Connect with us

Eastern Europe

Leaving the Euronest: Why Azerbaijan is Unhappy

Published

on

The European Union may have found itself deeper into a conflict than it had originally planned when it invited both Armenia and Azerbaijan into the Euronest.

Recently, Azerbaijan has felt as though it was dealing with unfair persecution from a select group of members in the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly and decided to formally withdraw from the union. According to the resolution that was drafted on 10 September of this year, the Milli Mejlis (the Azeri Congress) cited:

They [Euronest members] slander Azerbaijan, trying to damage the image of our country and isolate it. Since last September when this institution began to operate with a new staff, Azerbaijan hasn’t managed to begin a dialogue with it due to the fault of several European Parliament members, including its President.

Many of the members of the Euronest have been plaguing Azerbaijan with accusations of human rights violations. These violations stem from the treatment of prisoners that are being held in Azeri prisons. The accusations came soon after Azerbaijan refused to participate in the session that was held in March 2015. Azerbaijan claimed that the reason for non-participation in the session held in Yerevan, Armenia stemmed from the continuing conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh region, the horrendous state of the Sarsang Reservoir, and the continued blockade of Nakhchivan. Azerbaijan has continued to voice concerns over these three regions over the years, but seems to be especially irritated that little progress has been made through Euronest in obtaining any type of satisfactory solution or even substantive progress.

The Nagorno-Karabakh region is a part of Azerbaijan that is run by the ethnic Armenian population. In the summer of 2014, clashes between the Armenians and the Azeris rose to the highest levels since 1994. The area is still prone to frequent commando raids and sniper fire, which makes the lives of residents there difficult to say the least. Russian President Vladimir Putin attempted to reign in the leaders by calling them both to Sochi. Putin was able to stop the rising tension, but was not able to bring either party closer to a resolution. When the Euronest decided to hold the 2015 session in Armenia, it left Azerbaijan feeling like it had no place within the assembly. Azerbaijan did not understand how the Euronest would claim such atrocities committed by the Azeris while turning a blind eye toward the Armenians’ bad behavior and even giving them a great honor by holding the next session in their state.

Azeris also felt slighted when Russia persuaded Armenia to join Putin’s Eurasian Union. It is this alliance, where Russia is providing a security backing to Armenia, which has increased the Azeri feeling of insecurity. In response, Azerbaijan has been utilizing its hydrocarbon revenues to increase the size and strength of its military. Combine this with a new more nationalist defense minister and diplomatic problems are arising in all areas. The Azeris have lost trust in the West to deal fairly with its issues with Armenia. The reason for this can be attributed to how the West has dealt with President Putin over Crimea: Azeris do not seem to understand how the West can try to punish Putin for that, but continue to ignore the alleged illegalities and immoralities committed by the Armenians against them.

The second reason that Azerbaijan decided not to attend the session in Yerevan is the increasingly dilapidated status of the Sarsang Reservoir. Since 2013 it has been known that the dam at the reservoir was in an emergency condition. Since the dam was seized over 20 years ago, it has been under the control of Armenia. The problem is that if—more likely when—there will be a failure at the dam, it will threaten the lives of over 400,000 people that live downstream, who are predominantly Azeri. The Azerbaijani Government continues to make evacuation plans in the event the dam fails, but the estimates of engineers give less than one hour from the catastrophic collapse of the dam to the whole area being submerged underwater.

The other issue that revolves around the Sarsang Reservoir is that the Armenians continue to use the reservoir as a way to threaten the livelihood of the inhabitants on the Azeri side. Since the dam is controlled by Armenia, it can decide when to turn the water and power generation features on and off. It uses this control to leverage threats against the Azeris. This is serious enough that the Chairman of the Azerbaijani Delegation to the Euronest PA, Elkhan Suleymanov, forwarded his concerns about the physical status of the dam as well as the way Armenia uses the dam against Azerbaijan not just to Euronest but to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). Suleymanov included in his reports that during the summer months Armenia would shut the dam down, depriving the people downstream of the commodity of water. During the winter months Armenia would open the floodgates, causing agricultural lands to flood and roads to wash out.

The last reason that Azerbaijan protested attending the last session of Euronest in Yerevan is because of the blockades that have been in effect against Azerbaijan’s autonomous province of Nakhchivan. The blockades proved severely detrimental: Azerbaijan was unable to supply food and fuel and the gas, rail, electrical, and radio lines were all cut to the province. During the harsh winter there was not enough fuel and some of the people resorted to burning their furniture in order to stay warm. The only lifeline in the early days of the blockade that sustained Nakhchivan were the two small bridges that were built by Heydar Aliev. It is a testament to the province and the people of Azerbaijan that the province is now a growing, self-sustaining region. The increasing hydrocarbon wealth of Azerbaijan has also helped significantly to revitalize and supply the area. The future endeavors of the province include spiritual and ecological tourism. Therefore the accusations that have been made against Azerbaijan in the recent past by Euronest members threaten the continued prosperity of the region.

These newest claims by Euronest against Azerbaijan only further ignite the fury of the Azeris. Unfortunately, some of that anger has fueled a Baku crackdown that has led to many anti-government activists’ arrests and non-governmental organizations finding their accounts suddenly frozen. The growth of Azerbaijan’s wealth has rebuilt its confidence so that it no longer wants to be controlled by any organization, whether that is European or Russian. But Europe choosing to ignore the faults on the Armenian side and continuing to prosecute those on the Azerbaijan side relatively exclusively, while Russia provides additional economic opportunity to the Armenians, is taking a negative situation and fanning into a full-on future inferno of hostility. Consequently, in this instance, the ‘Euronest’ is something the Azeri bird is eager and happy to leave.

Continue Reading
Comments

Eastern Europe

Will Russia serve the old wine in a new bottle?

Angela Amirjanyan

Published

on

Nowadays, one of the main features of global political developments are non-violent or color revolutions. These revolutions are brought about by wide-spread corruption, poverty, unemployment and a deep gap between masses and the ruling elite with the latter being the biggest political risk for the ruling party. Most analysts argue that these factors are combined also with outside support, which can culminate in the revolution. However, what happened in Armenia after a few weeks of peaceful demonstrations, the Velvet revolution, that brought down the regime and has exercised true people power, is considered to be unprecedented for it didn’t owe its origin to the external assistance or wasn’t an attempt by ‘‘US to export democracy’’ in Armenia. The geopolitical factor was initially excluded.  In fact, Russia has traditionally had negative attitude towards color revolutions and has seen them ‘‘as a new US and European approach to warfare that focuses on creating destabilizing revolutions in other states as a means of serving their security interests at low cost and with minimal casualties’’.This means that Russia, desperate to maintain its own standing in the Caucasus, was likely to intervene in the events unfolding in Armenia. However, the Kremlin didn’t view turmoil in Armenia as a Ukraine-style revolution. Asked if Russia would intervene, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the matter was “exclusively an internal affair” and Russian action would be “absolutely inappropriate”. Moreover, after Armenia’s unpopular leader Serzh Sargsyan’s resignation, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called Armenians “a great people” and wrote, “Armenia, Russia is always with you!”

The prospect of a Russian intervention was low for 2 key reasons

One of the possible reasons behind Russian inaction was that Moscow didn’t regard the revolution in Armenia as a threat to its geopolitical prerogatives, but rather as an opportunity to make a strategic move through a global panic over Russia’s continued warlike behavior. Satisfied that this is genuinely an internal Armenian issue directed at an incompetent and ineffective government, Russia proved with its muted response to Armenia’s color revolution that Kremlin embraces the policy of non-interventionism.

Secondly, a rapid spread of pro-Western sentiment among local journalists, civil society representatives and youth was prevalent in Armenia in the past decade. This process only accelerated after Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan unexpectedly decided in 2013 to join Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) over EU Association Agreement.Yerevan’s decision of September 3, 2013 to involve in Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) was mostly conditioned by Moscow’s ultimatum imposition, which left a deep track in the perception of Armenia-Russia relations and formed a comparatively new cliché. Anti-Russian sentiments were on rise in Armenia in recent years due to major levers of influence that Russia maintained over Armenia: Armenia’s corrupt oligarchic system and the military threat coming from Azerbaijan. Civil society and the opposition in Armenia viewed Russia as the sponsor of the autocratic, oligarchic system of governance in Armenia. They have traditionally criticized the government for having closest ties with the country which provides 85 percent of arms export to Azerbaijan-a country which is in continuous conflict with Armenia over the disputed territory of Nagorno Karabakh.  This anti-Russian sentiment reached its apex in 2016 when the intense fighting broke out in Karabagh known as Four-Day War. This drew the public attention to the Russian-supplied arms which played a role in the deaths of dozens of soldiers.

Both opposition leaders and civil society members demanded not only Armenia’s exit from the EAEU, but also an end to the Russian military presence in the country. The anti-Russian rhetoric was useful for both the Armenian government and the opposition to alert Russia not to take Armenia for granted.Hence, in one way the April Revolution in Armenia was a test for Russian-Armenian relations, and Russia viewed it as a new impulse for mutually beneficial relations aimed at restoring the damage of Russia’s protective image among Armenians.Needless to say,Armenia is important to Russia, as losing Armenia would cause fundamental changes in Moscow’s influence in the South Caucasus. Furthermore, Armenia can’t cherry-pick among its closest allies because its landlocked position limits the freedom to maneuver in its foreign policy and its economic and defense imperatives dictate a close alignment with Russia. This was reaffirmed by new prime minister and protest leader of Armenia, Nikol Pashinian, who not only supported maintaining the current Russian-Armenian relationship but also suggested a “new impulse” for political and trade relations during the meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin in Sochi on May 14. During another meeting a month later, Armenian PM expressed his hope that ‘’the relations will develop more effectively on the basis of mutual respect for the best interest and sovereignty of the two States’’.

On the whole, Armenia will continue to pursue its “Complementarian” or multi-vector foreign policy, which means that no radical change in the realm of foreign policy is expected to take place.  Yet there is no strong anti-Russian current in Armenian political and society rhetoric. The recent civic movement was significant in realizing the potential of Russian-Armenian mutual relations for economic development and security. Undeniably, Russia should adopt new approaches towards Armenia and it should realize that under new circumstances the backward-looking policies are destined to be counter-productive. In Armenia people hope that Kremlin wouldn’t serve the old wine in a new bottle.

Continue Reading

Eastern Europe

Lithuania deserves better life

Published

on

The latest expressive headlines on delfi.lt (the main Lithuanian news portal) such as “Gender pay gap increased in Lithuania”, “Sudden drop in EU support pushes Lithuania into middle income trap, finmin says”, “Lithuanian travellers spent EUR 186.5 mln abroad this year” and “Lithuania’s Jan-May budget revenue EUR 14.3 mln below target” clearly demonstrate difficult situation in the country. The only positive thing in this fact is Lithuanian authorities do not try to hide the social problems or they just cannot do it anymore.

While in the international arena Lithuania continues to be very active and promising, the internal political and social crisis as well as decrease in living standards of the population make Lithuanians worry about their future. Idleness of the Lithuanian authorities makes the country poorer.

The most acute social problems today are emigration of young people, unemployment rate, increase in the number of older persons and poverty. The appalling consequences of such phenomena are alcoholism and suicides of the Lithuanians.

According to Boguslavas Gruževskis, the Head of Labour Market Research Institute, in the next 5-6 years, Lithuania must accumulate reserves so that our social protection system can operate for 15 years under negative conditions, otherwise serious consequences are expected.

Over the past two years the level of emigration has grown by more than 1.5 times. In 2015 the country left about 30,000 people, in 2017 – 50,000. This is a social catastrophe, because, in fact, the country has lost the population of one Lithuanian city. And the situation with depopulation cannot be corrected by an increase in the number of migrants coming to Lithuania. Their number is too small because Lithuania cannot afford high living conditions for newcomers like Germany or other European countries and may serve only as transitory hub.

As for unemployment rate and poverty, in Lithuania, 7.1% of the population is officially considered unemployed. The more so according to the Department of Statistics for 2016, 30% of Lithuanian citizens live on the verge of poverty, which is 7% higher than the average European level.

One of the most profitable sectors of the economy – tourism, which allows many European countries to flourish, Lithuanian authorities do not develop at all. Even Lithuanian Prime Minister Saulius Skvernelis plans to spend his summer vacation in Spain. This fact speaks for itself. Skvernelis notes that spending vacation in Spain is cheaper than in Lithuania. Thus, he is lacking the will or skill to do something with the situation as well as other high ranking officials. He is named one of the main presidential candidates but does nothing to improve the distressful situation.

At the same time, Lithuanian President wants more foreign troops and modern weapons, increase in defence budget and uses all her skills to persuade her NATO colleagues to give help. Probably, she is afraid of her own people, which is tired of helpless and indifferent authorities, and wants to protect herself by means of all these new weapons and foreign soldiers?

Continue Reading

Eastern Europe

Spoiled Latvia’s image in the international arena

Published

on

Latvia is actively preparing for one of the most important political event of the year. Parliamentary elections will take place in October 6, 2018. Submissions of the lists of candidates for the 13th Saeima elections will take place very soon – from July 18 to August 7, 2018. But the elections campaign as well as all political life in the country faces some problems which require additional attention from the authorities. And these problems spoil the image of Latvia as a democratic state which might respect the rights of its people.

This is a well-known fact, that the image of the state is composed of several components: it heavily depends on its foreign and domestic policy directions. The more so, internal events very often influence its foreign policy and vice versa.

Latvia considers itself a democratic state and tries to prove it by all possible means. But all attempts fail because of a serious unsolved problem – violation of human rights in Latvia.

It is not a secret that about one third of Latvians are ethnic Russians. Their right to speak and be educated in their native language is constantly violated. This problem is in the centre of attention of such international organizations as OSCE and EU. This fact makes Latvian authorities, which conducts anti Russia’s policy, extremely nervous.

Thus, the Latvian parliament recently passed in the final reading amendments to the Education Law and the Law on General Education under which schools of ethnic minorities will have to start gradual transition to Latvian-only secondary education in the 2019/2020 academic year. It is planned that, starting from 2021/2022 school year, all general education subjects in high school (grades 10-12) will be taught only in the Latvian language, while children of ethnic minorities will continue learning their native language, literature and subjects related to culture and history in the respective minority language. This caused

Hundreds joined a march in the centre of Riga in June to support Russian-language schools in Latvia. The event was held under the slogan: “For Russian schools, for the right to learn in native language,” as the government wants to switch the language of the education system to Latvian.

The European Parliament deputies called for support of Russian education in Latvia. 115 people have signed the joint declaration that will be forwarded to the Latvian Sejm and government. The declaration is signed by representatives of 28 EU countries, and almost all parliamentary factions. Every 7th deputy supported the necessity of the Russian school education in Latvia. The document authors marked that this is unprecedented expression of solidarity towards the national minorities, especially Russian residents of the EU. Authors of the letter sharply criticize the education reform that takes away from children of national minorities the right to study in their native language.

On the other hand the parliament contradicts itself by rejecting a bill allowing election campaigning only in Latvian.

The matter is in parliamentary election will take part not only Latvians, speaking Lantvian, but Latvians, who speak Russian. Their voices are of great importance either. The authorities had to recognize this and tempered justice with mercy.

After years of oppressing Russian speaking population and violating their rights Saeima committee this month rejected a bill allowing election campaigning only in Latvian.

It turned out that politicians need ethnic Russians to achieve their political goals. They suddenly remembered that Campaigning Law should not promote discrimination because publicly active people should not have problems using the state language.

“Wise” deputies understand that Russian speaking children are not going to participate in the elections while Russian speaking adults can seriously damage political plans. Only this can explain the controversy in the Parliament’s decisions.

In Russia Riga’s decision to transfer the schools of national minorities to the Latvian language of teaching considers as unacceptable and could cause introduction of special economic measures against Latvia as well as condemnation by the international community.

So, Latvia’s on-going war against its residents also could become a reason for deterioration in attitudes not only with Russia but with EU and OSCE that will have unpleasant economic and political and even security consequences for Latvia. It is absolutely clear that making unfriendly steps towards own citizens and neighboring states, Latvia can not expect a normal attitude in return.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy