Wilfried Furman: "Is Azerbaijan on the edge of a knife?"

During the preparation for the first European Games in Baku, a strong media campaign was waged against Azerbaijan. In particular, a strong resolution on the situation with human rights was made by the German Bundestag. However, according to Professor Wilfried Furman from Potsdam, discussions on controversial issues should be carried out at the political level and a compromise must be reached. Furman sees such resolutions harmful to the partnerships. At the same time, according to the professor, the Bundestag appears as a driven side in the context of the ongoing Western critical discourse about Azerbaijan, rather than the initiator. Meanwhile, for every politician in the world it is clear that the long-term stability of the society and its development depends on the strength and capacity of society to involve all the opinions, ideas and trends to the process. Azerbaijan has these strength and stability, the professor thinks. In an interview with Vestnik Kavkaza, commenting on the role of Western countries in the Karabakh conflict settlement, Mr. Furman expressed the view that the key to the conflict lies not only in Moscow but also in Paris with the Armenian diaspora settled there, and in the United States with their geopolitical goals and a strong Armenian lobbying, and in Germany, involved in a group position of the West and exposed to the influence of the Christian factor on its policy.

- Mr. Furman, last time we talked about Armenia. Today we will focus on Azerbaijan. Let me go straight to the point: is it right to speak about  "anti-Azerbaijani campaign" in the German media?

- Coverage of Azerbaijan in Germany and some other Western countries, surprises me very much. It is, for the most part, not differentiated and negative on its content. A full-page article (!) in an authoritative edition of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of June 19 of this year, on the third page of which, the subheading was "In the midst of a dirty nothing" can serve as a striking example of this. This article is about the European games, but for the most part, about Azerbaijan. I feel ashamed for such headline. The essence of the article is expressed in the central quotation of Jamil Hasanli: "The trend is moving in the direction of North Korea."

Yes, freedom of speech! But what is this ridiculous nonsense? It belongs to the pen of author of the article or editors? Both journalist and editors were totally "resistant" to the proposals for personal meeting, provided information, etc. Are they trying to defame or destroy someone with such articles? Perhaps they want to discredit Azerbaijan, as a partner in the diversification of energy supplies for the EU, a member of various international organizations (such as the Council of Europe), or, in general, our eighth largest partner, who at a recent conference of "Eastern Partnership" in Riga (May 21-22 of 2015) has put forward a proposal for a strategic partnership. This article, like others, demonstrates the prejudices and persistence in the argumentation, worthy of a better cause.

Regardless of this, in any criticism I'm trying to find proposals for improving the situation contained in it. in the end, the criticism can also be a manifestation of respect and concern. I criticize friends, because they are important to me, and I believe that they can show themselves and develop better. But this article, along with others similar publications, is literally full of criticism. It seems that its aim is to isolate Azerbaijan from the so-called Western values system. And anything you can argue about, risks to be used against you. At the same time, the lack of response will be interpreted as a confirmation of published absurdity. Such criticism, I, despite everything, perceive friendly. After all, you can provide information to them or ask questions, for example, about the protection of citizens' personal data, or the democraty deficit, to help see the "log" in your eye.

- What lies behind such a publications? It is believed that Armenian lobbying organizations with strong positions in Western countries are playing some role in it.

- Despite the fact that Armenia enjoys the sympathy of the West, as a Christian country, and in light of the well-known historical discourse, I would not exaggerate its role in the context of our discussion. Moreover, I think that the reasons is even broader than human rights, about which I will also say now.

I think we all - at least those of us who are young at heart - are united in the opinion that one cannot be judged because of his own opinion.

• "In my opinion, following provisions should operate in each country. In order to avoid questionable cases, and in accordance with the logic of the economy of criminals, I would have analyzed all legal cases openly and quickly, and then deciphered and decided. It is necessary to ensure the transparency of the processes. Tight legal deadlines also make sense. And on the basis of historical experience, political independence also will be effectively ensured."

 

In cases of dispute, for example, for the protection of human rights, there are opportunities to appeal to the European Court on Human Rights, which should also be organized transparently, efficiently and fairly.

• "In addition, regular general amnesty will allow the society to breathe more freely."

 

But we are aware of the human rights situation in the world in practice. There are countries with the death penalty, with a constantly flashing racism, pursuing the so-called "whistleblowers," who are called traitors, which gave out state secrets. There are also countries where entire regions are simply not available for journalists. Great countries?

Should we have attend the games and championships that took place there? Of course - and we did it because it was politically expedient. Sporting events, as well as other events, may be used for our own political purposes. But this happens only if it is knowingly allowed by the international community.

• "Sport provides an opportunity for personal meetings between people, and also for discussions about values. Boycott leads to nothing."

 

It is important to ensure that the person will never become the object of governmental outrage, always remaining a subject. That person is the only absolute fundamental factor - the factor of human dignity is a key and fundamental. All other rights are more or less relative and interpretable.

• "At the same time, for every politician in the world it is clear that the long-term stability of the society and its development depends on the strength and capacity of society to involve all the opinions, ideas and trends to the process. Azerbaijan these strength and stability, and it needs them in connection with latent threats that originate not only from the occupied territories."

​- How do you feel about the resolution of the Bundestag on the situation of human rights in Azerbaijan?

- The resolution of the German parliament has been "neutralized" previously and its content refers to the reports of international organizations, for example, Amnesty International or ‘Reporters without Borders’. It draws its wording from them, as well as the conclusions of the Council of Europe and the European Parliament, and emphasizes the alleged deterioration of the situation, which has been continuing for several years.

I assume that the debate on contentious issues should be carried out at the political level and it is necessary to come to a compromise. Such resolutions seem to me somewhat detached for the partnerships, and they are unlikely to help the cause.

It seems to me, that in a proper dialogue the Bundestag appears rather a driven side than a initiator in the context of the ongoing Western critical discourse about Azerbaijan.

It should also be considered that articles, like the aforementioned, are poisoning the climate of bilateral relations. They are written by people who, in my opinion, do not want to see the situation. They do not want to hear, that is why they hear nothing. Finally, they do not want to improve anything or help the people, preferring only to point the finger, blame and to be judges.

- If there are certain problems in the sphere of human rights in Azerbaijan, what do you think they are due to?

- There may be a few reasons. Firstly, for the third decade the development of Azerbaijan is marked by the need to integrate the Azerbaijanis who were expelled by the Armenian troops and the Soviet troops from Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh and the seven occupied regions of Azerbaijan into society. At least since the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis, on the contact line between the Armenian and the Azerbaijani troops it is very hectic again and people are dying. Does anyone really believe that the constantly bleeding wound, entitled 'Karabakh', with people who were expelled from there, would not have political and social consequences reflected in the legislation of such a country as Azerbaijan, which throughout its history has repeatedly been subjected to massacres and genocide?

At the same time the United States, France, and Russia, as the OSCE Minsk Group, should have been able to resolve this conflict a long time ago. After all, they emphasize the principle of territorial integrity in case of Ukraine, and in the end there are numerous resolutions of international organizations on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.

Obviously, there is an interest in not resolving the conflict.

The key to its solution lies not only in Moscow, as many believe. Another key is in Paris with the Armenian diaspora settled there, and the other is in the United States with their geopolitical goals and strong Armenian lobbying, as well as in Germany, which is involved in the group position of the West and exposed to the influence of the Christian factor in its policy. But, despite this, Azerbaijan has not used weapons for decades, providing trust in law and the international community!

But there are at least three other determinants of such a development. On the one hand, the Western sanctions against Russia and the collapse of prices of oil and gas, which have caused severe economic consequences for the entire Caucasus region, including Azerbaijan, while strengthening the political pressure of the West, in particular, because Azerbaijan (in my view, it is quite reasonable) does not participate in the sanctions against Russia. Also, negotiations began (outside the WTO, which is crushing it) to establish TTP, TTIP and TISA, which means that an attempt at institutional isolation of all the countries which are not considered to be reliable camps around the US. Add to that the laws on the activities of NGOs. Probably outbursts of hatred in the media have contributed to this new bipolar geopolitical strategy.

- Thus, we have four or five possible causes?

- The collapse of prices of oil and gas due to the cost of oil production has led not only to the transfer of investments, but also to the loss of sensitive financial profit in Azerbaijan. The situation with the income (including citizens) is exacerbated by the Ukrainian crisis and the situation in Greece. The aggravation of the so-called ‘Greek tragedy’ is connected, in turn, with the readiness of  Athens to facilitate the implementation of the ‘Turkish Stream’.

Rather than support the strengthening of global trade relations, the West dominates the geopolitical strategy, with which it tries, guided by an aggressive ‘vagenburg’ siege mentality, to secure for sure their own economic dominance through agreements like TTIP and TISA, at the same time enhancing their own  ‘internal’ trade through third countries. Azerbaijan is not a trading partner within TISA, where 50 countries are invited, 28 of them are members of the EU. I firmly believe that open trade is the best way and the guarantor of peace and social values, including human rights and civil society.

- How do you feel about the so-called law on NGOs, which also exists in other countries, and is obviously abhorrent to the Western demands and requirements? In particular, I'm talking about the problems in the work of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation.

- I had the good fortune to be born after the war in the north-western part of Germany, and actually I was socialized in a region with open international waters. I will say in the North German way, openly and directly: of course, in this regard, I think about the values ​​that are shared, including among the member states of the Council of Europe. There are significant problems with the law on NGOs, but also there are problems with the growing video surveillance in western Europe, and the storage of personal data, and with the working methods of the NSA, etc. All this is done under the banner of anti-terrorism, which triggered an avalanche of discussions, as well as the name of democracy, versus autocracies such as Russia. Laws to restrict the activities of NGOs, as well as the collection and preservation of citizens' personal data and other tools, must protect the so-called "public goods", different in nature, in different ways, with different perceptions of hazards, with different strengths of  preventive measures and (partially abusers) state control. The West rejects government surveillance activities of NGOs, but in the end it is a matter of dialogue and an issue of trust created over time, which again breaks through negative media campaigns. Since that, confrontation in this area is increasing rather than decreasing.

But the geopolitical strategy of relying on sanctions and selective institutions and agreements is forcing smaller countries to make a choice (including military and political) between the ‘freedom from Western domination’ or Western hardcore-membership.

Azerbaijan thus must also make a choice ‘for’ or ‘against’ the territorial reintegration of Nagorno-Karabakh.

But is this phenomena and the decisions of individual states, which, coincidentally, are superimposed on each other, damaging to Azerbaijan? According to the well-known thesis of Samuel Huntington, now we are at the end of the so-called third ‘Wave of Democratization’ or democratic transformation, with emphasis on civil liberties and political rights.

On this occasion a wide-ranging discussion has been conducted, but for me decisive is that the Western policy, starting somewhere in 2000, causing many countries and peoples to doubt in a stronger positive correlation between economic growth and material well-being and stability of democracy in opposition to democratic autocracy.

- It is, without doubt, an interesting explanation for the long-term, but the current perception and representation of Azerbaijan in the Western media from this was the least offensive.

- Going back to my earlier article marked in FAZ, I would like to draw attention to the way with reference to the opinion of  Jamil Hasanli that  modern Azerbaijan actually equates to Iran during the reign of Shah Reza Pahlavi. But has anyone ever argued that Azerbaijan being in captivity of great power ambitions is armed by the US or this is a regime of torture with a lot of dead victims?

Just look at the roots of Azerbaijan, with its model and the first democracy in the Muslim East of 1918, protecting the rights of ethnic and religious minorities, the right to vote for women, etc. Or, a parallel held in article between Farah Diba and the first lady of Azerbaijan Mehriban Aliyeva in the context of the allegedly pointless waste of resources on the Museum of Modern Art in Baku. The latter is a small and modest gem for locals and highly recommended for tourists. Thus, this museum is an investment in the framework of the necessary policy of economic diversification (out of oil dependency towards greater development of tourism, agriculture and other sectors).

Furthermore. "In 1978, the Iranians opened eyes, in 1979 they overthrew the Shah," the article reads. For me, this passage is also based on the quotation of Hasanli, it sounds like a request for a revolution. Or even a call for one? To what has this revolution, its leader who had flown from Paris, accompanied by the 'green' French politician, Con Bedita, led the Iranian people? Fewer victims and freedom? Whether was taken an aim to create a fundamentalist Islamic republic and the destruction of the existing tolerance between religions in Azerbaijan? Or, better a ‘people's uprising’ and disorders of the ‘Maidan’ type? Or maybe someone thinks (if at all in the course of the economy of revolutions) of a revolution coming from the ruling elite? Is that a split between good and bad rich?

- Is such an attitude in the media not consistent with the approach of the so-called radical opposition?

-You can look at it in this way. Even if newspaper editors try to hide their position for quotations from interviews, it is clear that the one who publishes such selects these quotes himself and makes them central to the article. Accordingly, he himself adheres to a similar opinion. About a differentiated approach, the journalistic investigation of the question, etc. in this case it is possible to forget. This view defines an article based on very specific geopolitical motives.

Thus, it insults the whole country, the people, and also discredits democracy and human rights. Thus, however, the media is also culpable. But this does not alter the fact that such publications are harmful for both Azerbaijan and Germany.

I belong to the people who need (in Azerbaijan, but also partly German) more equitable participation of citizens in the country's GDP, as well as greater participation in the political process. In Azerbaijan, in view of its deep traditional and cultural roots, I'm sure.

This is a young country, but you should only want to look to see how the country has developed in less than 30 years after the restoration of independence 70 years of Soviet rule, the suppression of the tsarist government, etc

And even if Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wants to see country in dark colors, Azerbaijan moves forward in preserving its tolerance.