This week, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) returned to its favorite pastime: European parliamentarians started a debate on “human rights” in Azerbaijan without the participation of their Azerbaijani colleagues.
“Caspian” The newspaper published an article on the subject.
When one pays attention to such debates in any political institution of the collective West, for example, PACE or the European Parliament, one gets the impression that European politicians who criticize Azerbaijan have old, ready-made summaries in their hands. The errors, inaccuracies and prejudices in the speeches of European parliamentarians give reason to think so. Speeches based on outdated theses show that most speakers are not sufficiently informed about the history of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as the current reality.
The following debates, without lagging behind traditions, were dedicated to the “ethnic cleansing carried out in Nagorno-Karabakh.” These debates showed how politically unprepared, one-sided and inexperienced the MEPs were (of course, not all). , at what level they were instructed and perhaps beyond objectivity. It is clear that the voters who elected them to the legislative bodies of their countries do not have accurate information about what is happening in the South Caucasus. not elected with a bias towards Azerbaijan gives them ample opportunity to make irresponsible speeches in international organizations. The role of ineffective “geopolitical cudgel” played by PACE is no longer a secret. This influence has intensified not only against Azerbaijan, but also against its neighbors. Georgia, which is a candidate for membership in the European Union, is the next test.
The main goal of the accusations against Azerbaijan in PACE is, in fact, simply to express these accusations. Robotic MEPs make speeches based on the instructions they are given, but they are not fully aware of the substance of what they say or the facts. For example, in the 21st century, in the age of the Internet, how are claims about “ethnic cleansing” made responsibly? After all, in Azerbaijan and Armenia there are media outlets, accredited diplomatic missions and international organizations that carry out registrations. When Armenians voluntarily fled Karabakh, in what case was a case of “ethnic cleansing” registered? This is not the beginning of the 20th century, so you can make up lies about “the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire”! Since when did the people who killed Azerbaijanis 30 years ago, forced them to leave their historic homes, looted eight cities and hundreds of villages and destroyed our tombs, historical monuments and places of worship, fled to Armenia, did ethnic cleansing? Can the voluntary departure from Karabakh be considered ethnic cleansing by those who rejected the opportunities created to obtain an Azerbaijani passport and become citizens? Have those who made these irresponsible speeches from the PACE platform seen the videos showing how the Azerbaijani police protected Armenians subjected to “ethnic cleansing”, persuaded them to stay and accompanied them with medical personnel?
Among the speakers this time, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania stood out especially. Gabrielus Landsbergis was offended that the Baku official did not invite anyone from PACE to observe the September 1 parliamentary elections. Landsbergis even makes a “demand” of Azerbaijan: that it fulfill the obligations it assumed upon joining the Council of Europe.
Countries like Lithuania have no special mission in global politics. Their main task is to deliver speeches based on the theses and guidelines of Paris and Brussels, to issue statements that lack foresight and that endanger bilateral relations. Landsbergis knows that Azerbaijani representatives do not participate in the debates and no one will ask him uncomfortable questions. For example, if we talk about obligations, how can PACE explain the violation of the rights of Azerbaijani parliamentarians? On what basis and for what purpose should representatives of an organization with a clear bias against Azerbaijan observe the elections? By what right do PACE officials, who accept the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and even confirm in numerous documents that Armenia is an occupying state, take a unilateral position and defend Yerevan? The Lithuanian Foreign Minister finds it difficult to answer these questions. Because, firstly, it also gives instructions and, secondly, the influence of the State it represents is zero.
It seems that the West is not satisfied with PACE alone, but sees “influencing” Azerbaijan through other international platforms, governments, various forums and events as the only solution left in its arsenal. In parallel with the “discussions” in the PACE, the open pro-Armenian atmosphere at the security forum held in Warsaw and the “benefit” of Ararat Mirzoyan, senseless actions such as the “demands” to the imprisoned leaders of the criminal separatist junta Azerbaijan’s statements by American congressmen are simply ridiculous. We read that information and laugh looking at our tricolor flag flying in Khankendi.
