An Interview with Eldar Zeynalov, Chair of the Human Rights Center of Azerbaijan

Q - Are you satisfied with the attitude and attention paid by the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the European Union regarding the rule of law, democracy and human rights in both Armenia and Azerbaijan?

A - There is no doubt that without the assistance of these organizations Azerbaijan would find itself in the situation of Belarus and Uzbekistan. The developed industrial nations of the West that monitor the above-mentioned organizations are concerned about stability and a minimal protection of human rights in Azerbaijan in the name of successful oil business interests and in order for them not to be swamped with fleeing refugees.

The UNITED international organization, of which our Human Rights Center is a member, has registered 11,105 refugees that have perished since 1993 attempting to illegally cross over into Europe or who have died while in refugee detention camps. This is a larger number than all the Germans who died trying to cross from Eastern into Western Germany during the forty years that nation was divided. In 2004 Azeri refuges comprised one-third of all those seeking asylum in Sweden, thus surpassing those fleeing the genocidal conditions in both Chechnya and Rwanda. Given this, the present leaders of Europe dream of erecting a stronger ‘Iron Curtain” than existed during the Soviet era. It is this pragmatic interest that drives them to pay attention to the issue of human rights.

In addition, the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the European Union are not only international organizations but inter-governmental ones as well; a club of governments if you will despite their differing interests. For example, the crisis in the power-generating materials sector has given the oil and gas producing nations additional leverage and has softened the criticism the West has directed at them. This factor helps us to understand why Western governments are more critical of Belarus than Azerbaijan or more vociferous when it comes to Uzbekistan than say Turkmenistan. Oil is the first factor that comes into play when Western leaders speak out about Azerbaijan. The second factor is terrorism. The human rights issue comes in a distant third in importance. Naturally, this raises the critical ire of human rights defenders.

Q - In your estimation are the evaluations of the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the European Union both justified and balanced when it comes to the state of affairs of democratic freedoms in the Southern Caucasus and their compliance with international standards, or is there a dual standard policy being implemented?

A - I think that not only is there a dual standard policy at work but in fact a tri-standard policy; a separated one for each country. Georgia seeks to enter NATO. Azerbaijan exports oil and gas. Armenia, in my belief, doesn’t really interest the West. Relations with Armenia are an appendage to the delicate relations that the West conducts vis-à-vis Russia. In reality, Armenia is the only country of the Southern Caucasus that has openly expressed sympathy regarding the Tehran regime, that assists the Kurdish separatists, that has expressed territorial pretensions regarding a member of NATO and an unfriendliness against NATO itself, by maintaining Russian bases on its soil out of its own initiative and which is actively embroiled in a conflict with its neighbor Azerbaijan. Armenia creates more of a headache for the West than being a source of any “rose-colored” expectations. For a long time the sympathy that the United States has for the Armenians served as a restraining element but during the last few years Europe has started to ratchet up its pressure on Armenia. Such examples are the cases brought before the European Court of Human Rights and criticism of violence employed in the post-election period in Armenia. It would appear that criticism of Armenian will only increase with the passage of time.

Q - In your estimation how is Azerbaijan dealing with the marks given by European institutions regarding the democratization processes in the country. Do these grades have any significance when it comes to making real progress in this direction?

A - In our country officials and parliamentarians refuse to accept the existence of any problems outright and confront any critique of the authorities’ practices with swords brandished. However, we must remember that Azerbaijan isn’t that much of a western country, that a sort of eastern mentality holds sway. When the authorities say one thing they do another and think something else entirely. Thus, one mustn’t evaluate governmental positions based on the statements of officials but according to actual developments. I do not agree with that claim that the situation prevailing in the country today is worse than when it entered the European Council. In many aspects officials are conducting themselves more properly than before.

It’s a whole other issue that economic reforms in the country haven’t been completed and that capital remains in the hands of a Mafioso-like group that will loose such control in the event of regime change. Thus, any type of dissent is quashed. Given that “dirty” capital still hasn’t disappeared, that the rule of law hasn’t been established and that actual capitalists haven’t come out of the “shadows”, there can be no talk of democratization and all the efforts of Europe will be for naught. All the fingers of prospective voters can be marked with special ink, but if the ruling government categorically decides to hold on to control, by way of tightly controlling the structures of power, the Central Elections Committee and the Constitutional Court, there is no possibility of democratic elections taking place.

Q - The June session of Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE)   discussed the post-election situation in Armenia and the state of democratic institutions in Azerbaijan. What are the factors that influence PACE in these debates?

A - The situation in Armenia, even the corruption of the election process, something par for the course in the Caucasus, is represented as something extraordinary given the firing upon demonstrators and the large amount of political prisoners, the numbers of which are several times greater than the political prisoners in Azerbaijan and Georgia.

 The concerns of PACE, in regards to Azerbaijan, mostly deal with the upcoming elections. The other side of the problem deals with the unexecuted obligations assumed by Azerbaijan as presented to the Council of Europe in January, 2001. I’d like to underline that the Europeans have certain “sacred cows» that when violated irks them quite seriously. One of these is the freedom of expression. In this regard, the pressure brought to bear on journalists by the courts and law enforcement elicits the expected negative reaction by the Council of Europe. I cannot believe that the pressures exerted against journalists are intensified right before each PACE session that is about to discuss the situation in Azerbaijan.

Recently, for example, the police dispersed a peaceful gathering of supporters of Che Guevara. Journalist and human rights defender Emin Houseynov was beaten and, according to other testimony, suffered a nervous seizure. The incident is still being investigated but a member of the Presidential staff was quick to label the event a “planned provocation” but the victim to initiate an investigation. All the while, it was an incident involving Agil Halili, a reporter for the “Azadlig” newspaper that was also partially laid at his doorstep. Prior to this there was the story of what happened to Ganimat Zakhidov. They beat him but accused him in the end. The police also accused another beaten journalist of falling down and injuring himself in the process.

A curious picture thus emerges. Journalists are falling down all over the place as one, disabling themselves in the process, blackmailing and provoking. At the same time there is not one case registered where someone has been punished for beating journalists, something which commonly happens the world over. Perhaps is it because in Azerbaijan journalists aren’t beaten and attacked? I think not. Generally, it would appear that in conditions where the police solve 90% of crimes committed that small remaining segment is laid at the doorstep of journalists who are subjected to beatings.

Q - The human rights defenders of Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan first applied to PACE after all three of these countries became members of the European Council and proposed that a special rapporteur on the issue of political prisoners be appointed. Can this lead to an actual result and does it make sense for the human rights defenders of all three nations to continue their cooperation?

A - Really, that was the first time we all came out as one unit. But Armenian-Azeri statements regarding exposing the issue of political prisoners in those countries happened as far back as 2000, before they entered the Council of Europe. That’s why specialists were immediately appointed for the two nations. The Armenians quickly released two imprisoned individuals included in the preliminary list of the specialists and thus avoided future PACE inquiries even though there were political prisoners there after 2001. For example, those who refused military service due to religious beliefs. After March 2008 Armenia ranks number one in the number of political prisoners being held in the entire southern Caucasus.

On the whole, I have to admit that the principles surrounding the definition of what a political prisoner is was given a more universal context by the other side; namely Azeri pro-government parliamentarians as far back as January 2003. As far as I understand it this was a step intended to frighten those countries, like Russia, Turkey and the Balkan states, who were practicing political repression on a mass scale. But the actual notion itself is worthy of attention since the issue of political prisoners is not only an Azeri matter. For example, the people’s defender (ombudsman) in Georgia, the official human rights defender, recently agreed that, “in the last period, ever since the incidents of last November, there have been countless individuals arrested on political grounds, for speaking out against the government or for participating in pro-opposition rallies. This is something that really didn’t exist in the past.”

One month ago a group of about ten notable Russian human rights defenders publicly made a statement citing the existence of at least fourteen political prisoners in their country, etc. A similar problem exists in other CIS countries as well. Thus, I believe that the initiative to appoint a special rapporteur for political prisoners could brow beyond the confines of the Caucasus.