The West's Unjust Stance in Its Just Criticism of Azerbaijan – The Rhetoric of Ethnic Cleansing in Karabakh

On October 1, discussions about Azerbaijan were held at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). Earlier this year, the mandate of Azerbaijan's delegation to the body had not been confirmed, with the key reasons being Baku’s lack of cooperation with the monitoring procedure and the country’s decision not to invite the Assembly to the February 7 presidential elections. Some members of the debate viewed the non-confirmation of Azerbaijan's mandate as a mistake, while the majority stated that no change had been observed in Baku's cooperation with the organization.

On October 5, 43 members of Azerbaijan’s Milli Majlis (National Assembly) appealed to Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov, calling for a reassessment of relations with the United States and the termination of defense cooperation agreements. The appeal was in response to a letter from a group of US Congress members addressed to Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Nearly 60 Congress members had urged Blinken on October 3 to pressure Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev to protect human rights and release all political prisoners ahead of the COP29 climate conference to be held in Baku next month.

Relations between Azerbaijan and PACE, Azerbaijan and the US, and the West in general, are increasingly deteriorating. What could the outcomes of this situation be?

Fuad Hasanov, a member of the Global Council for Eurasia at the Publish What You Pay International Organization, chairman of the Democracy Monitor Public Union, and a former chief expert for the UN Development Program, spoke with ASTNA about this topic.

* * *

Question: Fuad bey, on October 1, discussions about Azerbaijan took place at PACE. Do you consider the criticisms directed at Azerbaijan justified?

Answer: The emergency debate at PACE regarding Azerbaijan was comprehensive and critical, but unfortunately, it took place without the participation of the concerned party. As a result, Azerbaijan's delegation had no opportunity to respond to the serious criticisms and questions raised during the session. While the debate followed PACE’s procedural rules, and the mandate of the Azerbaijani delegation has not been confirmed for a year, the debate would have been more intense had a representative from Azerbaijan been present. They would have had to defend a well-grounded position in the face of factual criticisms and tough questions.

The crisis in Azerbaijan's cooperation with the Council of Europe on legal obligations, its repeated refusal to invite election observers, the withdrawal from cooperation with the Committee Against Torture, restrictions placed on the Council's rapporteurs, the deteriorating state of human rights, media freedom, and civil society, along with the declaration of 76 PACE members as persona non grata, all justify the Assembly’s criticism. However, the rhetoric of ethnic cleansing in Karabakh and the criticism of Azerbaijan on this issue are not justified.

Question: Why is this issue raised at PACE? Is it fair to use the issue of ethnic cleansing in combination with human rights concerns in Azerbaijan?

Answer: It’s unfortunate. Various diplomats have stated that Armenians left Karabakh voluntarily and that Azerbaijan did not carry out ethnic cleansing. However, we must recognize that PACE, with its 306 members from 46 countries, is a platform promoting democracy, human rights, and the rule of law through dialogue. Moreover, since Azerbaijan restored its sovereignty over territories that were under occupation for 30 years, interested parties, particularly the Armenian diaspora, have been actively mobilizing.

In an environment where democracy, human rights, and the rule of law are significantly and consistently deteriorating in Azerbaijan, these interested parties are trying to link the rights of Armenians with broader issues and push for political decisions in international forums. A platform like PACE could not remain immune to such initiatives. The legal crisis in Azerbaijan has undeniably contributed to the success of these influences.

Question: The mandate of Azerbaijan's delegation to PACE has not been confirmed. President Aliyev even set a condition: if the mandate is not confirmed, the ban on PACE members entering the country will remain. Given the seriousness of this situation, what are the possible outcomes? Could cooperation be restored?

Answer: The current situation, which is favorable to the Council of Europe, does not promise positive prospects for Azerbaijan. This crisis continues to damage the country’s image and aligns Azerbaijan alongside Russia and Belarus, which are already excluded from this vital dialogue platform. However, from the discussions in the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and the statements of PACE members, it is clear that the organization is interested in confirming Azerbaijan's delegation's mandate and fully reintegrating the country into the Assembly’s work. For this, several necessary steps must be taken.

Positive progress could be made through a goodwill political declaration by Azerbaijan, reaffirming its commitment to legal obligations before the Council of Europe and paving the way for further necessary actions. This includes lifting the decision declaring 76 PACE members as undesirable persons, resuming cooperation with the Committee Against Torture, addressing the issue of political prisoners through meaningful dialogue, and synchronizing this with the confirmation of Azerbaijan’s delegation mandate.

Question: On October 5, 43 members of the Milli Majlis appealed to Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov, requesting the reassessment of relations with the US and the termination of defense cooperation agreements. What does this mean?

Answer: This appeal by the 43 deputies followed a letter from 48 US legislators (10 senators and 38 congressmen) urging Secretary of State Blinken to take “targeted measures” against Azerbaijan to secure the release of political prisoners and to condemn statements directed at Armenia, which allegedly endanger peace talks. The combination of two different issues in one appeal has once again complicated the situation.

Releasing political prisoners and ending the practice of repression against civil society and independent media are crucial steps to improving Azerbaijan's human rights image, strengthening the country’s international standing, and fostering mutual trust between the government and citizens. The situation regarding arrested Armenians is different, as these individuals are suspected of war crimes during the various stages of the occupation of Azerbaijani territory. Their cases must be resolved, but just and fair decisions require time and appropriate conditions for lasting peace in the region.

Question: Will this appeal have any impact on the US? Could the US increase its pressure on Azerbaijan? What are your expectations?

Answer: The US is a global superpower with significant long-term interests worldwide, and it does not diminish the importance of cooperation with small or large partners. While I do not believe Azerbaijan would want its relationship with such a major global power to escalate to an irreversible and undesirable level, especially during a time when peace talks are ongoing, productive dialogue must continue. Azerbaijan needs to release political prisoners and restore trust between the government and civil society for a rational and equitable relationship.

Question: This is not the first time tensions have emerged between the US and Azerbaijan. What could be the outcome this time?

Answer: If the process unfolds as I described earlier, rational decisions based on mutual trust could be reached. Criticism toward Azerbaijan could significantly decrease ahead of the major COP29 climate conference, which will attract global attention. The successful hosting of this event and presenting Azerbaijan as a reliable partner could greatly improve the country’s image. Without respect for human rights and a climate of trust with civil society, success at COP29 will be impossible.