Azernews.Az

The issue of depriving Armenia of voting rights at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), which is closely followed in Azerbaijan, was discussed during the assembly`s winter session held late in January, along with other issues intensely watched by the world community.
AssA-Irada has asked Gultakin Hajibayli, a member of the Azerbaijani delegation at PACE and deputy chair of the Milli Majlis standing commission on international relations, to help readers understand these issues in an exclusive interview.
Q. Mrs. Hajibayli, first of all we would like for you to provide an overall assessment of the PACE session. Were you content with the course of the session?
A. I assess the course of the session as being normal. This was one of the regular sessions and it did not differ from previous ones in its intensity in any way. At the same time, I have to point out that very important issues were discussed. Discussions held on the current state of Georgia-Russia relations and the latest developments in Gaza made the event more interesting and attractive. As for Azerbaijan, the most interesting part was the discussion conducted on Armenia. For me, personally, what made this session different than most was the fact that the double standard applied by the Council of Europe to its member states has never been evident so explicitly and vividly to this day. Therefore, in my opinion, the winter session was embedded in memory as one that exposed double standards in their entire nakedness and essence.
Q. One of the issues where double standards were observed the most was reflected in the decision adopted on the situation in Armenia after the violent put down of post-election mass protests last year. Although everyone anticipated to the last moment that Armenia would be stripped off its right to vote at the assembly, PACE passed a completely different decision. As a participant in those discussions, what reasons do you see behind that decision?
A. Throughout the eight years of Azerbaijan`s membership in the CE, on many occasions some invisible force, some "hand," had the power to influence the group`s procedures at the time of its choosing. This force has always been active in its efforts, for the most part, to create problems for Azerbaijan without any grounds, while striving to solve outstanding, real problems regarding Armenia. The Armenian lobby is quite powerful in the CE. This time, however, it became clear once again that the Armenian lobbyists in the organization are the very PACE co-rapporteurs on Armenia. These are Georges Colombier of France and John Prescott of Britain. It was under their proposal that the initial version of the draft resolution was amended and the issue on depriving Armenia of voting rights was taken off the agenda. This alone is a substantial ground for analysis. The most resolute demands and the harshest statements put forth to Azerbaijan have always been made by the PACE rapporteurs to Azerbaijan. Andres Herkel and Andreas Gross (previous co-rapporteur) used to act as supporters of persistent criticism and pressure on Azerbaijan, and among those seeking to deprive the country of voting rights. However, now and in the past, rapporteurs on Armenia have proven to be standing by Armenian authorities, not acting as their critics. This fact enables a conclusion that the CE is giving way to double standards even in its approach to the principle of appointing rapporteurs. For instance, whereas the rapporteurs on Azerbaijan are persons taking a quite tough and opposing stance against the country, the ones on Armenia turn out to be "tested" people who see everything in bright and shining colors. We witnessed that during the latest appointment of a rapporteur on Armenia. Prescott was the head of the CE mission that observed the country`s elections in March 2008. After labeling as democratic and complying with European standards the elections, which were followed by developments that shocked the entire world and were marred with extreme brutality, Prescott was "awarded" by the Council with the appointment of a rapporteur on Armenia.
Q. Appointing a special rapporteur on Azerbaijan to scrutinize the "political prisoners" issue was discussed at the CE bureau meeting. Since you attended that meeting, we would like to get your take on that first hand.
A. Indeed, discussions were held, but no decision was passed to that end, at least because appointing a special rapporteur on the "political prisoners" issue is in the authority of the CE Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee. Prior to that, the Committee has to be granted a mandate by the bureau so it can look into the issue. In other words, even if the appointment of the rapporteur is agreed upon following the bureau`s discussions, the final decision will be made by the mentioned Committee, in any case.
Q. Holding such a discussion had not been initially planned. How come this need arose later?
A. First of all, I would like to point out that considering this issue at the bureau meeting was an initiative of an ethnic Greek Cypriot parliamentarian. The background and resume of this individual allows him to have a certain view on the gist of the matter. On the other hand, this was "a surprise" both for us and the rapporteurs on Azerbaijan Andres Herkel and Evguenia Jivkova. In reality, the political prisoners issue has long ceased to be topical in Azerbaijan, and no one was expecting that discussions would be held on the topic at the bureau. I think the organization of these discussions resulted from the policy of "balancing," aimed at pounding certain criticism upon Azerbaijan at the session, which proceeded extremely unsuccessfully for Armenia`s image. It is evident that some European parliament members grew concerned over the expression of very terse criticism toward Armenia and are looking to express certain criticism toward Azerbaijan as well. I would like to stress once again that the "political prisoners" issue is not on the agenda altogether, and Azerbaijan has no such problem. But in the face of this, a very disappointing situation emerged for us as well. Given that the political prisoners jailed during the bloody March 2008 developments that followed the presidential elections in Armenia have yet to be set free, over 50 such detainees are held today in the aggressor country`s jails, and since these persons are considered by the CE to be political prisoners, and all human rights and freedoms are restricted in this country, we were expecting discussions on Armenia.
Q. Andres Herkel said earlier that the March 18 referendum on constitutional amendments to be held in Azerbaijan would be substantially discussed at the PACE session. What discussions were held in this respect?
A. No discussions regarding the referendum were held within the session and PACE President Lluis Maria de Puig merely touched upon this issue in his statement for the media. Also, a limited discussion on the matter was organized at the Monitoring Committee, and it was stated that the referendum (that raises the question of whether the limit on presidential terms should be lifted) is definitely to be observed by the CE delegation. True, Herkel tried to counter this, which by itself raises certain questions, as displaying such a position by anyone representing the CE is incomprehensible. On the contrary, the rapporteurs should be interested in observing every election being held in a CE member state, while Herkel put forth a stance contradicting European principles by asserting there was no need for this. But I am delighted that the CE passed the right decision and stated that the organization would observe the referendum. At the same time, parliamentarians noted in response to Herkel`s rhetoric at the Committee meeting that improving any country`s system of governance was its internal affair, and these changes simply should not contradict the principles of democracy and human rights. For instance, the British representative said in his address that in his country, power is wielded by the royal family and the prime minister. The premier can be elected to this post as long as he desires, till the end of his life. Spain`s representatives also expressed their views to that end, reminding that monarchy is the form of government in their country. At the same time the prime minister, who shares actual power with the King, can be elected to the post as long as his health allows this, provided that he is supported by the people and there is no such restriction [about the number of terms in office]. From this viewpoint, they treated as normal the proposal to remove the two-term limit on the president in Azerbaijan. The main thing is for the people`s will to prevail and for the public to be able to elect any given individual to the top post.