The European Stability Initiative published the first part of the study entitled “Cavalry diplomacy: How Azerbaijan silenced the Council of Europe”, which details the chronology and mechanisms for bribing the members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe with the ruling regime of Azerbaijan.
On 27 June 2008 President Aliyev met US Assistant Secretary for Human Rights David Kramer for a two-hour conversation about democracy and human rights in Azerbaijan. Aliyev admitted that Azerbaijan will probably never have the opportunity to create a democracy like Western Europe, believing that progress in democracy and human rights do not play a big role in bilateral relations. According to Kramer, Aliyev at the same time showed sensitivity to criticism, saying that he does not want Azerbaijan to be considered an authoritarian country. “We have excellent relations with Europe, and I do not care about the Council of Europe. I have already told them that if sanctions are applied against us, we will leave the organization. And they know that I’m not kidding, “Aliyev said.
Meanwhile, the Council of Europe’s attitude towards Azerbaijan has undergone a transformation. Thus, in 2008 during PACE debates, Michael Hancock criticized the next report on the situation in Azerbaijan, saying that he was in Baku and noted significant changes there. The report was also criticized by former Estonian Foreign Minister Kristiina Ojuland, who was also a frequent visitor in Baku. After the presidential elections in October 2008, many clearly pro-Azerbaijani members of the ODIHR observation mission began to insist on a more positive report on the elections in Azerbaijan. However, when these attempts failed, the deputies supporting the Baku regime stated to the media about their disagreement with the provisions in the joint statement of observers for the presidential elections in Azerbaijan.
Having won a second presidential term, Ilham Aliyev now proposed a constitutional referendum to remove limits on the number of presidential terms, which would allow him to serve indefinitely. The Venice Commission, the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional law, described this as a “serious set-back on Azerbaijan’s road to a consolidated democracy” and as a “very negative development in terms of democratic practice, given the context prevailing in Azerbaijan.” This was not, however, the conclusion of the four-member PACE delegation that traveled to Baku in March 2009 in order to observe the referendum. “The result of the referendum showed the willingness of the people of Azerbaijan to have greater stability and elements for further democratization,” the members told a press conference, though “further reforms would be required to ensure a better balance of power.”
The next step towards silencing PACE took place in autumn 2009. It was designed to ensure that at least PACE rapporteurs would stop “pointing the finger” at Azerbaijan. The news that Lise Christoffersen, a Norwegian Labour MP supported by Andreas Gross, stood a solid chance of becoming a new co-rapporteur on Azerbaijan set off alarm bells among the Azerbaijani delegation. Pro-Azerbaijani PACE deputies did their best to postpone the vote and soon appointed their candidate, Joseph Grekh , who as a result was elected new co-rapporteur, who, of course, was to the benefit of the Azerbaijanis. Shortly thereafter, Anders Herkel resigned his position as co-rapporteur, and again the pro-Azerbaijani Spanish deputy Pedro Agramunt was nominated for this post. Thus, the “caviar diplomacy” of Azerbaijan has prepared a scene in PACE so that Azerbaijan could avoid the negative consequences of the most fraudulent elections that were ever observed in the member state of the Council of Europe – the 2010 parliamentary elections.
Election observers noted serious problems in 11 per cent of the 1,100 polling stations they visited. Ballot stuffing was witnessed in 63 polling stations. In 100 polling stations there were seemingly identical signatures on voter lists.By the end of the day it was clear that these had probably been the most fraudulent elections ever monitored in a Council of Europe member state. Still, when PACE delegation head Paul Wille went on Lider TV’s Sunday 7 pm news he stated that “these elections were held in a more stable way in comparison to the previous ones. Soon it became known that for the first time since 1991, the major opposition parties Musavat and the Popular Front did not win a single seat in parliament.
During the debates by the heads of the observation missions of the joint statement on elections, a heated debate broke out, PACE representatives called the ODIHR’s position “idiotic”, insisting that the elections went well. And in the final statement contained a lengthy statement on the lack of significant progress in the development of democracy in Azerbaijan. As the ODIHR later noted, “it was better to make a meaningless statement than a statement that is misleading.”
During the press conference of the heads of the four main observation missions of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and the European Parliament, answering journalists’ questions about whether the elections corresponded to international standards, whether the parliamentary elections were fair, only ODIHR spokesperson Audrey Glover openly stated that the elections were not democratic and serious violations were recorded. Her statement was greeted with applause from opposition journalists. Then one of the journalists asked if there had been bribery of international observers by the Azerbaijani government, to which Glover stated that she was certainly not bribed.
A few days after his return from Baku, the head of the OSCE PA delegation, Wolfgang Grossrack, wrote a letter to the OSCE Chairman-in-Office complaining about Audrey Glover and accusing the ODIHR of lack of professionalism. In turn, a member of the PACE observation mission, Tadeusz Ivinski, also complained to the ODIHR in 2011, speaking with a report. At the same time, Ivinski stressed that the problem of elections in Azerbaijan was not in falsifications, but in the absence of political consensus. The debate that followed the parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan in 2010 showed how much the PACE’s position has changed in a few years. If in 2005 the Council of Europe urged not to ignore violations in the course of elections in Azerbaijan, in 2010 the two rapporteurs simply remained silent. Pedro Agramunt later stated that he did not mention any formal problems. He criticized the ODIHR and stated that the elections in Azerbaijan met the standards of the Council of Europe.
Источник: esiweb.org