US analysts comment reaction of Baku on Clintons`s statement

Washingon/14.12.11/Turan: An impulsive reaction of the Azeri officials to the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's latest statement on International Human Rights Day surprised Washington analysts.In her December 9 statement, Secretary Clinton lamented continued violence against those who exercise their right to freedom of expression and said: "From Azerbaijan to Zimbabwe, political prisoners still languish in jail for speaking, writing or advocating peacefully for their beliefs."But the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry and the Presidential Administration expressed their dissatisfaction with Clinton"s remarks, saying the government citing non-existent "rapid progress", using security and energy cooperation as a bargaining chip to deflect the criticism on democracy etc. Baku also accused Washington "in voicing negative evaluations solely about Azerbaijan while making only positive remarks about Armenia".Gerald Robbins, Senior Fellow at the US Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), who served as Program Director for Freedom House in Baku, during the mid 1990's, described Secretary Clinton"s statement to TURAN"s Washington DC correspondent."I sense it was a sloppily thought, rushed attempt to draft a statement. Other nations beginning with the letter "A" could have been equally cited", he said, adding, "That being said, it would be a troubling matter if this was deliberately done to placate lobbying concerns, subjectively politicizing what should be an apolitical issue"Another analyst Michael Tkacik, Professor of Government, and Director of the School of Honors at the Stephen F. Austin State University points out that, "It appears that authorities in Baku are trying to deflect attention away from their own human rights record and onto Armenia. Of course, this strategy is primarily directed at domestic audiences in Azerbaijan"."While groups such as Human Rights Watch fault both countries, their conclusion seems to be that the human rights situation is worse in Azerbaijan than in Armenia", Mr. Tkacik told TURAN"s Washington DC correspondent adding, another widely respected human rights group, Freedom House, similarly regards Armenia as "partly free" and Azerbaijan as "not free." To be fair, however, Freedom House rates the countries as relatively similar on human rights.According to the analyst, Clinton"s decision to make an example of Azerbaijan is based on at least three factors.First, he says, the US continually feels a need to mention human rights in its foreign policy discussions. Human rights are an important part of discourse out of Washington. Attention to human rights serves to highlight US moral authority in the world and the importance the US places on values, even in discussions of foreign policy.Second, Ms. Clinton mentioned Azerbaijan because it indeed does have human rights issues as noted above. Third, and as noted by Azerbaijan"s presidential administration, "Azerbaijan to Zimbabwe" does indeed make for "good copy" inasmuch as it covers A-Z in the English alphabet."The issue of deflecting attention aside, Ms. Clinton"s comments highlight continuing human rights concerns in Azerbaijan", Tkacik mentions adding, "But it should also be noted that small improvements in Azerbaijan would probably move it from the "not free" to the "partly free" category by Freedom House. While of course Freedom House has no sway over US government pronouncements, minor human rights improvements that moved Azerbaijan into the "partly free" category would make it far more difficult for Ms. Clinton to mention Azerbaijan in the same breath as Zimbabwe (with its truly atrocious human rights record)"."One would have to check with the State Department to understand the specific US government concerns regarding Azerbaijan", the analyst underscores. "However, it is probable that the US is concerned over intimidation of journalists, police and government brutality, the seizure of land without just compensation (especially in Baku), flawed November 2010 elections, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, corruption, and women"s rights".In the meanwhile, Washington DC-based Azerbaijani-Americans for Democracy (AZAD) have also issued a press-release commending Secretary Clinton for mentioning Azerbaijan along with Zimbabwe among the states that violate human rights.AZAD"s statement also criticized the response given by Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry and Presidential Administration to Secretary Clinton"s remarks and questioned their legitimacy in representing the will and opinions of Azerbaijani people."America"s moral leadership and assistance in the development of free and open societies in other countries serves vital US national interests and promotes lasting peace and global security. We call on the US government and all elected officials to continue expressing support for democracy in Azerbaijan and exert necessary pressure on the Azerbaijani authorities to stop the suppression of dissent and violations of fundamental human rights and liberties", says the statement.AZAD believes that, neither Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry statements nor those by the Presidential Administration can be claimed to reflect the true sentiments of the people of Azerbaijan or Azerbaijanis around the world on this issue."As all elections in Azerbaijan under the current regime have been grossly falsified in favor of the ruling party and the authorities continue to prevent the citizens from freely expressing their views, the current government in Baku has no legitimacy to represent the will and opinions of the Azerbaijani people or any other group except for the members of the ruling regime themselves", say the authors.