Andreas Gross, the former co-rapporteur of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on Azerbaijan, answered the questions of RadioAzadliq in written form.
Gross was co-rapporteur of PACE on Azerbaijan from 2001-2006. Back in 2002, the Azerbaijani delegation demanded a change of Gross from the PACE president.
In 2005, the government threatened not to let him into the country. It is known that none of the powerful politicians met Andreas Gross when in May 2006 he arrived in Baku together with his colleague. Finally, in the summer of the same year, Gross resigned from the post of co-rapporteur. At present, he is a member of PACE.
– A report on Azerbaijan’s political prisoners was not adopted at the PACE session in January. You were among those few deputies who voted “for”. Has there been any progress, or maybe a downturn in the sphere of voting, freedom of assembly, and, most importantly, political prisoners in Azerbaijan since you were co-rapporteur on Azerbaijan?
– 7 years ago, after almost 30 visits to this country, when I stopped very difficult activities for the sake of democracy in Azerbaijan, I did not believe that it would be so. But today I have an impression that the situation has gone worse even more. There is less respect for human rights and criticism is pursued for the smallest public comments.
It turns out that the regime has gained a little more. The only difference is that now, unlike previous years, major shortcomings attract more public attention. However, there were few events taking place in Azerbaijan that were enlightened during past years.
-What can you say about the latest arrests in Azerbaijan? Especially in connection with the captions of young activists and those which were related to the protests of this year?
– The government should know that his country needs young people who are worried about the future of the nation and a democratic society. Such youth comes with a critical point of view all the time, and if the government appears to be a wise one, it encourages these young people, even if it makes difficult for the government’s life.
Apparently, not everyone among the leaders of Azerbaijan’s regime knows about this.
Instead of establishing a dialogue for the sake of the county’s future, these voices are suppressed. Even arrests are made on trumped-up charges. We see this on the example of my arrested friend and Democrat-colleague Ilgar Mammadov. Or by the example of others, such as my great friend and writer Alekper Aliyev. People alike are threatened, oppressed and forced to leave the country.
Thus, the regime threatens its future, and this does not serve the interests of the majority of the nation.
– Are there any recommendations of international organizations, including the Council of Europe, in connection with the fulfillment of obligations by Azerbaijan? Some critics condemn the soft position of these organizations on the issue of obligations …
– People who understand the situation in these organizations, are trying to increase the pressure. But today we are very weak. It is not quite understood by a sufficient number of people, and falls into the traps of communications arranged by the regime in many places in Europe.
– After the parliamentary elections in November 2005, you said: “The worst that could happen has already happened. The leadership with their irresponsible steps killed the people’s hope for democracy. No one in the country believes in the possibility of positive changes.” What’s your opinion about this respect today?
– On the one hand I was too pessimistic, on the other, very optimistic at the same time. I thought it could be worse. I was very pessimistic, because I did not expect that in this situation young democrats would make loud announcements, as then.
– During your first period of work as co-speaker, you said that Ilham Aliyev is more faithful to democratic principles than his father and that within the government there are people and forces that interfere with his reforms. Do you still hold this opinion?
– No. I overestimated Ilham Aliyev. Today I think that his father, from November 1999 till his death, that is, during my work with him, did even more to achieve better results. Father – Heydar Aliyev tried more for the political development of the country. And his son pays more attention to the light sides of life, and lays work on those who think about personal profit and power. This is a big disappointment for me! Ten years ago I think much differently …
– Now the ruling party has nominated President Aliyev as the candidate for the post of head of the state for the third time. The Venice Commission called changes to the Constitution of Azerbaijan, allowing it, regress in democracy. What do you think about this?
– I fully share the opinion of the Venice Commission. Ilham Aliyev’s attitude to political power and his personal position on this issue leaves much to be desired. I am the only international observer who followed the referendum, which opens the way for the plan to assign power and create a dynasty, and is considered to be the beginning of all these changes. (This is a popular vote in 2003 – prim.red.). At that time, a lot of people from the international community paid less attention to this. Unfortunately, all my fears come true!
– During an interview with a Swiss newspaper, you stated that the 2000 parliamentary elections that you observed have been the most rigged since 1994. What is the main barrier to the free and fair elections in Azerbaijan?
– There is a common and global lesson that you can learn from the last hundred years: in a place where rich oil deposits were found before the establishment of democracy, it is very difficult to establish democracy. The age of democracies in Norway, the United States, Canada and other countries prevails over the age of oil production. As wealth, oil creates a cynical attitude of those in power to democracy, and thus directs the development of democracy on a difficult path with many obstacles.
Today, fundamental rights (freedom of assembly, expression, association, free press, independent courts) are not respected or protected in Azerbaijan. For this reason, the beginning and the shifts for democrats and democracy is difficult.
– During the period when you worked as a co-rapporteur, you were accused of a hostile attitude towards Azerbaijan. In 2006, you were forced to leave the post. What prompted you to make such a decision? Why did you think that you can not work anymore?
– I was not forced to resign. This was my decision, based on my conclusions. Many people in Azerbaijan valued my work, and many representatives of the regime did not like us. I decided that I had provided enough help here, and I can render it to the values I’m betrayed in another place. That was the reason I chose Serbia, and then Russia, and provided monitoring in Azerbaijan to others.
– Compared to the period of your work of co-rapporteur, now the criticism from the Council of Europe to Azerbaijan sounds less. In last year’s report, entitled “Caviar Diplomacy” of one European NGO, it was written that the authorities silenced the CE’s with expensive gifts. Do you agree with such statements?
-Not completely. Caviar diplomacy is an element that affects a small part of my colleagues. More important is the indifference of the majority. This is their inability to put an end to the old dependence of their economies on the basis of oil consumption from oil-resource regimes. In recent years, the burden that an organization such as the Council of Europe has taken on itself is much greater than it can overpower. The Azerbaijani people are one of the victims of our inability to solve this issue.
– Did they offer you gifts when you worked as co-rapporteur for Azerbaijan?
– I often received gifts. Capsules with caviar usually were handed out to assistants. Instead, I gave my books, or paintings. Such gifts, which only improve personal relationships, should never undermine political commitments and work. It was clear action, behavior in relation to all those with whom I had been collaborating.
– The local press wrote about the fact that the head of the Presidential Administration Ramiz Mehdiyev once expelled you from his office. Was it like this?
– There is no reason for such rumors. I entered and left his office in a usual, civil manner. I liked meeting with Ramiz Mehdiyev more than with employees working on his floor. During usual discussions with him, you can always learn something, exchange opinions. We did this for hours, we had a mutual interest to listen to each other.
In some issues, we have often converged, and in many cases this has been reduced to changes in opinion on issues of political prisoners and other persons at risk. It’s a pity we haven’t met each other lately…