Azerbaijan criticizes PACE decision as biased and repulsive

Well-known media expert and lawyer Alesker Mammadli sharply criticized the recent decision of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) to restrict Azerbaijan's voting rights, calling it a biased and repulsive action. The decision of European structures on January 22 marked a significant shift in relations with Azerbaijan when both PACE and the European Union expressed concern and took measures against the country.

The PACE decision was made in the form of limiting the powers of the Azerbaijani delegation, citing four main reasons. Among these reasons were Azerbaijan's refusal to allow PACE speakers access to the Lachin Corridor in 2023, ongoing human rights violations, the growing number of political prisoners and the refusal to invite PACE to evaluate the presidential elections on February 7.

At the same time, the European Union's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Joseph Borrell, accused Azerbaijan of encroaching on Armenia's sovereignty, warning that such actions would have serious consequences for Baku.

Some observers have suggested that these decisions were influenced by Azerbaijan's proximity to Russia, but Alesker Mammadli argues that the root cause lies in the ongoing conflict with Armenia. He argues that European institutions, especially those led by France, are fighting the use of force by Azerbaijan to retake their territories.

Mammadli rejects the view that recent human rights issues have been the main driving force behind the actions taken by PACE and the EU, stressing that problems such as political persecution, media harassment and incorrect elections have persisted for many years without similar responses. He emphasizes that the real impetus for the recent measures was the military actions of Azerbaijan to restore control over its territories.

The media expert emphasizes that the European response does not recognize Azerbaijan's right to end the Armenian occupation and aggression, pointing to the actions of European institutions as biased and repulsive to Azerbaijani society. He argues that a more objective and timely approach focused solely on human rights violations would have found a more convincing response from the Azerbaijani public.

In conclusion, Mammadli calls for a more accurate interpretation of events, emphasizing the need for objectivity in assessing the situation in Azerbaijan. Criticism from PACE and the EU, which may seem biased in Azerbaijani society, could have more weight if it were not intertwined with the country's efforts to regain its territories.