Using ‘human rights protection’ rhetoric to pressure certain states is a very interesting topic to analyze. We’ve already discussed how the ‘Timoshenko trial’ is being used by certain states to promote their gas interests. Today we’ll talk about Azerbaijan, which was attacked by a number of German media agencies on the eve of the Eurovision song contest. Of course it would be incompetent to compare the PR-campaigns against Ukraine and against Azerbaijan, as in the first case the media criticism was openly induced by the governments and was supported by official statements. Leading European politicians even decided to boycott the Yalta summit, due to be held in mid-May, so Ukraine had to officially re-schedule it. The German President and the head of the European Comission promised to boycott the Ukrainian part of Euro-2012, while Angela Merkel made it clear that her presence at the event depends on developments in the ‘Timoshenko case’.
In the case of Azerbaijan we don’t have this immediate involvement of high officials in the media campaign against Baku. Volker Beck and Viola von Kramon, members of the ‘Green’ party, socialist Christophe Stesser and the chief ombudsman Marcus Lening are the most active advocates of the campaign. None of these MPs are members of the ruling coalition, and Mr Lening also can’t pretend to voice the official position of the German state.
It is true that diplomats often have to explain that any given personal statement or action of an MP can’t be regarded as the official opinion of the state, even if this MP is a member of the ruling party.
After the dozens (or even hundreds) of critical media reports on Azerbaijan that were made by German press in the past few months, the Azerbaijani side finally started to respond. According to an article published by the ‘Yeni Azerbaijan’ newspaper, Germany is conducting an official media campaign against Azerbaijan. It is worth mentioning that even though this paper is close to the official milieu of Azerbaijan, its publications also do not reflect the official position of the state. The squabble between the two countries’ media agencies reflects discontent of certain powers, but it doesn’t mean a full-blown crisis in relations between the two states. Nevertheless, the German Ambassador to Azerbaijan chose to respond to the allegation of the Azeri newspaper, and this is only logical as the promotion of Germany’s image in Azerbaijan is one of his direct tasks. In his article published by the same newspaper, he tried to convince his audience that the critical tone of German media reports on Azerbaijan will soon fade away as Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev had confirmed his commitment to democratic development and implemented the program on human rights protection just as he had promised to.
The Ambassador also said that he understood how the solely negative reports on Azerbaijan disappointed the citizens of this country, as their great achievements made in 20 years are being underrated. “However," the Ambassador said, "I’m no more capable of influencing German papers than my Azeri colleague in Berlin is. And I doubt that the Federal Government has any way of influencing the independent media reports either. However, if the Azerbaijani government in its turn has a way to influence the Azerbaijani media, it should do so’.
The Azeri Ambassador to Berlin responded immediately to this latest statement by the German Ambassador: "I am surprised by this reaction of the German Ambassador. First of all, the media is as independent in Azerbaijan as it is in Germany. This means that our government has no ways of influencing it.”
One can speculate on how the scheme of governmental influence of the press really works in both states, but it is obvious that it exists in Germany as well: for example, one might analyse the anti-Dutch publications of such papers as Die Welt and Süddeutsche Zeitung during the French campaigning. However, neither Baku nor Berlin would officially admit to manipulating the media.
The official statement of the Azerbaijani Embassy in Berlin ends optimistically: “We hope that this dirty campaigning won’t affect the German people’s good opinion of Azerbaijan. Those who try to benefit from this campaign won’t be able to ruin our good relations." So Azeri diplomats show that they see the difference between the opinions of the German media and the official German establishment.
After that, the German FM and the Azeri President met in New York. The meeting was held on the German side's initiative, as official Baku stresses. Neither the Azeri nor the German side denied that the issue of the ‘negative publications’ was brought up during this meeting. It is hard to tell how these developments would affect the general situation. It would be naïve to think that all the negative reports would stop after a ‘command from above’, as the spectre of German political forces interested in criticizing Azerbaijan is far too wide.
However, one could assume that the official level of relations between the states would remain the same and won’t become hostage to the actions of certain non-governmental organizations and political forces. It would be a mistake to let this ‘human rights protection’ campaign spoil the relations between Baku and Berlin, as both sides would suffer from a crisis in their relationship. And the actual speed of democratic reforms in Azerbaijan depends on many factors and can’t be influenced by foreign media publications. And in response to the German media campaign, the Azeri public might ask why don’t the German ombudsmen open a similar campaign against the violations of the rights of Azeri refugees by Armenia?
It seems that until German government gets officially involved in the campaign the relations between the two states will remain at the same level. And this media campaign by some opposition German forces is very unlikely to rise to a higher level.
