Tweet
AZERI SENIOR OFFICIAL HITS AT US, OSCE POSITION ON PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
APA, Azerbaijan\
Oct 15 2013
[Translated from Azeri]
Head of Azerbaijani Presidential Administration Ramiz Mehdiyev has
criticised the positions of the US Department of State and the OSCE
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights on the 9 October
presidential election. In an interview with several Azerbaijani
news agencies Mehdiyev described their positions as "disgraceful,
biased and unworthy". He said that the US would endorse the outcome
if Azerbaijan agreed to give the opposition 25 per cent of the votes.
Mehdiyev also said that the opposition's has itself to blame
for the election outcome and that voters were not supportive of
their "unrealistic and absurd promises". On the opening of the
Armenian-Turkish border, he said that unless linked with progress in
settling the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict Azerbaijan will oppose this.
The following is an excerpt from Ramiz Mehdiyev's interview by
Azerbaijani news agency APA on 15 October.
15 October, Baku: The head of the Azerbaijani Presidential
Administration, Academician Ramiz Mehdiyev gave an interview to the
Azartac, APA, 1news.az and Trend news agencies. APA presents this
interview.
[Azartac state-owned agency] On 9 October Azerbaijani voters through
a general vote made their choice for the country's future. How do
you assess the outcome of the presidential election?
[Mehdiyev] The world politics is distinguished by a high level of
uncertainty. Often major powers take unexpected moves that surprise
people. Therefore, one should not become emotional and be misled by
their "friendship". I have this opinion because the world politics
is ruled by double standards and "naughty ones are punished". Now to
the gist of your question.
Before anything else I must note that the presidential election was
marked by the high level of citizenship and electoral activity. That
the turnout was over 72 per cent is indisputable evidence. Practically
everywhere a high voter turnout was registered.
While voting in polling stations people understood that the country's
future, further course of social and economic reforms and finally the
fate of stability and development achieved thanks to the Azerbaijani
authorities' titanic efforts against the background of realities
causing concerns in the world depends primarily on themselves.
With full responsibility I can say that the 2013 presidential
election was a big step forward on the path to building democracy
and constructing in Azerbaijan a true free society and rule of law.
Anybody who monitored the election or voted had the opportunity
to see that the national political and democratic institutions,
the Central Electoral Commission [CEC] and civil society bodies
implemented all measures they could to bring the election in line with
the highest standards. Today we can note with pride that transparency
and observance of fundamental principles of democracy have created
all conditions for voters to freely express their will.
The irreconcilable opposition has not presented even a single forged
bulletin to the public with regard to the outcome of the election.
This fact alone shows that the election was transparent and fair.
The election outcome vividly shows the sentiments of the majority
of the electorate and what the Azerbaijani people want. The voter
turnout and election results showed that the vast majority of citizens
completely support the line of sustainable development offered by the
ruling New Azerbaijan Party's candidate, Ilham Aliyev. The fundamental
social and economic achievements of our country in the past decade
are inseparably tied with his name.
It is heart-warming that there is civil, public and political activity
in Azerbaijan and people are thoughtfully supporting the new changes
by making the optimal choice. I would like to especially note that
the majority of those who voted for Ilham Aliyev are those of our
compatriots who believe that steady strengthening of our national
statehood is a vital issue.
This means that they correctly assess the Azerbaijani authorities'
efforts to implement the grandiose renewal programme. This plan is
being turned into reality in a planned fashion and peoples' living
standards are clearly improving.
[Passage omitted: Overwhelming popular support for President Ilham
Aliyev stems from solid economic growth in the past decade]
"Disgraceful, biased and unworthy"
[Trend] On the whole international organizations said that the
national leadership is interested in holding a transparent and
democratic election. However, the OSCE ODIHR [Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights] and the US Department of State appraised
the election differently. How do you assess such an ambiguous appraisal
of the election?
[Mehdiyev] First I would like to emphasize that positive opinions and
appraisals by international observers are much more numerous than
negative opinions and appraisals. The overall number of observers
and experts from authoritative international organization stood at
1,295 and they came from 100 countries. Practically all of them highly
praised the level of transparency of the election and observance of
the principles of free expression of will by voters.
[Passage omitted: Hundreds of international observers and experts
monitored the election]
Regrettably, I have to say that there were cases of bias as well.
Despite the conditions of full transparency and openness, some
European officials and the US foreign policy body created what they
call a dissonance.
We definitely do not accept the appraisal given by the US State
Department and the OSCE ODIHR and regard this as extremely disgraceful,
biased and unworthy fact by these two official institutions.
The OSCE ODIHR has never issued such a negative assessment of the
Azerbaijani elections. The facts included in the preliminary report
of this organization are the result of assumptions and lies actively
spread by members of the National Council. Since the National Council
knew that there was no chance their candidate could be elected from
the outset they began to sabotage the election in this fashion. Let
me give an example. On the election day members of the OSCE ODIHR
observation mission visited polling station No 84 in Baku's Suraxani
district 156 times. They fully monitored the filling and calculation of
bulletins and final protocols. They had no objections to the electoral
process in the three polling stations in this district.
Despite this, the National Council's candidate said that there were
mass falsifications and violations here.
I admit that I can see some strange but explainable synchronization
in the appraisal of the election and how these two sides classified
the conduct and results of the election. This creates the impression
that both centres closely coordinated their activities with one goal -
to put pressure on Azerbaijan, although there are no grounds, reasons
or incentives for this.
The Azerbaijani government bodies said from the beginning and now
confirm that holding a fair and transparent election is first of all
in line with our own interests. Where is the sense for us in going
against our priorities when we are interested in democratization
through providing rights and freedoms, do not obstruct the activities
of political organizations, conduct a transparent work to develop
civil society, ensure the right for self-expression and coordinate
our efforts with the relevant institutions of European organizations,
Venice Commission and other centres?!
I say this frankly that not only do I disagree with the appraisals
of the two sides you named, I am even angered by their positions
because their views do not reflect the real situation. There is no
way to understand the objectives of the OSCE ODIHR and the US foreign
policy body - why do they deliberately distort the clear and accurate
picture and thus damage bilateral relations?!
In recent years Azerbaijan has always demonstrated transparency and
never shirked from dialogue and cooperation in the area of conducting
democratic reforms. On this front Azerbaijan made amazing progress.
Incidentally, facts of positive changes in electoral technologies
which form an important part of the democratic rebuilding prove how
important and appropriate is this dialogue for us.
It is very strange that criticizing our practice has turned into a
major goal for some centres. Otherwise, there would be no meaning
in questioning the hard work that is fully up to exacting standards
and is in line with the international practice that does not elicit
criticism from impartial experts from the world's leading countries.
If we compare the Azerbaijani presidential election with the February
election in Armenia this year, we will encounter contrasts. As
opposed to Azerbaijan's realities, the election period in Armenia was
uncertain and even dangerous. Government bodies threatened candidates
and persecuted them in a crude and strict fashion. The situation even
reached the point of an attempt on life when presidential candidate
Paruyr Hayrikyan was fired at.
[Passage omitted: Double standards in observing the Armenian and
Azerbaijani elections]
The American establishment as a rule always harbours a pro-Armenian
position in the context of settling the Karabakh conflict, assisting
Armenia and Nagornyy Karabakh through non-government channels and
exposition of human rights issues, while conducting a damaging policy
with regard to revoking Freedom Support Act Section 907 that hurts
Azerbaijan's national interests.
There is no doubt that the reason for such one-sided and fruitless
policy is the boundless activity of the pro-Armenian lobby of the USA.
This lobby has recently begun to assert real influence on important
political decisions made by Washington. It is surprising that while
claiming the world title of the "legislator of political fashion",
the USA has turned into a puppet of the Armenian lobby. The fiasco of
the diplomatic mission of US ambassador to Azerbaijan Matthew Bryza in
2011 is a case in point for this situation. This seasoned diplomat was
well-versed in the South Caucasus realities and the Karabakh problem
and was an expert in the energy policy in the Caspian and Black sea
basins, while also possessing intimate knowledge of the details of
Eurasian geopolitics. For these reasons he could have contributed much
to resolving conflicted and disputed issues of the region. However, the
lobbyists of Armenian interests in the US Senate thwarted the career
of this diplomat, and only because the Armenian National Committee
of America whizzes believed that Matthew Bryza was a pro-Azerbaijani
and pro-Turkish politician and prevented his endorsement as the US
ambassador to Azerbaijan. As a result, US interests were damaged. If
Matthew Bryza became the US envoy to the region then serious changes
in the field of conflict issues could occur.
The US political circles have made a tradition out of "not seeing"
anti-American and some other moves. This liberalism can even be seen
when the Armenian authorities openly trample on the rights of their
citizens, disrespect international law, unashamedly make territorial
claims to neighbouring countries and threaten them.
During his speech in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe on 2 October Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan was so rampant
that he indirectly admitted the fact that his country perpetrated an
aggression against Azerbaijan. But this is not the main aspect.
Sargsyan announced that his country intends to expand the occupied
territory from 20 per cent [of Azerbaijan's territory] to 30 per cent
and even beyond.
The strangest aspect is that a blind eye is turned to such abhorrent
plans and threats to peace and security, that the Western circles who
go on and on about freedoms are tacitly supporting the aggressor and
fail to see the "pranks" of this brazen country. A normal person's
conscience does not accept this.
It is surprising that the US State Department and the OSCE ODIHR not
even once took a critical position with regard to this fact, as if
everything in the Armenian leadership's political ethics is in line
with the universally accepted standards.
Against the background of alarming realities in Armenia, the situation
in Azerbaijan is in line with all requirements of the existing
national legislation and not outside the framework of international
practice. Yet, some pedantic analysts derive pleasure from issuing
a negative verdict on the election in Azerbaijan.
There can be no absolute truth in such attitude to the matter and
the appraisals that they have given. About the assessment of the
OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights [ODIHR]
I have to say that according to our information the draft law of
the report that contained no positive fragment about the election
was prepared beforehand in the Warsaw office of the organization. It
should be noted here that the objective of such detestable moves is
to further exacerbate the situation and encourage negative processes
in Azerbaijani society.
>From the above we can draw the conclusion that some observers prepared
in advance to issue a negative opinion on the election. We can only
presume what is the real objective behind their open enmity to us.
There is no doubt that these forces are undermining their credibility.
If they truly wish to cooperate with Azerbaijan then they must first
take a look at the reality instead of distorting the real picture by
creating dubious preferences and meaningless rankings.
Let me note that traditionally the problem of election legitimacy
has been a mechanism of geopolitical pressure in the international
practice. It seems that some centres have become so accustomed to
this that they fail to see changes unfolding in the countries that
are genuinely interested in democratization of society and applying
positive standards in the lives of their peoples.
I cannot fail to mention one aspect in this context. This pressure
mechanism is still being used against countries that conduct an
independent policy and observe the principle of loyalty to national
interests. If these countries also happen to have a promising amount of
resources, then they will definitely incur the ire of the institutions
that punish through "democracy".
This position can only be described as wrong and fruitless, as well
as dangerous.
USA recommends rigging results
APA: Then this creates the impression that the standards always
extolled by international representatives and politicians of some
countries actually amount to an unstable collection of values that
these functionaries manipulate at will?
[Passage omitted: Observers do not monitor elections in Western
countries]
[Mehdiyev] As for rigging the election results, the whole world is
aware of such scandals. Instead of ensuring that they themselves have
democratic elections these countries take upon themselves the right to
assess the electoral processes in other countries. What is more, as a
rule this is done in a biased way and on political directives. There
are plenty of examples when the electoral processes were thwarted and
falsified in the USA, UK, Germany, France and other Western countries.
The whole world knows the level of falsifications in the US
presidential election and how scandals always mar the election
processes in this country. Yet, they are trying to teach us how to
conduct the election.
Incidentally, US officials recommended that we give 25 per cent of
votes to the National Council's candidate and keep the remaining 74
per cent - 75 per cent to ourselves. That is, if this was the ratio of
votes then the opinion of the US Department of State would have been
balanced. Logically speaking, if we do not follow this recommendation,
then in all other cases they will issue a negative opinion. The result
is known. As you can see, this was a serious warning, not just a
friendly advice.
This means that we had to conduct a rigged election, not a transparent
and fair one and in accordance with the wish of our partners we had
to add forged percentages to the votes for certain candidates. Is this
not an insult to the dignity of Azerbaijani voters and their national
sentiments? Because they decide themselves for which political platform
they will vote without anybody's intervention.
[Passage omitted: France, Denmark have shorter election campaign
periods]
OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Ms. Tana de
Zulueta, who came to Baku as the head of the observer mission of the
OSCE ODIHR had no basic notion about Azerbaijan. Prior to her visit
she met our ambassador in Italy. She was interested in Azerbaijan's
geography and history, its people and relations with neighbouring
countries, the causes for the Armenian-Azerbaijani, Nagornyy Karabakh
conflict, Azerbaijan's economic situation and a number of other
issues. This fact alone shows that Ms. Zulueta was sent to a country
while she did not about the real situation there. This creates the
impression that she was selected to implement the specific mission
of bringing the election into disrepute. This idea is based on the
fact that several days before the 9 October election we already knew
the text of the report published on 10 October.
We know that after the OSCE ODIHR made its announcement the European
Union member countries' ambassadors in Baku met several members
of the observation missions from European organizations. At their
joint consultation they said that they were concerned and infuriated
by the shameless distortion of facts and the biased preparation of
the document. The heads of some diplomatic missions accredited in
Azerbaijan spoke sternly about this report and described it as an act
of sabotage designed to worsen the European Union's relations with
Azerbaijan in the lead-up to the European Union's summit in Vilnius.
It is obvious that there are no ideal elections in principle. There is
always some discontent, violations and shortcomings. If such cases are
episodic and remain an exception with regard to the general situation,
then to what extent is it justified to exaggerate details taken out
of the general context and generalize by describing them as the final
result? Such a position on this matter a priori cannot be fair. This
approach is directed towards realizing unsavoury objectives.
Another example. The West always focuses on media freedom issues
and teaches us how to work with media bodies. We do not have such
a problem. The Azerbaijani media is free and there are no problems
with distributing information, public ownership of the existing news
resources and their freedom to release sensational materials without
regard for their ownership. Yet, we are sometimes forced to feel
the pressure from Western circles, although in this area as well our
partners would do well to examine the situation with the freedom of
their own media organizations.
[Passage omitted: Criticism of human rights violations and media
restrictions in the USA]
Abuse of trust
[1News.az] What is Baku's reaction to the manifestations of double
standards? In addition, sometimes not only international organizations,
but also official agencies of some countries engage in this...
[Mehdiyev] The assessments, recommendations and actions of
international organizations, missions of other countries and our
partners are always very important for us, provided, of course,
that they are objective and constructive.
[Passage omitted: Criticism acceptable if correct]
In recent years the political moral in our country has visibly
strengthened and this is a crucial aspect of our reality. Pay attention
to how important the Azerbaijani president regards creating transparent
conditions in public, social and economic spheres! This transparency
is vital for changing the format of relations between people and
official bodies and ensuring trust in relations.
In the practice of international relations trust is as important
as it is in relations between people. Therefore, problems that
complicate partnership emerge when some sides seek to abuse trust
and unnecessarily test relations that formed during many years.
For example, relations between Azerbaijan and the USA are not just
friendly; they are also strategic relations that passed the test of
times. We are strategic partners and in accordance with this the US
assessment of the presidential election is very important for Baku.
Unfortunately, we have to note that for reasons that remain unclear
for us the US Department of State voiced an opinion that was definitely
wide of the mark.
I regard such moves in our partnership by US official bodies as an
attempt in an insincere and authoritarian fashion to criticize us
for not living in accordance with the scenario they chose. There is
no reason to assume that there are no grounds for contemplating the
reasons for such a biased appraisal of the US foreign policy body to
the election held in Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan took into consideration
all aspects, the smallest minutiae and even force-majeure to rule out
misunderstandings or discontent of voters. Abnormal situation always
emerge in the course of election campaigns, dissatisfied people emerge
and incidents occur. In spite of this, there was no incident in the
last election that could lead to spoiling the overall picture or give
grounds for condemning the entire process.
Fortunately, the vast majority of foreign observers highly praised
the efforts that allowed the conduct of this process at the necessary
level, the ground work and the entire composition.
I would like to emphasize an important detail for you: the chairman of
the Central Electoral Commission, Mazahir Panahov, unexpectedly held
a briefing at 1500 [1000 gmt] on the election day. During the briefing
he announced several legal violations that took place in some polling
stations. In a polling station in Samkir District a representative
of an opposition newspaper intruded into the station and sought to
derail the election process. The matter there was investigated on
the spot and the incident was dealt with.
Before the CEC chairman managed to complete his prompt report, a
representative of a Western media outlet began to ask him questions
about the details of the incident. It became immediately clear
to everybody, including the CEC chairman himself, that the female
journalist was aware of the prepared sabotage because unwarily she
talked about such details of the incident that could not be known to
a person 300 km away from the area.
Another example. On 9 October through social networks and YouTube
opposition groups unleashed a campaign of discrediting the election
through videos that depicted stuffing of election bulletins and
carousel voting. However, the organizers of this campaign forgot
technical details and these details unmasked the falsifiers. The
videos were posted on the YouTube video channel on 8 October, that
is one day before the election. Strange, is not it?
I also wish to clarify the matter of mobile devices where the election
results were posted in advance. The law-enforcement bodies together
with the CEC are currently investigating this seditious move and the
culprits will be brought to responsibility in accordance with law.
On the election day members of the irreconcilable opposition committed
numerous unlawful and inflammatory moves in a number of polling
stations. Commission members included all such cases in protocols
and sent them for investigation to the Central Electoral Commission.
The means and methods for propaganda and anti-propaganda of black PR
and other sabotage technologies are known to everybody. There is no
need to marvel at this arsenal. In the course of vote and political
struggle people support what they believe in or hope for. Perhaps this
should be considered a normal phenomenon. However, upon seeing a biased
attack that employs a tactic suitable for old-time naval battles on the
positions of the CEC that was cautious and took all possible measures
to keep the process fully in line with the existing legislation, one
wants to ask why and for what purpose did they confuse the colours
and create a biased negative opinion?
I wish to bring to your attention one important fact. We know that
the OSCE ODIHR is not an independent organization that functions
independently. It moves while keeping one eye on the USA. Since we
know that in its previous unobjective and biased assessments of the
Azerbaijani elections this organization too was guided by the specific
instructions received from the USA, we were far from inviting them to
observe this presidential election. However, at the US recommendation
Azerbaijani invited the OSCE ODIHR. It later transpired that the
reports of the US State Department and OSCE ODIHR are identical. This
is an express abuse of trust.
The OSCE ODIHR has repeatedly demonstrated that its position is
dictated from outside. This fact gives us grounds to cease cooperation
with this organization.
Relations with opposition
[APA] The election is over. What is your forecast for the development
of relations between the government and opposition in the post-election
period?
[Mehdiyev] The election campaign must bring together political forces
in order for national interests to prevail. In a healthy society
it is considered normal and natural to put the issue this way. The
competition between the sides does not mean building walls between
themselves, antagonism or especially enmity.
Unfortunately, in our situation we have to witness the opposition
that is the worst of the worst. For over 20 years now the radical
opposition refuses to engage in dialogue. As before, they seek for
the root of evil not in themselves, in their aggressive struggle
for power, but in the strong government that is capable of working,
ensuring stability and development in Azerbaijan and strengthening
its international positions.
The government has repeatedly called on its opponents to sit at a
table and begin a dialogue. This is a move worthy of the strong and
the government shows this. But always incomprehensible arguments
and unfounded complaints are made and inadequate rhetoric is voiced
in response.
Again it is the baseless ambitions of our opponents that thwart the
dialogue. If the radical opposition lacks the electoral support,
then why should it blame the government for this? During the previous
years the social base of this camp visibly eroded because the esteemed
radicals for decades engaged in unnecessary efforts. They could not
determine the ideological aspect of their programme of activity and
did not work out the concept of an alternative constructive activity
to the programme of reforms. Given such uncertain conditions, how
were they going to woo their supporters?
The electorate cast votes for real ideological objectives, for ways
and means of achieving them, for projects of reforms in various
spheres. The government both announce and implement them.
The irreplaceable leaders of the irreconcilable opposition deny
our country's successes and results of the reform programmes, but
offer nothing in their place. While none of them has experience or
potential of administration and they lack the electorate's support,
they only wish to have power. What voter can vote for a candidate
who gives unrealistic and absurd promises?
The televised debates on the Public TV in Azerbaijan showed that
this opposition is still not ready for civil struggle. They were
unable to put forward an election platform because they only engage in
demagoguery, while the proxies of the favoured candidate explained in
clear and understandable terms what and how this candidate plans to do.
It seems that history and their sad experience have taught nothing
to the irreconcilable opposition. They would not be repeating the
old mistakes otherwise.
Pay attention to the election results: Ilham Aliyev gathered 84.55
per cent, while the National Council's candidate only mustered 5.77
per cent of votes. What does this show? This shows that the number of
supporters of the irreconcilable opposition in Azerbaijan is somewhat
higher than 150,000. This is a very interesting piece of information
for those who are forced to calculate their losses.
The unchangeable leaders of the radical opposition must draw
conclusions from this and realize that radicalism and aggression will
lead them nowhere. This is a dead end. This opposition will lose
even the few supporters they have. It is high time to realize that
both responsible government and competitive opposition are vital
components for a democratic society. However, competition must not
lead to an increase in illegal technologies, disruption of public
order and aggressive moves.
It is impossible for Azerbaijan's political system to develop and
reach political stability based on the balance of political powers
that reflect interests of various social groups in the absence
of a normally functioning institute of opposition. However, the
opposition must be ready both in ideological and practical terms for
this responsible role.
Only the constructive opposition has the mission of building. Only
they can participate in state building, forming national society and
civil society.
The moves by the functionaries from the irreconcilable opposition's
camp show that this force has exhausted its resources. The majority
of its leaders are people who were in power in the beginning of the
1990s. After losing power they gathered "the discontented" around
them and began to lead parties. Their faulty world outlook, corrupt
moral values and inability to embrace change in accordance with the
new tasks facing our people after establishing independence make this
camp unable to pin hopes on the stream of "new forces".
This camp is unable to pin hopes on the stream of new forces because
the opposition forces either cannot work with their voters, explain
to them their positions, views and priorities, or do not wish to do so.
I cannot fail to point out one inherent characteristic of the
discontented. They can never get rid of the obsession that only
they can be true democrats and nobody else. For many years these
people call themselves representatives of the democratic wing of the
political spectrum, although characteristics and peculiarities that
are in stark contradiction with democracy always emerge in their
positions. The time has come to objectively appraise them so that
the notion of a "democrat" is not cheapened. Looking at the moves of
the Azerbaijani opposition through the prism of universally accepted
norms and standards, there are all grounds for talking not about the
triumph of democracy, but about its social ills.
At first glance the struggle between the government and opposition is
always about competition for authority, opportunities, resources and,
finally, power. However, this struggle must be waged in a prudent
and civil way, and most importantly with responsibility. Because the
noble objective of supremacy of national interests can always be seen
looking from the prism of interests of healthy forces.
Foreign policy after election
[Trend] Since you began talking of national interests, it is necessary
to clarify one point: can changes be expected in the foreign policy
after president-elect Ilham Aliyev is sworn in and begins to execute
his duties?
[Mehdiyev] In recent years Azerbaijan has built extremely constructive
relations with our neighbours, Western countries and the Muslim world.
The principle of mutual understanding rules in dialogues with our
partners. This is very important for future foreign relations. The
constructive nature of mutual activities promises our country
ample advantages, opportunities for trade and increased integration
potential, expanded area of cooperation.
With the exception of Armenia, Azerbaijan has no problems in relations
with neighbouring countries. The strengthening of international
positions creates conditions for reinforcing the diplomatic front,
which is crucial in terms of settling the Karabakh conflict.
Increasingly more and more countries come to realize the gist of our
territorial problem.
Pay attention that on the international arena Azerbaijan continuously
prevails over the aggressor state. This happens because the ranks
of our friends and strategic partners are expanding by the year. At
the international summits, in the lobbies and high-profile meeting
of the UN and other authoritative international organization they
display their readiness to support Baku's position.
The trend toward mutually beneficial cooperation with continental and
European Union countries, major support for NATO's Eastern Partnership
and Partnership for Peace programmes and developing relations with
the countries represented in the Non-Aligned Movement will certainly
be carried on.
There is still a large untapped potential of mutual strategic
cooperation with the Muslim world countries. Here too the bounds of
possible and constructive events will be expanded.
The need for increased activity on the international stage has to do
with the increase in major positive opportunities brought about by
the clear and accurate foreign policy of the Azerbaijani state and
closer ties with our old and new partners. We have values to offer to
the international community. Accordingly, there are also many values
that we consider essential to take from them. Therefore, our movement
toward out partners and sincere friends will dynamically increase.
Armenian-Turkish rapprochement
[Azartac] For well-known reasons while building the vectors of its
foreign policy Azerbaijan has to be guided by the Karabakh issue. It
is possible that some countries still intend to organize a surprise
with Armenian-Turkish rapprochement. At least such reports are leaked
to the international media. What will be Baku's response in this case?
[Mehdiyev] The subject of your question is very topical. Some Western
circles indeed do not stop trying to exaggerate this issue. They
wish to bring back to the international agenda Armenian-Turkish
rapprochement issues in the format of concessions on our side.
According to information that we have, in order to implement this
intention some countries exert pressure on the Turkish political
leadership. This is about reanimating the Zurich protocols. Azerbaijan
closely monitors this process. If the opening of the Turkish-Armenian
border is suggested without being linked with settlement of the
Karabakh conflict, then Azerbaijan's response will be extremely
negative and adequate measures will be taken. We will do whatever
is possible to prevent Armenian-Turkish rapprochement from being
unilateral. We have plenty of levers of influence. In order to prevent
Armenia from escaping its isolation, we are capable of influencing
the balance of regional powers.
It is our natural right to demand from the international community and
partner countries that they comply with the provisions of international
law. Armenia is an aggressor state that has kept Azerbaijani
territories under illegal occupation for more than 20 years, that
poses threat to regional security, violates international order
and generates new risks and problems. Therefore, if it is given the
advantage of escaping its isolated position, then this will definitely
lead to major problems and threats to neighbouring countries.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said recently that Ankara
will not change the commitments it made to Baku and will not improve
relations with Yerevan unless the occupied territories of Azerbaijan
are freed. This is an objective position in line with international
legal requirements, our expectations and our faith in the immutability
of Turkey's just position. Regrettably, some Western countries do not
wish to tolerate this, support the aggressor and play with Armenia's
whims displaying infuriating inadequacy and hypocrisy.
The international community and Yerevan's donors must not encourage
the aggressor and must uphold the positions of international law. Only
in this way can the rampant and aggressive-minded Armenia be forced
to respect the right of its neighbours to live in calm, peace and
security, and to free the occupied territories.
It is completely clear that Armenia takes advantage of the favourable
disposition of its foreign sponsors and wishes to achieve a turnaround
in the diplomatic struggle with Azerbaijan. Since the Armenian
leadership see this opportunity, they thwart the political process
and engage in obstructionism. If it did not have the hypothetical
rescue options, then perhaps there would be more headway made in the
negotiations process.
As before Azerbaijan is determined to achieve a peaceful solution to
this issue. This path envisages that Azerbaijan's territorial integrity
be ensured within the borders agreed upon by the international
community. Undoubtedly, guided by the supremacy of international
law principles, efforts must be concentrated around real mutual
give-and-take.
Our country has repeatedly demonstrated that it is loyal to the spirit
of constructive approach and expects an adequate position from the
Armenian side as well. Opportunities for peaceful settlement of the
conflict have not been exhausted yet and they must be used. However,
the patience of the people is not limitless.
It is essential that all countries that are interested in the South
Caucasus issues, including the Western countries, understand this
reality.
[Translated from Azeri]
From: Baghdasarian
APA, Azerbaijan\
Oct 15 2013
[Translated from Azeri]
Head of Azerbaijani Presidential Administration Ramiz Mehdiyev has
criticised the positions of the US Department of State and the OSCE
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights on the 9 October
presidential election. In an interview with several Azerbaijani
news agencies Mehdiyev described their positions as "disgraceful,
biased and unworthy". He said that the US would endorse the outcome
if Azerbaijan agreed to give the opposition 25 per cent of the votes.
Mehdiyev also said that the opposition's has itself to blame
for the election outcome and that voters were not supportive of
their "unrealistic and absurd promises". On the opening of the
Armenian-Turkish border, he said that unless linked with progress in
settling the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict Azerbaijan will oppose this.
The following is an excerpt from Ramiz Mehdiyev's interview by
Azerbaijani news agency APA on 15 October.
15 October, Baku: The head of the Azerbaijani Presidential
Administration, Academician Ramiz Mehdiyev gave an interview to the
Azartac, APA, 1news.az and Trend news agencies. APA presents this
interview.
[Azartac state-owned agency] On 9 October Azerbaijani voters through
a general vote made their choice for the country's future. How do
you assess the outcome of the presidential election?
[Mehdiyev] The world politics is distinguished by a high level of
uncertainty. Often major powers take unexpected moves that surprise
people. Therefore, one should not become emotional and be misled by
their "friendship". I have this opinion because the world politics
is ruled by double standards and "naughty ones are punished". Now to
the gist of your question.
Before anything else I must note that the presidential election was
marked by the high level of citizenship and electoral activity. That
the turnout was over 72 per cent is indisputable evidence. Practically
everywhere a high voter turnout was registered.
While voting in polling stations people understood that the country's
future, further course of social and economic reforms and finally the
fate of stability and development achieved thanks to the Azerbaijani
authorities' titanic efforts against the background of realities
causing concerns in the world depends primarily on themselves.
With full responsibility I can say that the 2013 presidential
election was a big step forward on the path to building democracy
and constructing in Azerbaijan a true free society and rule of law.
Anybody who monitored the election or voted had the opportunity
to see that the national political and democratic institutions,
the Central Electoral Commission [CEC] and civil society bodies
implemented all measures they could to bring the election in line with
the highest standards. Today we can note with pride that transparency
and observance of fundamental principles of democracy have created
all conditions for voters to freely express their will.
The irreconcilable opposition has not presented even a single forged
bulletin to the public with regard to the outcome of the election.
This fact alone shows that the election was transparent and fair.
The election outcome vividly shows the sentiments of the majority
of the electorate and what the Azerbaijani people want. The voter
turnout and election results showed that the vast majority of citizens
completely support the line of sustainable development offered by the
ruling New Azerbaijan Party's candidate, Ilham Aliyev. The fundamental
social and economic achievements of our country in the past decade
are inseparably tied with his name.
It is heart-warming that there is civil, public and political activity
in Azerbaijan and people are thoughtfully supporting the new changes
by making the optimal choice. I would like to especially note that
the majority of those who voted for Ilham Aliyev are those of our
compatriots who believe that steady strengthening of our national
statehood is a vital issue.
This means that they correctly assess the Azerbaijani authorities'
efforts to implement the grandiose renewal programme. This plan is
being turned into reality in a planned fashion and peoples' living
standards are clearly improving.
[Passage omitted: Overwhelming popular support for President Ilham
Aliyev stems from solid economic growth in the past decade]
"Disgraceful, biased and unworthy"
[Trend] On the whole international organizations said that the
national leadership is interested in holding a transparent and
democratic election. However, the OSCE ODIHR [Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights] and the US Department of State appraised
the election differently. How do you assess such an ambiguous appraisal
of the election?
[Mehdiyev] First I would like to emphasize that positive opinions and
appraisals by international observers are much more numerous than
negative opinions and appraisals. The overall number of observers
and experts from authoritative international organization stood at
1,295 and they came from 100 countries. Practically all of them highly
praised the level of transparency of the election and observance of
the principles of free expression of will by voters.
[Passage omitted: Hundreds of international observers and experts
monitored the election]
Regrettably, I have to say that there were cases of bias as well.
Despite the conditions of full transparency and openness, some
European officials and the US foreign policy body created what they
call a dissonance.
We definitely do not accept the appraisal given by the US State
Department and the OSCE ODIHR and regard this as extremely disgraceful,
biased and unworthy fact by these two official institutions.
The OSCE ODIHR has never issued such a negative assessment of the
Azerbaijani elections. The facts included in the preliminary report
of this organization are the result of assumptions and lies actively
spread by members of the National Council. Since the National Council
knew that there was no chance their candidate could be elected from
the outset they began to sabotage the election in this fashion. Let
me give an example. On the election day members of the OSCE ODIHR
observation mission visited polling station No 84 in Baku's Suraxani
district 156 times. They fully monitored the filling and calculation of
bulletins and final protocols. They had no objections to the electoral
process in the three polling stations in this district.
Despite this, the National Council's candidate said that there were
mass falsifications and violations here.
I admit that I can see some strange but explainable synchronization
in the appraisal of the election and how these two sides classified
the conduct and results of the election. This creates the impression
that both centres closely coordinated their activities with one goal -
to put pressure on Azerbaijan, although there are no grounds, reasons
or incentives for this.
The Azerbaijani government bodies said from the beginning and now
confirm that holding a fair and transparent election is first of all
in line with our own interests. Where is the sense for us in going
against our priorities when we are interested in democratization
through providing rights and freedoms, do not obstruct the activities
of political organizations, conduct a transparent work to develop
civil society, ensure the right for self-expression and coordinate
our efforts with the relevant institutions of European organizations,
Venice Commission and other centres?!
I say this frankly that not only do I disagree with the appraisals
of the two sides you named, I am even angered by their positions
because their views do not reflect the real situation. There is no
way to understand the objectives of the OSCE ODIHR and the US foreign
policy body - why do they deliberately distort the clear and accurate
picture and thus damage bilateral relations?!
In recent years Azerbaijan has always demonstrated transparency and
never shirked from dialogue and cooperation in the area of conducting
democratic reforms. On this front Azerbaijan made amazing progress.
Incidentally, facts of positive changes in electoral technologies
which form an important part of the democratic rebuilding prove how
important and appropriate is this dialogue for us.
It is very strange that criticizing our practice has turned into a
major goal for some centres. Otherwise, there would be no meaning
in questioning the hard work that is fully up to exacting standards
and is in line with the international practice that does not elicit
criticism from impartial experts from the world's leading countries.
If we compare the Azerbaijani presidential election with the February
election in Armenia this year, we will encounter contrasts. As
opposed to Azerbaijan's realities, the election period in Armenia was
uncertain and even dangerous. Government bodies threatened candidates
and persecuted them in a crude and strict fashion. The situation even
reached the point of an attempt on life when presidential candidate
Paruyr Hayrikyan was fired at.
[Passage omitted: Double standards in observing the Armenian and
Azerbaijani elections]
The American establishment as a rule always harbours a pro-Armenian
position in the context of settling the Karabakh conflict, assisting
Armenia and Nagornyy Karabakh through non-government channels and
exposition of human rights issues, while conducting a damaging policy
with regard to revoking Freedom Support Act Section 907 that hurts
Azerbaijan's national interests.
There is no doubt that the reason for such one-sided and fruitless
policy is the boundless activity of the pro-Armenian lobby of the USA.
This lobby has recently begun to assert real influence on important
political decisions made by Washington. It is surprising that while
claiming the world title of the "legislator of political fashion",
the USA has turned into a puppet of the Armenian lobby. The fiasco of
the diplomatic mission of US ambassador to Azerbaijan Matthew Bryza in
2011 is a case in point for this situation. This seasoned diplomat was
well-versed in the South Caucasus realities and the Karabakh problem
and was an expert in the energy policy in the Caspian and Black sea
basins, while also possessing intimate knowledge of the details of
Eurasian geopolitics. For these reasons he could have contributed much
to resolving conflicted and disputed issues of the region. However, the
lobbyists of Armenian interests in the US Senate thwarted the career
of this diplomat, and only because the Armenian National Committee
of America whizzes believed that Matthew Bryza was a pro-Azerbaijani
and pro-Turkish politician and prevented his endorsement as the US
ambassador to Azerbaijan. As a result, US interests were damaged. If
Matthew Bryza became the US envoy to the region then serious changes
in the field of conflict issues could occur.
The US political circles have made a tradition out of "not seeing"
anti-American and some other moves. This liberalism can even be seen
when the Armenian authorities openly trample on the rights of their
citizens, disrespect international law, unashamedly make territorial
claims to neighbouring countries and threaten them.
During his speech in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe on 2 October Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan was so rampant
that he indirectly admitted the fact that his country perpetrated an
aggression against Azerbaijan. But this is not the main aspect.
Sargsyan announced that his country intends to expand the occupied
territory from 20 per cent [of Azerbaijan's territory] to 30 per cent
and even beyond.
The strangest aspect is that a blind eye is turned to such abhorrent
plans and threats to peace and security, that the Western circles who
go on and on about freedoms are tacitly supporting the aggressor and
fail to see the "pranks" of this brazen country. A normal person's
conscience does not accept this.
It is surprising that the US State Department and the OSCE ODIHR not
even once took a critical position with regard to this fact, as if
everything in the Armenian leadership's political ethics is in line
with the universally accepted standards.
Against the background of alarming realities in Armenia, the situation
in Azerbaijan is in line with all requirements of the existing
national legislation and not outside the framework of international
practice. Yet, some pedantic analysts derive pleasure from issuing
a negative verdict on the election in Azerbaijan.
There can be no absolute truth in such attitude to the matter and
the appraisals that they have given. About the assessment of the
OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights [ODIHR]
I have to say that according to our information the draft law of
the report that contained no positive fragment about the election
was prepared beforehand in the Warsaw office of the organization. It
should be noted here that the objective of such detestable moves is
to further exacerbate the situation and encourage negative processes
in Azerbaijani society.
>From the above we can draw the conclusion that some observers prepared
in advance to issue a negative opinion on the election. We can only
presume what is the real objective behind their open enmity to us.
There is no doubt that these forces are undermining their credibility.
If they truly wish to cooperate with Azerbaijan then they must first
take a look at the reality instead of distorting the real picture by
creating dubious preferences and meaningless rankings.
Let me note that traditionally the problem of election legitimacy
has been a mechanism of geopolitical pressure in the international
practice. It seems that some centres have become so accustomed to
this that they fail to see changes unfolding in the countries that
are genuinely interested in democratization of society and applying
positive standards in the lives of their peoples.
I cannot fail to mention one aspect in this context. This pressure
mechanism is still being used against countries that conduct an
independent policy and observe the principle of loyalty to national
interests. If these countries also happen to have a promising amount of
resources, then they will definitely incur the ire of the institutions
that punish through "democracy".
This position can only be described as wrong and fruitless, as well
as dangerous.
USA recommends rigging results
APA: Then this creates the impression that the standards always
extolled by international representatives and politicians of some
countries actually amount to an unstable collection of values that
these functionaries manipulate at will?
[Passage omitted: Observers do not monitor elections in Western
countries]
[Mehdiyev] As for rigging the election results, the whole world is
aware of such scandals. Instead of ensuring that they themselves have
democratic elections these countries take upon themselves the right to
assess the electoral processes in other countries. What is more, as a
rule this is done in a biased way and on political directives. There
are plenty of examples when the electoral processes were thwarted and
falsified in the USA, UK, Germany, France and other Western countries.
The whole world knows the level of falsifications in the US
presidential election and how scandals always mar the election
processes in this country. Yet, they are trying to teach us how to
conduct the election.
Incidentally, US officials recommended that we give 25 per cent of
votes to the National Council's candidate and keep the remaining 74
per cent - 75 per cent to ourselves. That is, if this was the ratio of
votes then the opinion of the US Department of State would have been
balanced. Logically speaking, if we do not follow this recommendation,
then in all other cases they will issue a negative opinion. The result
is known. As you can see, this was a serious warning, not just a
friendly advice.
This means that we had to conduct a rigged election, not a transparent
and fair one and in accordance with the wish of our partners we had
to add forged percentages to the votes for certain candidates. Is this
not an insult to the dignity of Azerbaijani voters and their national
sentiments? Because they decide themselves for which political platform
they will vote without anybody's intervention.
[Passage omitted: France, Denmark have shorter election campaign
periods]
OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Ms. Tana de
Zulueta, who came to Baku as the head of the observer mission of the
OSCE ODIHR had no basic notion about Azerbaijan. Prior to her visit
she met our ambassador in Italy. She was interested in Azerbaijan's
geography and history, its people and relations with neighbouring
countries, the causes for the Armenian-Azerbaijani, Nagornyy Karabakh
conflict, Azerbaijan's economic situation and a number of other
issues. This fact alone shows that Ms. Zulueta was sent to a country
while she did not about the real situation there. This creates the
impression that she was selected to implement the specific mission
of bringing the election into disrepute. This idea is based on the
fact that several days before the 9 October election we already knew
the text of the report published on 10 October.
We know that after the OSCE ODIHR made its announcement the European
Union member countries' ambassadors in Baku met several members
of the observation missions from European organizations. At their
joint consultation they said that they were concerned and infuriated
by the shameless distortion of facts and the biased preparation of
the document. The heads of some diplomatic missions accredited in
Azerbaijan spoke sternly about this report and described it as an act
of sabotage designed to worsen the European Union's relations with
Azerbaijan in the lead-up to the European Union's summit in Vilnius.
It is obvious that there are no ideal elections in principle. There is
always some discontent, violations and shortcomings. If such cases are
episodic and remain an exception with regard to the general situation,
then to what extent is it justified to exaggerate details taken out
of the general context and generalize by describing them as the final
result? Such a position on this matter a priori cannot be fair. This
approach is directed towards realizing unsavoury objectives.
Another example. The West always focuses on media freedom issues
and teaches us how to work with media bodies. We do not have such
a problem. The Azerbaijani media is free and there are no problems
with distributing information, public ownership of the existing news
resources and their freedom to release sensational materials without
regard for their ownership. Yet, we are sometimes forced to feel
the pressure from Western circles, although in this area as well our
partners would do well to examine the situation with the freedom of
their own media organizations.
[Passage omitted: Criticism of human rights violations and media
restrictions in the USA]
Abuse of trust
[1News.az] What is Baku's reaction to the manifestations of double
standards? In addition, sometimes not only international organizations,
but also official agencies of some countries engage in this...
[Mehdiyev] The assessments, recommendations and actions of
international organizations, missions of other countries and our
partners are always very important for us, provided, of course,
that they are objective and constructive.
[Passage omitted: Criticism acceptable if correct]
In recent years the political moral in our country has visibly
strengthened and this is a crucial aspect of our reality. Pay attention
to how important the Azerbaijani president regards creating transparent
conditions in public, social and economic spheres! This transparency
is vital for changing the format of relations between people and
official bodies and ensuring trust in relations.
In the practice of international relations trust is as important
as it is in relations between people. Therefore, problems that
complicate partnership emerge when some sides seek to abuse trust
and unnecessarily test relations that formed during many years.
For example, relations between Azerbaijan and the USA are not just
friendly; they are also strategic relations that passed the test of
times. We are strategic partners and in accordance with this the US
assessment of the presidential election is very important for Baku.
Unfortunately, we have to note that for reasons that remain unclear
for us the US Department of State voiced an opinion that was definitely
wide of the mark.
I regard such moves in our partnership by US official bodies as an
attempt in an insincere and authoritarian fashion to criticize us
for not living in accordance with the scenario they chose. There is
no reason to assume that there are no grounds for contemplating the
reasons for such a biased appraisal of the US foreign policy body to
the election held in Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan took into consideration
all aspects, the smallest minutiae and even force-majeure to rule out
misunderstandings or discontent of voters. Abnormal situation always
emerge in the course of election campaigns, dissatisfied people emerge
and incidents occur. In spite of this, there was no incident in the
last election that could lead to spoiling the overall picture or give
grounds for condemning the entire process.
Fortunately, the vast majority of foreign observers highly praised
the efforts that allowed the conduct of this process at the necessary
level, the ground work and the entire composition.
I would like to emphasize an important detail for you: the chairman of
the Central Electoral Commission, Mazahir Panahov, unexpectedly held
a briefing at 1500 [1000 gmt] on the election day. During the briefing
he announced several legal violations that took place in some polling
stations. In a polling station in Samkir District a representative
of an opposition newspaper intruded into the station and sought to
derail the election process. The matter there was investigated on
the spot and the incident was dealt with.
Before the CEC chairman managed to complete his prompt report, a
representative of a Western media outlet began to ask him questions
about the details of the incident. It became immediately clear
to everybody, including the CEC chairman himself, that the female
journalist was aware of the prepared sabotage because unwarily she
talked about such details of the incident that could not be known to
a person 300 km away from the area.
Another example. On 9 October through social networks and YouTube
opposition groups unleashed a campaign of discrediting the election
through videos that depicted stuffing of election bulletins and
carousel voting. However, the organizers of this campaign forgot
technical details and these details unmasked the falsifiers. The
videos were posted on the YouTube video channel on 8 October, that
is one day before the election. Strange, is not it?
I also wish to clarify the matter of mobile devices where the election
results were posted in advance. The law-enforcement bodies together
with the CEC are currently investigating this seditious move and the
culprits will be brought to responsibility in accordance with law.
On the election day members of the irreconcilable opposition committed
numerous unlawful and inflammatory moves in a number of polling
stations. Commission members included all such cases in protocols
and sent them for investigation to the Central Electoral Commission.
The means and methods for propaganda and anti-propaganda of black PR
and other sabotage technologies are known to everybody. There is no
need to marvel at this arsenal. In the course of vote and political
struggle people support what they believe in or hope for. Perhaps this
should be considered a normal phenomenon. However, upon seeing a biased
attack that employs a tactic suitable for old-time naval battles on the
positions of the CEC that was cautious and took all possible measures
to keep the process fully in line with the existing legislation, one
wants to ask why and for what purpose did they confuse the colours
and create a biased negative opinion?
I wish to bring to your attention one important fact. We know that
the OSCE ODIHR is not an independent organization that functions
independently. It moves while keeping one eye on the USA. Since we
know that in its previous unobjective and biased assessments of the
Azerbaijani elections this organization too was guided by the specific
instructions received from the USA, we were far from inviting them to
observe this presidential election. However, at the US recommendation
Azerbaijani invited the OSCE ODIHR. It later transpired that the
reports of the US State Department and OSCE ODIHR are identical. This
is an express abuse of trust.
The OSCE ODIHR has repeatedly demonstrated that its position is
dictated from outside. This fact gives us grounds to cease cooperation
with this organization.
Relations with opposition
[APA] The election is over. What is your forecast for the development
of relations between the government and opposition in the post-election
period?
[Mehdiyev] The election campaign must bring together political forces
in order for national interests to prevail. In a healthy society
it is considered normal and natural to put the issue this way. The
competition between the sides does not mean building walls between
themselves, antagonism or especially enmity.
Unfortunately, in our situation we have to witness the opposition
that is the worst of the worst. For over 20 years now the radical
opposition refuses to engage in dialogue. As before, they seek for
the root of evil not in themselves, in their aggressive struggle
for power, but in the strong government that is capable of working,
ensuring stability and development in Azerbaijan and strengthening
its international positions.
The government has repeatedly called on its opponents to sit at a
table and begin a dialogue. This is a move worthy of the strong and
the government shows this. But always incomprehensible arguments
and unfounded complaints are made and inadequate rhetoric is voiced
in response.
Again it is the baseless ambitions of our opponents that thwart the
dialogue. If the radical opposition lacks the electoral support,
then why should it blame the government for this? During the previous
years the social base of this camp visibly eroded because the esteemed
radicals for decades engaged in unnecessary efforts. They could not
determine the ideological aspect of their programme of activity and
did not work out the concept of an alternative constructive activity
to the programme of reforms. Given such uncertain conditions, how
were they going to woo their supporters?
The electorate cast votes for real ideological objectives, for ways
and means of achieving them, for projects of reforms in various
spheres. The government both announce and implement them.
The irreplaceable leaders of the irreconcilable opposition deny
our country's successes and results of the reform programmes, but
offer nothing in their place. While none of them has experience or
potential of administration and they lack the electorate's support,
they only wish to have power. What voter can vote for a candidate
who gives unrealistic and absurd promises?
The televised debates on the Public TV in Azerbaijan showed that
this opposition is still not ready for civil struggle. They were
unable to put forward an election platform because they only engage in
demagoguery, while the proxies of the favoured candidate explained in
clear and understandable terms what and how this candidate plans to do.
It seems that history and their sad experience have taught nothing
to the irreconcilable opposition. They would not be repeating the
old mistakes otherwise.
Pay attention to the election results: Ilham Aliyev gathered 84.55
per cent, while the National Council's candidate only mustered 5.77
per cent of votes. What does this show? This shows that the number of
supporters of the irreconcilable opposition in Azerbaijan is somewhat
higher than 150,000. This is a very interesting piece of information
for those who are forced to calculate their losses.
The unchangeable leaders of the radical opposition must draw
conclusions from this and realize that radicalism and aggression will
lead them nowhere. This is a dead end. This opposition will lose
even the few supporters they have. It is high time to realize that
both responsible government and competitive opposition are vital
components for a democratic society. However, competition must not
lead to an increase in illegal technologies, disruption of public
order and aggressive moves.
It is impossible for Azerbaijan's political system to develop and
reach political stability based on the balance of political powers
that reflect interests of various social groups in the absence
of a normally functioning institute of opposition. However, the
opposition must be ready both in ideological and practical terms for
this responsible role.
Only the constructive opposition has the mission of building. Only
they can participate in state building, forming national society and
civil society.
The moves by the functionaries from the irreconcilable opposition's
camp show that this force has exhausted its resources. The majority
of its leaders are people who were in power in the beginning of the
1990s. After losing power they gathered "the discontented" around
them and began to lead parties. Their faulty world outlook, corrupt
moral values and inability to embrace change in accordance with the
new tasks facing our people after establishing independence make this
camp unable to pin hopes on the stream of "new forces".
This camp is unable to pin hopes on the stream of new forces because
the opposition forces either cannot work with their voters, explain
to them their positions, views and priorities, or do not wish to do so.
I cannot fail to point out one inherent characteristic of the
discontented. They can never get rid of the obsession that only
they can be true democrats and nobody else. For many years these
people call themselves representatives of the democratic wing of the
political spectrum, although characteristics and peculiarities that
are in stark contradiction with democracy always emerge in their
positions. The time has come to objectively appraise them so that
the notion of a "democrat" is not cheapened. Looking at the moves of
the Azerbaijani opposition through the prism of universally accepted
norms and standards, there are all grounds for talking not about the
triumph of democracy, but about its social ills.
At first glance the struggle between the government and opposition is
always about competition for authority, opportunities, resources and,
finally, power. However, this struggle must be waged in a prudent
and civil way, and most importantly with responsibility. Because the
noble objective of supremacy of national interests can always be seen
looking from the prism of interests of healthy forces.
Foreign policy after election
[Trend] Since you began talking of national interests, it is necessary
to clarify one point: can changes be expected in the foreign policy
after president-elect Ilham Aliyev is sworn in and begins to execute
his duties?
[Mehdiyev] In recent years Azerbaijan has built extremely constructive
relations with our neighbours, Western countries and the Muslim world.
The principle of mutual understanding rules in dialogues with our
partners. This is very important for future foreign relations. The
constructive nature of mutual activities promises our country
ample advantages, opportunities for trade and increased integration
potential, expanded area of cooperation.
With the exception of Armenia, Azerbaijan has no problems in relations
with neighbouring countries. The strengthening of international
positions creates conditions for reinforcing the diplomatic front,
which is crucial in terms of settling the Karabakh conflict.
Increasingly more and more countries come to realize the gist of our
territorial problem.
Pay attention that on the international arena Azerbaijan continuously
prevails over the aggressor state. This happens because the ranks
of our friends and strategic partners are expanding by the year. At
the international summits, in the lobbies and high-profile meeting
of the UN and other authoritative international organization they
display their readiness to support Baku's position.
The trend toward mutually beneficial cooperation with continental and
European Union countries, major support for NATO's Eastern Partnership
and Partnership for Peace programmes and developing relations with
the countries represented in the Non-Aligned Movement will certainly
be carried on.
There is still a large untapped potential of mutual strategic
cooperation with the Muslim world countries. Here too the bounds of
possible and constructive events will be expanded.
The need for increased activity on the international stage has to do
with the increase in major positive opportunities brought about by
the clear and accurate foreign policy of the Azerbaijani state and
closer ties with our old and new partners. We have values to offer to
the international community. Accordingly, there are also many values
that we consider essential to take from them. Therefore, our movement
toward out partners and sincere friends will dynamically increase.
Armenian-Turkish rapprochement
[Azartac] For well-known reasons while building the vectors of its
foreign policy Azerbaijan has to be guided by the Karabakh issue. It
is possible that some countries still intend to organize a surprise
with Armenian-Turkish rapprochement. At least such reports are leaked
to the international media. What will be Baku's response in this case?
[Mehdiyev] The subject of your question is very topical. Some Western
circles indeed do not stop trying to exaggerate this issue. They
wish to bring back to the international agenda Armenian-Turkish
rapprochement issues in the format of concessions on our side.
According to information that we have, in order to implement this
intention some countries exert pressure on the Turkish political
leadership. This is about reanimating the Zurich protocols. Azerbaijan
closely monitors this process. If the opening of the Turkish-Armenian
border is suggested without being linked with settlement of the
Karabakh conflict, then Azerbaijan's response will be extremely
negative and adequate measures will be taken. We will do whatever
is possible to prevent Armenian-Turkish rapprochement from being
unilateral. We have plenty of levers of influence. In order to prevent
Armenia from escaping its isolation, we are capable of influencing
the balance of regional powers.
It is our natural right to demand from the international community and
partner countries that they comply with the provisions of international
law. Armenia is an aggressor state that has kept Azerbaijani
territories under illegal occupation for more than 20 years, that
poses threat to regional security, violates international order
and generates new risks and problems. Therefore, if it is given the
advantage of escaping its isolated position, then this will definitely
lead to major problems and threats to neighbouring countries.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said recently that Ankara
will not change the commitments it made to Baku and will not improve
relations with Yerevan unless the occupied territories of Azerbaijan
are freed. This is an objective position in line with international
legal requirements, our expectations and our faith in the immutability
of Turkey's just position. Regrettably, some Western countries do not
wish to tolerate this, support the aggressor and play with Armenia's
whims displaying infuriating inadequacy and hypocrisy.
The international community and Yerevan's donors must not encourage
the aggressor and must uphold the positions of international law. Only
in this way can the rampant and aggressive-minded Armenia be forced
to respect the right of its neighbours to live in calm, peace and
security, and to free the occupied territories.
It is completely clear that Armenia takes advantage of the favourable
disposition of its foreign sponsors and wishes to achieve a turnaround
in the diplomatic struggle with Azerbaijan. Since the Armenian
leadership see this opportunity, they thwart the political process
and engage in obstructionism. If it did not have the hypothetical
rescue options, then perhaps there would be more headway made in the
negotiations process.
As before Azerbaijan is determined to achieve a peaceful solution to
this issue. This path envisages that Azerbaijan's territorial integrity
be ensured within the borders agreed upon by the international
community. Undoubtedly, guided by the supremacy of international
law principles, efforts must be concentrated around real mutual
give-and-take.
Our country has repeatedly demonstrated that it is loyal to the spirit
of constructive approach and expects an adequate position from the
Armenian side as well. Opportunities for peaceful settlement of the
conflict have not been exhausted yet and they must be used. However,
the patience of the people is not limitless.
It is essential that all countries that are interested in the South
Caucasus issues, including the Western countries, understand this
reality.
[Translated from Azeri]
From: Baghdasarian