"The report proves that the Biden administration was right not to invite Azerbaijan to the Summit for Democracy"

***

Question: Alakbar Bey, as you know, on April 12, the U.S. State Department released its annual report on the human rights situation in the world in 2021. The Azerbaijani public, unlike usual, learned about this from short reports provided by the Azerbaijani-language section of the independent and foreign media. In short, the Azerbaijani media devoted very little space to the Azerbaijani part of this report, rather than to the Armenian part. Except for those who say that what is written in the report about Azerbaijan is biased. Therefore, I would like to ask you again. Can the report be considered objective? And how does this report differ from the previous ones?

Answer: The picture you are depicting - the fact that the report was not covered by local media - is, in itself, a confirmation of its authenticity and objectivity. Those who’re familiar with this document can rightfully conclude that there is almost no room left in Azerbaijan for an objective opinion and independent media. As a rule, these fact sheets of the Department of State on human rights violations are either denied or unofficially embargoed and ignored in countries where freedoms are most often violated.

On the other hand, the facts documented by the Department of State on human rights violations in Azerbaijan in 2021 prove once again that the Biden administration was right not to invite the government of Ilham Aliyev to the Summit for Democracy in December.

As for Armenia, whether or not human rights deteroates in that country does not absolve the Azerbaijani government of responsibility for violations against its own citizens. These are two different countries. It would be rather benefitial if the Azerbaijani government and state-controlled media carefully read the full 55-page section of the report on Azerbaijan.

The denial of problems does not in any way make them non-existent or lead to their solution. Otherwise, this year's report would have been different from the previous ones. There were some differences, yes - but, unfortunately, not in a good way...

Question: What are the most worrying issues related to Azerbaijan in the report?

Answer:  The first noteworthy point is that the summary of human rights violations in the country in the introduction to the report has been expanded.

The Department of State’s approach is that the authors only document and publicize the facts, not analyze them - the latter is left to the readers themselves. In other words, a reliable way to understand the real situation is to compare the final report with the previous ones.

If we look at the report of the last two years, we can conclude that along with the scale of human rights violations in Azerbaijan, the methods have also expanded. For example, compared to last year, this time the report refers to torture and ill-treatment by members of the security forces. Similar facts have been encountered before, but this time the authors had to point the finger at the perpetrators when talking about the problem.

This year, as last year, the report says impunity remains a problem. At the same time, the preamble states that the government not only did not prosecute or punish the majority of officials who committed human rights abuses, as it was stated last year,  but also those who committed acts of corruption.

Looking at other sections of the report, the number of political prisoners in the country at the end of 2020 was estimated at 90-146, while in the same period of 2021, this number reached 122. In other words, if we take the most optimistic approach - if we add to this the 38 political prisoners among the 625 people released as a result of Ilham Aliyev's pardon in connection with Novruz - it becomes clear that in general the situation in this area has deteriorated, rather than improved.

At the same time, this year's report on abductions, killings, forced repatriation, or other threats of violence against activists living outside the country addresses more explicit and disturbing facts.

The situation in the field of media freedom is much darker than the previous year. For example, while previous reports have documented the government's persecution of independent journalists, this time the target is editors and bloggers as well. At the same time, it is emphasized that the geography of persecution has expanded and has been carried out outside the country. The government's persecution of the media in the name of national security - in the example of Polad Aslanov - is a novelty for this year. The hasty passage of the reactionary media law in parliament in December did not go unnoticed.

In terms of political activity, last year's report highlighted Azerbaijan's success in raising the number of registered political parties and groups to 63, while this year, it used a relatively small number of 58.

In short, the comparison of the last two reports gives grounds to say once again that the Azerbaijani government is not inclined to correct its previous mistakes. It can be concluded that the number of violations has increased in almost all areas - even in the sections regarding working conditions. A typical example: last year, the number of fatalities was 48, but this year, it has risen to 51. However, the government has not implemented the simplest laws on occupational safety and health so effectively - in any case, the report allows us to come to this conclusion.

Question: In recent days, there have been rumors that the United States will continue to mediate in the Karabakh issue outside the OSCE Minsk Group. How can this be understood?

Answer:  The United States has always stressed its commitment to the Minsk Group format. When it comes to the existing co-chairing institution, the practice in recent years has been that the "troika" was operating on a rotating basis - of course by coordinating their initiatives - although Russia has been particularly distinguished by its actions in violating the "rules of the game". This happened many times before the 2020 war, but especially after the war.

Moscow's attempts to take a unilateral mediation initiative were soon replaced by an appetite to distance the other co-chairs from the process, rather than focusing on the conflict. Until recently, the 3 + 3 initiative was entertained for this purpose, which was not supported by the West.

At present though, the West is actively engaging in the conflict: the U.S. is involved in the Karabakh issue in closer coordination with Europe than before. Not only France but also Brussels is actively involved in the process from the European side. The UK, which has left the EU family, is also in active contact with the parties, as well as with Washington.

As for Russia, the logical question is whether a country that is simultaneously invading one of its nextrood neighbors can seem sincere in bringing peace to another? I have raised this question several times at the briefings of the Department of State over the past few weeks. Spokesman Ned Price said that the United States is interested in continuing direct contacts between like-minded countries and the parties to the conflict within the existing formats. The key word here is "like-minded". Given Moscow's current behavior in the region, can anyone see it as a like-minded country? It's hard to say...

Question: A Twitter account of the US Department of State's Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs said, "Assistant Secretary Donfried is sending Senior Advisor for Caucasus Negotiations Andrew Schofer to the region this week to discuss how the United States can best support the process." Schofer has already visited the region. What does the “Senior Advisor for Caucasus Negotiations” mean? Is it a new position?

Answer: Mr. Schofer has been serving as the State Department Senior Advisor for Caucasus Negotiations for a while. He is currently visiting Baku and will be there until April 29. Last week, he met with officials in Yerevan. He is closely involved in boosting direct commonications between officials of the two countries.

In 2017, after Ambassador Richard Hoagland left the position of U.S. Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, Mr. Schofer was appointed to this post and has held the same mandate for almost 5 years.

The approach of U.S. officials is that Mr. Schofer’s official position at the DoS and activity in the Minsk Group do not contradict each other, but complement each other.

Mr. Schofer also participated in a regional U.S. Chiefs of Mission meeting in Yerevan last November as the DoS’ Senior Advisor for Caucasus Negotiations.

Question: Finally, what is new in the US relations with the region and Azerbaijan, in its priorities, in its position on the Karabakh issue? Are there any changes?

Answer: The most important innovation is that the threats and dangers facing the peoples of the region are now perceived with more urgency and sympathy than ever before. What has happened in Ukraine over the past two months has shattered perceptions of the sustainability of the frozen conflicts in the post-Soviet region.

That is why the United States and its allies are now taking a closer interest in addressing the causes that threaten lasting stability in the region.

By resuming direct dialogue after a long time, Azerbaijan and Armenia have recently entered the next stage in the Karabakh issue. By the way, contacts between the ministers of the two countries continue even as we speak today.

Resolving the conflict on the basis of mutual respect and mutual interests is a model supported by the United States - and, unlike Russia, represented by its own example - and the strengthening of this principle should go hand in hand with improving the living standards and values ​​of the peoples of the region.

If the two countries and peoples do not understand each other's values ​​and motivations, the chances of lasting peace are slim. Yes, it is possible to temporarily stop wars by forcing the will of one over the other, but it is impossible to achieve peace. The experience of Armenia over the past 30 years is clear proof of this. Azerbaijan should not repeat the same mistakes.

Russia, which has widened tensions between the two countries and made both of them dependent on it, has exposed its regional goals and its true face in the case of Ukraine. Therefore, the sooner Azerbaijan and Armenia begin to take care of their fate, the more they will win the process. The United States now seems more interested than ever in supporting the parties in this matter, and it is less interested in what Moscow will say.