The messiah of liberalism
But first we should look back at the ideas and principles that underpinned the establishment of the PACE. In the mid-twentieth century, it was conceived as a consultative body of public representatives, i.e., members of the parliaments of Western European states who, after two bloody world wars, sought to implement the principles of equal rights and security for the citizens of Europe. From its establishment in 1949 until 1974, the present-day PACE referred to itself as the “Consultative Assembly”.
In the 1980s, the ideology of “pan-European values” gradually began to gain strength in PACE, transforming this institution into a body for “declaring the European mission”. On the back of the collapse of the USSR and successes in expanding the political space of Europe by including new members from the former socialist bloc, introducing a common European currency, and developing the Schengen zone, the PACE party blocs embraced the interest of the CIS countries in European institutions as their own mission of ideological and spiritual enlightenment of the former “Soviet peoples”.
The idea of a united Europe from the glaciers of Iceland to the hills of the Kuril Islands, an idea happily cultivated by several generations of Russian liberals, starting with Mikhail Gorbachev, was accepted by the party groups within PACE not only with undisguised enthusiasm, but also as a sign from above, defining their historical role in this segment of the evolution of greater Europe. In reality, PACE’s “democratic enlightenment” was a classic mentorship of a stubborn school vice principal who recognizes no other methods than “my way or the highway”.
Over time, the efforts of numerous proponents and fans of this idea/mission have fostered an illusion in the collective consciousness of civil societies in the CIS countries that civil rights in the post-Soviet states were established solely thanks to European influence.
An uninvited guest is worse than an offended German.
As a matter of fact, all legal reforms, which, for example, Azerbaijan implemented, developing and adopting new Criminal, Criminal Procedure and Civil Codes, proceeded from the basic principles of national civil liberties in the system of the Azerbaijani state, which essentially were in line with the principles and standards of the Council of Europe, but did not follow its matrix and were not bound to PACE ideologically.
Proceeding from the inherent connotations of its history, post-Soviet Azerbaijan shaped itself as an organic union of the state and the nation, with no regard as to how closely these principles matched the commitments that both PACE and Council of Europe officials wanted Baku to fulfill.
This is one of several levels of the underlying conflict between Azerbaijan and PACE.
As for the specific reason that led to Azerbaijan’s decision to suspend its membership in PACE, it stemmed from the report of a German MP who took offense that a PACE delegation had not been invited to observe the presidential elections in Azerbaijan. In reality, it was a formal excuse to vent all the accumulated bile of irritation and even anger of a large group of European MPs who are ideologically intolerant of Azerbaijan and a number of other countries to the east or south of the Old World, whose political and spiritual imperatives do not fit into the procrustean bed of European standards.
Hence the reaction of the delegation of the Republic of Azerbaijan in PACE, whose direct and strong statement said:
“…In the face of current unbearable atmosphere of racism, Azerbaijanophobia and Islamophobia in the PACE, the delegation of Azerbaijan decides to cease its engagement with and presence at the PACE until further notice.”
Another level of the underlying conflict between Azerbaijan and PACE lies in European MPs’ failure not so much to understand as to accept the fact that the world to the east and south of Europe has fundamentally changed, and Azerbaijan itself has become significantly stronger, emerging as a regional leader without any administrative resources or assistance from Europe.
European MPs do not want to acknowledge the obvious, refusing to accept the fact that Azerbaijan, as well as the entire Turkic civilization, are in their heyday and, consequently, dominate their regions, resolving matters of war and peace, problems of scientific and technological development and organization of political spaces on their own, without teachers and intermediaries. Some diplomatically justify this “lack of understanding” by saying that the world around Europe has become much more interesting, multifaceted and complex.
Some, however, go further and say that Europe has simply fallen behind…
Who makes history?
A quarter of a century ago, Azerbaijan invested a lot in the development of ties with PACE. In January 2001, at the meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Azerbaijan became a full member of this consultative decision-making body. On the same day, January 25, 2001, national leader Heydar Aliyev delivered a speech at the PACE session, defining the main directions of relations between the Council of Europe and Azerbaijan.
It is worth recalling that Ilham Aliyev headed Azerbaijan’s delegation to PACE in 2001-2003. Azerbaijan then became a party to more than 60 international conventions adopted in the Council of Europe. The vector of our country’s efforts boiled down, essentially, to one general objective: to get the whole truth about the Karabakh conflict and Armenian aggression across to the Europeans.
This was the basis of another objective: to work out together with the PACE mechanisms for the resolution of the Karabakh conflict, based on the principles that European MPs and officials, who advertised themselves as the most influential and objective experts in the world on the resolution of any conflict situations, were talking about.
It is hard to say today what exactly, illusions or hopes, Azerbaijani politicians were indulging in at the Council of Europe. At any rate, they acted openly and honestly, patiently waiting for what was promised, reasonably believing that a just solution to the Karabakh conflict requires a certain amount of time, approaches and efforts.
But when the waiting time stretched for almost 25 years and hopes that European “miracle peacemakers” would use all means to put an end to the occupation of Azerbaijani lands were finally dispelled, Baku resolved the problem of its sovereignty on its own, without any involvement of Brussels or Strasbourg.
That hit the Council of Europe and PACE like a shock therapy session.
First of all, having resolved its problems on its own, Azerbaijan, as they say, spelled it out for the European institutions that they are in a deep institutional deadlock.
Second, the conceited officials in Brussels and Strasbourg suddenly realized that history is made not only by Europeans, but also by representatives of other parts of the world.
And, finally, third: for the first time, it became clear that the European identity not only does not help, but also outright hinders the development of individual nations in other civilizational regions. This means that the time to sell the system of spiritual values labeled “Made in Europe” and thereby establish their dominance and influence is over.
And by the looks of it, for a long time.
Do European ideologists realize this? Absolutely! Otherwise, why would traditionally politically correct and lax Europe have such an outburst of demonstrative aggression towards Azerbaijan?
Privatization of human rights
Another excerpt from the official statement of the Azerbaijani delegation to PACE is appropriate here:
“Nobody in the world, including those sitting in this hall, can speak with Azerbaijan in the language of threats and blackmail. Never before in the history of the PACE has this organization behaved in such a disgraceful manner.”
Acting as mentors of democracy that undertook to teach and enlighten the Republic of Azerbaijan, which has independently restored its territorial integrity and sovereignty in defiance of circumstances and the unwillingness of the politicians of the “golden billion”, the Council of Europe has fallen into the trap of its own lies, hypocrisy and injustice.
Furthermore, it was a blow to the collective consciousness of PACE ideologists, who expected Azerbaijan to respectfully and unconditionally accept all reprimands like a guilt-ridden schoolboy. Simply because once, at the dawn of independence, after the collapse of the USSR, our country chose the path of realizing human rights.
But human rights is a universal concept, it cannot be privatized by any one civilization or subject of international law. After all, this function is inherent in any freely developing nation-state that does not restrict, but upholds and protects the rights of its citizens. Following this logic, it should be understood that modern Azerbaijan promotes the exercise of the rights of its citizens based on its internal intent, not because the directives of the Council of Europe dictate it.
In lieu of a summary
Not only has Azerbaijan put an end to thirty years of occupation and restored its sovereignty, the country is building a just order around itself and within its society. It is a pointless waste of time and budgetary resources to expend energy explaining this in PACE, whose members do not want to listen to us anyway. It is much more interesting and rewarding to build parliamentary relations with the Turkic world, which also welcomes the part of Central and Eastern Europe represented by Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria…
It is also intellectually and politically much more rewarding to develop public diplomacy in Asia, which is gradually becoming the industrial center of the world, as well as in the Gulf states.
At least there one can engage in meaningful discussions, rather than listen to moralizing sermons…
To sum up, it must be emphasized that Azerbaijan was not and never intended to be the initiator of this conflict.
Baku is grateful to the PACE and the Council of Europe for the 25-year-long journey, on which our country has realized, learned and appreciated so much. Now it is time to take a pause to reflect on the road traveled and figure out how and in what direction to move forward. And depending on the position of the arrow on the political barometer in Azerbaijan-EU relations, official Baku will be willing to consider the possibility of restoring its membership in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in the future.
Translated from Haqqin.az
