the Swedish Eurovision entry, Loreen, and the rebuke Loreen gave to the government about its record on human rights - did that receive attention in Baku?

There was a clip from a news conference where Loreen was asked about the human rights situation and the translator on Azeri TV mistranslated it. She gave a diplomatic answer, which was basically, 'I'm concerned about the people.' But the translator on the Azeri broadcaster said something like, ‘Loreen's being asked if she likes Baku, and she's saying she's very pleased to be here.' Something like that - so as far as I can tell, it was completely erased.

Focusing on the two Americans you interviewed, what do you think is attractive to them about Baku?

I was astonished to find out that America sends Peace Corps Volunteer to Baku. I always thought they sent the volunteers to poor countries that needed development work. The idea of sending Peace Corps volunteers to a country with that much money is absurd. I did ask those volunteers that and they said, 'Well, in the countryside they really do need a lot of development' and that is one of the big critiques of the country - that all the money is going into these ridiculous buildings in Baku and the rest of the country is still very Third World.

The Peace Corps is very idealistic, and Azerbaijan is a very friendly open culture and the people are very hospitable. I'm sure that those volunteers had a wonderful time there, and when you're 20 years old, it's very exciting to go and be welcomed in a new culture - and you don't feel that it's your place to be critical.

What do you think are the successes of the Aliyev government?

I'm not really qualified to answer that. I mean, in the city there's been a lot of development and he's obviously created close ties with a lot of Western governments - I suppose those are successes.

Is there any interesting sequel to the careers of the dissidents that the film features?

Emin who is one of the donkey blogger guys - the one with the glasses - he kind of sees himself as an Azeri Václav Havel. He's an outspoken intellectual who's attacking the regime at every opportunity. He's just started an online television channel, so we'll see what happens with that. He blogs incessantly and he's building an international profile. And Khadija, similarly, is getting more and more international attention. She was just in Brussels having meetings with MEPs. Both of them are facing fines which they're refusing to pay, so there might be some jail time looming there. They're refusing to pay on the principle that they were attending a rally.

What they're doing to Khadija is really disgusting: they released a sex video of her from secret-filming and they've recently created another fake website that poses as a site about politics in Azerbaijan. It has really nasty cartoons about opposition leaders and there's a section on Khadija with a link to a video tape of pure pornography; the woman in it looks a lot like Khadija, but isn't her. It's disgusting. It's had thousands of views already.

These smear campaigns seem astonishingly medieval.

It's so venal, it's kind of embarrassing. Her position is that she doesn't want to play into the hands of any kind of Internet censorship, so she's not asking for these things to be removed. But it's a horrible position for her to be in.

Where are both of them based now?

They're both in Baku.

The documentary seemed to end optimistically. It's quite rare to see that kind of courage in journalism. But there is a side of me that doubts that journalism can have a huge impact.

I'm not sure how optimistic the ending is. Ferdy and Jamal - the two musicians - are certainly not optimistic. Emin and Khadija are certainly up, because there's been this protest and they think it's the beginning of something changing. But the last word goes to Aliyev, who's sort of laughing at them saying, 'We'll triumph and we'll continue to win, and there's nothing to worry about'. I see the ending as a little bit dark; but you have to have a certain amount of optimism, otherwise these guys couldn't continue what they're doing.

 

The website of the film Amazing Azerbaijan is available at www.amazingazerbaijan.com

source: commonspace.eu

photo: An opposition rally in Azerbaijan at the time of the 2012 Eurovision Song Festival.

 

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Key European countries back Denmark in the face of Trump's continuing insistence on taking over Greenland

Key European countries back Denmark in the face of Trump's continuing insistence on taking over Greenland

 Six major European countries have declared their support to Denmark following renewed insistence by the US that it must have control over Greenland. "Greenland belongs to its people, and only Denmark and Greenland can decide on matters concerning their relations," said the leaders of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain, in a joint statement, issued on Tuesday (6 January), together with Denmark. On Sunday, Donald Trump said the US "needed" Greenland - a semi-autonomous region of fellow Nato member Denmark - for security reasons. He has refused to rule out the use of force to take control of the territory, and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned on Monday that an attack by the US would spell the end of Nato. The issue of Greenland's future resurfaced in the wake of the US military intervention in Venezuela, during which elite troops went in to seize the country's President Nicolás Maduro and take him to face drugs and weapons charges in New York. Following the raid, Trump said the US would "run" Venezuela for an unspecified period of time. He also said the US was returning to an 1823 policy of US supremacy in its sphere of influence in the Western hemisphere - and he warned a number of countries the US could turn its attention to them. The US military raid in Venezuela has reignited fears that the US may consider using force to secure control of Greenland. A day after the raid, Katie Miller - the wife of one of Trump's senior aides - posted on social media a map of Greenland in the colours of the American flag, alongside the word "SOON". On Monday, her husband Stephen Miller said it was "the formal position of the US government that Greenland should be part of the US". In an interview with CNN, he also said the US "is the power of Nato. For the US to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend Nato and Nato interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the US." Asked repeatedly whether the US would rule out using force to annex it, Miller responded: "Nobody's going to fight the US over the future of Greenland." Stressing they were as keen as the US in Arctic security, the seven European signatories of Tuesday's joint statement said this must be achieved by Nato allies, including the US "collectively" - whilst "upholding the principles of the UN Charter, including sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders". Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen welcomed the statement and called for "respectful dialogue". "The dialogue must take place with respect for the fact that Greenland's status is rooted in international law and the principle of territorial integrity," Nielsen said. Trump has claimed that making Greenland part of the US would serve American security interests due to its strategic location and its abundance of minerals critical to high-tech sectors. Greenland, which has a population of 57,000 people, has had extensive self-government since 1979, though defence and foreign policy remain in Danish hands. While most Greenlanders favour eventual independence from Denmark, opinion polls show overwhelming opposition to becoming part of the US.
Editor's choice
News
Donald Tusk: "One for all, and all for one! Otherwise we are finished."

Donald Tusk: "One for all, and all for one! Otherwise we are finished."

Europe is rattled by events in Venezuela, and there are serious concerns that US disregard for international law may have consequences close to home.  The BBC diplomatic correspondent, James Landale, said, the question is how Europe may respond in the longer term to America's military operation in Venezuela. Will it provide a catalyst for the continent to take greater responsibility for its own security in the face of so much instability from what many see as an unreliable ally? Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, appears to have answered the question, saying on social media: "No-one will take seriously a weak and divided Europe: neither enemy nor ally. It is already clear now. "We must finally believe in our own strength, we must continue to arm ourselves, we must stay united like never before. One for all, and all for one. Otherwise, we are finished." The US seizing of Venezuela's leader has faced strong criticism from both America's friends and foes at an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council, held on Monday, 5 January. Many member states agreed with the US that Nicolás Maduro had been an illegitimate and repressive leader. But many also condemned the US military action as a breach of international law and the UN Charter, and they demanded a democratic transition that reflected the will of the Venezuelan people. (click the image to read the full article).

Popular

Editor's choice
News
Key European countries back Denmark in the face of Trump's continuing insistence on taking over Greenland

Key European countries back Denmark in the face of Trump's continuing insistence on taking over Greenland

 Six major European countries have declared their support to Denmark following renewed insistence by the US that it must have control over Greenland. "Greenland belongs to its people, and only Denmark and Greenland can decide on matters concerning their relations," said the leaders of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain, in a joint statement, issued on Tuesday (6 January), together with Denmark. On Sunday, Donald Trump said the US "needed" Greenland - a semi-autonomous region of fellow Nato member Denmark - for security reasons. He has refused to rule out the use of force to take control of the territory, and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned on Monday that an attack by the US would spell the end of Nato. The issue of Greenland's future resurfaced in the wake of the US military intervention in Venezuela, during which elite troops went in to seize the country's President Nicolás Maduro and take him to face drugs and weapons charges in New York. Following the raid, Trump said the US would "run" Venezuela for an unspecified period of time. He also said the US was returning to an 1823 policy of US supremacy in its sphere of influence in the Western hemisphere - and he warned a number of countries the US could turn its attention to them. The US military raid in Venezuela has reignited fears that the US may consider using force to secure control of Greenland. A day after the raid, Katie Miller - the wife of one of Trump's senior aides - posted on social media a map of Greenland in the colours of the American flag, alongside the word "SOON". On Monday, her husband Stephen Miller said it was "the formal position of the US government that Greenland should be part of the US". In an interview with CNN, he also said the US "is the power of Nato. For the US to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend Nato and Nato interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the US." Asked repeatedly whether the US would rule out using force to annex it, Miller responded: "Nobody's going to fight the US over the future of Greenland." Stressing they were as keen as the US in Arctic security, the seven European signatories of Tuesday's joint statement said this must be achieved by Nato allies, including the US "collectively" - whilst "upholding the principles of the UN Charter, including sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders". Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen welcomed the statement and called for "respectful dialogue". "The dialogue must take place with respect for the fact that Greenland's status is rooted in international law and the principle of territorial integrity," Nielsen said. Trump has claimed that making Greenland part of the US would serve American security interests due to its strategic location and its abundance of minerals critical to high-tech sectors. Greenland, which has a population of 57,000 people, has had extensive self-government since 1979, though defence and foreign policy remain in Danish hands. While most Greenlanders favour eventual independence from Denmark, opinion polls show overwhelming opposition to becoming part of the US.