"Azadliq" newspaper 26-27.11.2009

"GEOPOLITICAL ARCHITECTURE OF THE SOUTH CAUCASUS IS ON THE VERGE OF NEW CHANGES" Lala SHEVKET: "If Azerbaijan really wants to solve the Qarabagh problem by peaceful means, it must make drastic changes in its domestic policy"

- Before the 8th meeting between the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents Azerbaijani head of state has made a sharp statement about a possibility of the negotiations being stopped. Now, when the meeting is over, how effective do you think the statement was and how can you evaluate the results of this meeting? - This is not the first such statement. Let us recall that such statements were being repeated quite often before August 2008, statements about the possibility of war if necessary, military solution to the conflict, etc. The words "if necessary" were so often repeated, that they have become a topic of analytic articles. It is true that after the Russo-Georgian war such statements were not made. Even the words "if necessary" were not said. Today, nevertheless, such statements were made before the meeting with the aim of influencing the negotiations, bringing Armenia to some sort of a constructive opinion. It is somewhat understandable. In connection with this, Russian co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Merzlyakov has commented on Ilham Aliyev's statement after the meeting in Munich saying that "this statement concerning war was addressed to the home audience". True that both countries have undertook to solve the conflict by peaceful means. As a state Azerbaijan undertook in the last year's Moscow declaration an obligation before the Council of Europe, OSCE and the superpowers to solve the Qarabagh problem by peaceful means only. Therefore, I consider this statement of Ilham Aliyev a rhetorical one. In general, there is a different situation today concerning the Qarabagh problem. The conflict has transformed into one of the priority issues of world politics after the signing of protocols in Zurich by Turkey and Armenia. Leaders of the G8 countries have made a statement on the Qarabagh issue. It is very important and is directly connected to the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement. In this context both the West and Russia want to solve the conflict. There is already a geopolitical consensus over the matter. This proves that the affair has come into a very serious stage. The negotiations are no longer an imitation, but are actually directed towards reaching some results. That is the world powers and world community want have some kind of a resolution of the problem. In general, the geopolitical architecture of the South Caucasus is on the verge of new changes. Whether such a situation answers Azerbaijani interests or not is another matter. First of all, neither Azerbaijani opposition, nor the public have any information about the essence of the ongoing negotiations, which a very negative condition. Though the negotiations are conducted in a confidential manner, Armenian head of state Sargsyan has many times met with the opposition and held close meetings of the parliament discussing the negotiations. In Azerbaijan on the other hand everything is carried out in the outmost secrecy. So, we have no detailed or trustworthy information whatsoever. The question that arises is what conditions this geopolitical consensus encompasses? Whether they meet Azerbaijan's interests or not? What we do know from the international and Armenian media is that the infamous Madrid principles are on the agenda of the negotiations. One of the 6 principles concerns the future status of Upper Qarabagh to be decide by a referendum. To hold such a referendum would mean loosing Qarabagh. If the geopolitical consensus in question is based on the Madrid principles, it is against our national interests. In such case the unsuccess of the negotiations somewhat satisfies me. - Right after the meeting Ilham Aliyev visited Russia. Before that Ziyafet Asgerov and Novruz Mammadov made anti-Western statements. Some believe this to be a preparation for changing Azerbaijan's orientation. Ilham Aliyev during a meeting with Medvedev said that if all countries had such relations as those between Azerbaijan and Russia, there would have been no problems in the world. If a change in orientation takes place, what will it bring for our country? - How can a non-existent change? Do we have an orientation to change in the first place? Azerbaijan has no political orientation and no true foreign policy concept. It is unknown, which direction we are going. Do we move towards the West and Euro-Atlantic integration, or towards Russia and Iran? In international relations Azerbaijan resembles a small boat in a midst of an ocean without a compass or a map. One day we say our strategic ally is America and we must integrate into the democratic Euro-Atlantic space. Another day we say our strategic partner is Russia, and we copy its authoritarian political regime. The authorities call it a balanced policy, but it is not so. It is a policy without any orientation. As for the anti-Western statements, this is not the first time they are made. On the eve of every election, or after the reports by the international organisations, Azerbaijani government carries out such a campaign. It is not something new, it is quite traditional. I see as yet another campaign of that sort. Azerbaijan is the world leader of bad reports, a champion of corruption, human rights violation, imprisonment of political prisoners and journalists. So, these campaigns are carried out in response to the Western criticism. Figuratively speaking, these campaigns' essence is fighting with a mirror. The government says to the international organisations and foreign governments that, if they state in their reports Azerbaijan's championship in corruption, if they criticise Azerbaijan for the lack of democracy, human rights violations and political prisoners, the Azerbaijani government will carry out campaigns against the West, blackmail it with oil and gas. This is, of course, a very light-headed approach. Reports of the authoritative international organisations reflect the reality. So, if the government wants to fight with the mirror, let it. That will mean fighting with the whole world. In any case Azerbaijan is already in isolation and very difficult circumstances. Even the head of state says that Azerbaijan is alone today. These loneliness is the direct result of erroneous foreign and domestic policy. This policy leads Azerbaijan up a blind alley. - Ilham Aliyev, who calls himself a successor to Heydar Aliyev's policy, all the time makes statements about war and armament. Heydar Alieyev, however, never made such statements. How do you account for that difference? - Heydar Aliyev had a long experience in politics. He knew that if something must be done, one should not speak about it, but take action. He always was very sensitive about the West's attitude towards Azerbaijan. Even with imitation he was able to achieve more or less soft attitude from the Western powers. During his presidency there were broader opportunities for the activity of political parties, the mass rallies were allowed, even though it was just an imitation of democracy on his part. Today Ilham Aliyev gives up the imitation. At the meeting with Azerbaijani ambassadors last year he has openly declared that no country could give any advice to Azerbaijan, that what he does is his own affair. This statement was a very big mistake. It should never be forgotten that foreign policy is the continuation of domestic policy. On one hand, the government says that it does not want to reckon with anyone, that it will behave according to its own will, build authoritarianism instead of democracy, fix elections, develop corruption, crush the opposition, violate human rights, suffocate the freedom of speech, imprison journalists and free-thinking young people, ignore the international community. On the other hand, the same government demands from the West to take Azerbaijan's position on Qarabagh into consideration. How can it be, that you ignore the West's position on democracy and human rights, fail to meet its set standards, but demand from it to solve the Qrabagh problem in accordance with the international law norms in favour of Azerbaijan? There is a large contradiction here. If you want the West to be on your side and defend your position, you must reckon with it. You must reckon with the Western standards of democracy and human rights to be able to ask something in return. It can be that you ignore the West in domestic policy, but want its help in foreign policy. It does not happen like that. A country, just as an individual human being, has a reputation, which is connected to its values. Azerbaijan's reputation in the world is disgraceful, our country is know as corrupted, a prison of journalists, a country of fraudulent elections. A country with such a reputation has no right to be defiant with the world. If Azerbaijan really wants to solve the Qarabagh problem by peaceful means, it must make drastic changes in its domestic policy. Until we have democracy, human rights are respected and the problem of the political prisoners solved the West's attitude towards Azerbaijan will be negative. - Four years passes since the events of November 26. After all this time what is your opinion on these events? Have these events changed anything in the attitude towards the Azerbaijani government and the opposition, both at home and abroad? - There has been a very big change. Before November 26, 2005 both the international community and our own people were having a hope that Ilham Aliyev might carry out some democratic reforms. November 26 put an end to these hopes. After that point the government even stopped imitating democracy and set on a road of strengthening political repressions and authoritarianism. So, the West has corrected its position accordingly. After that the West's authoritative organisations have unequivocally evaluated Azerbaijan's regime as a stably authoritarian one and put our country in a list of non-free countries. No one expects democratic reforms from this government anymore. Our journalists Qanimat Zahid and Eynulla Fatullayev, the young bloggers Emin and Adnan are in prison. They are known around the globe as political prisoners, even prisoners of conscience. Existence of such prisoners is a sign and symbol of a closed society. Today, Azerbaijan is seen by the world community as a closed society. - If the events of November 26 repeated itself, would you give the same decision to stay in the square? - Undoubtedly yes. - The municipal elections draw near, but the government's attitude is still the same as before. There is a thought that the authorities prepare the ground for the next year's parliamentary election, that is they want to show the world that the opposition lacks any support. How would you analyse this situation? - It is quite absurd to speak of elections in a closed society. Just recently representatives of the ruling "Yeni Azerbaycan" Party (YAP) in the Milli Mejlis have made a proposal to abolish elections altogether. After a reprimand from the presidential administration, they have said it was just a joke. It was not a joke, however, but a sincere confession, for the elections in Azerbaijan have no meaning whatsoever. I am grateful to these ruling party representatives for such a sincere statement. In any case, bitter truth is better than a sweet lie. The very word "election" has lost all meaning. An election means equal competition. Without competition there is no election. There have been elections in the USSR, as a matter of fact. The Communist Party was carrying them without any competition, and the civil world made a joke out of it. For when there is a genuine election, there must be alternative and opposition. So, the soviet style municipal elections today cause no interest at all. When someone speaks of elections, people laugh. The very word lost its essence. Just like during the soviet era a one-party system has been created in Azerbaijan. The ruling party, YAP, speaks by itself, listens to itself, runs in the elections by itself, caries them out and counts the results itself. So, when we speak about elections with ordinary citizens, we see that they have become an object of laughter, which is very dangerous. There is a historic legend. At one time Napoleon raised the taxes twofold in one of the conquered territories. When he asked the prime-minister about the reaction of the people, he answered that the people were very angry and protesting these new taxes. Napoleon ordered the taxes to be raised even more. In a little while he asked the prime-minister about the people's reaction, to which the prime-minister answered that the people were very sad and crying. Napoleon again ordered the taxes to be raised. When after a while he asked the prime-minister about the people's attitude, the prime-minister answered that the people were all laughing and merry. At that point Napoleon says, "That's enough, stop the taxes, for after the laughter the situation will grow very dangerous". So, now in Azerbaijan elections are an object of laughter. After that there is a great danger. - All around the world before elections government try to please the populace. But it is different in Azerbaijan. Can we consider this as a sign of complete ignorance of the government towards the people? - Dictatorships and authoritarian regimes always ignore the people. They see the people as their slaves, tools. A person cannot be a purpose in an authoritarian regime. Therefore, the government ignores the people completely and does not want to do anything for them. It is characteristic of authoritarian countries. Why are we fighting for democracy? Because only in democracy a person becomes a purpose. State is for the people, not the other way round. That is why we want democracy to be established firmly in Azerbaijan, so our people are not used as tools, so that they are not treated like serfs but as dignified human beings. Without this there will be no development and progress in Azerbaijan. In a democratic country the government respects the people and depends on them. In a dictatorship the people fear the government. There is, however, an old saying: if there are no slaves, there can be no dictators. - As per custom the governments fearing the opposition try to please the people. If there are no such steps, does it mean that the government pays no attention to the opposition? - The municipal elections are a sign of that. One party alone runs in them. Not a single opposition party was given an opportunity to participate. Obstacles were immense and initially directed at creating impossible conditions for the opposition to run. - At the meeting with the presidents of the universities head of presidential administration Ramiz Mehdiyev shared his view of the educational standards. Even the government officials now are admitting that the educational standards are very low and scientific degrees go to undeserving people. What are the reasons for such a situation? - This is an indicator of a general climate. In civilised democratic countries a person's success depends on his education, abilities, talents and virtues. This creates a stimulus and motivation for the people. That is, there is a motivation for the young to become well-educated, get more knowledge, show abilities, work harder, so they can achieve success in an atmosphere of free and healthy competition. Success is unequivocally linked to education, abilities, talents and free competition, which is the reason for progress in civilised nations. There is no such motivation in Azerbaijan. Everyone knows that their education, abilities and virtues matter nothing. In order to move forward one must either be close to the regime, or be a slave to it, praise it and grovel. So, success in Azerbaijan is linked to laudation, lie, grovelling and slavery. At such a place without motivation there can be no development. Development starts from motivation in the first place. Every young person must know that his or her success is directly proportionate to education, abilities and virtues. This is not the case here. I know many intelligent, well-educated and virtuous young people, who speak several foreign languages. There are such people in my team. But they are all unemployed, because they have no connection to the regime and do not want to grovel and lie. The imprisoned bloggers Emin Milli and Adnan Hajizadeh received their education in Europe and the United States. Today, however, they are in prison, because they are unable to grovel and lie, because they are virtuous and free-thinking persons. So, there can be no development whatsoever under such conditions. They can have as many conferences and round tables as they want. There will still be no result. In a country where young people and the society in general lack motivation for development, where success is not linked to education, abilities and virtues, there can never be progress. We have to create conditions for the people to have progress. That is why democracy and human rights and liberties are so important. - There is such a proposal that who wants to get their master's and doctor's degree abroad must have the approval of the presidential administration. Can such a proposed measure be construed as government's intention to intercept somewhat foreign education? - This proposal is absolutely unfeasible in the globalised world, where any information can be obtained within seconds through the internet. Every age has its civilisation mainstream. To oppose it means opposing the change of the seasons. The infamous Roman emperor Nero made such an attempt thinking himself to be a god. He thought he was the head of the world and, if he wanted, he could stop the seasons, stop winter from coming. His inglorious and tragic end is well-known. If the government wants today to control our young people being educated abroad, it is pure totalitarianism. It is impossible in the open world. It is an attempt to stop the seasons changing. - Ramiz Mehdiyev has also criticised the television. What is the reason for such a change in attitude? - I do not watch Azerbaijani television at all after 2005. I get my information from the press and internet. But I do know one thing - if you watch Azerbaijani television for one month, your mind decays and degrades, for it is worse than abominable. All television channels are under total control of the government. ANS channel used to be the only one outside its control. We all remember what has been done to it. Now, if the regime itself confesses that its broadcasting policy lead to such regress, it can be considered as a positive step, although I am quite sure that no conclusion would be drawn from this confession and everything will stay the same, for this television is the reflection of the ruling regime.

Fizza Heydarli