Council of Europe challenged to 'make right historical choice' over Nagorno-Karabakh

By Martin Banks

The Council of Europe (CoE) has been accused of applying “double standards” in its treatment of Azerbaijan compared with Russia. The accusation was made by Elkhan Suleymanov, a senior Azerbaijani MP who attempted to table a motion calling for sanctions against Armenia at a meeting in Strasbourg this week of the CoE’s parliamentary assembly (PACE).

The motion he drafted demanded that the same sanctions be applied over Armenia’s occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh as were recently applied to Russia over its annexation of Crimea.

However, he says he was asked on 23 June by the secretariat of the CoE, the body that tackles human rights violations, to “water down” the motion so that, instead of sanctions it “vaguely and merely” calls for “political action” against Armenia.

Speaking on 24 June, Suleymanov told EU Reporter:  “This is not acceptable.  It amounts to discrimination against my country. It is the biggest injustice imaginable.”

He warned that in refusing to act against Armenian aggression Europe was in danger of squandering a "historical choice".

The furore comes after PACE passed a resolution in April suspending Russia's voting rights due to its “interference” in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Moscow has since decided to boycott the parliamentary assembly.

Ahead of the PACE summer session in Strasbourg this week, Suleymanov, one of 12 Azerbaijani PACE delegates, tabled a motion calling for a “similar treatment” of Armenia, “given its occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding Azerbaijani territories for more than two decades”.

The motion read: "The Assembly should apply one single standard and adopt exactly similar sanctions against the Armenian delegation by suspending its voting rights and excluding it from Assembly's leading bodies, until the end of the illegal occupation of Azerbaijani territories."

It was signed by 58 PACE members from 14 member countries. The resolution could still go to a vote by the assembly but this is now not likely to be until the autumn.

Suleymanov added: "A great number of MPs signed this motion for resolution and this was a chance for my fellow PACE members not to spurn a moment in history. The motion against Armenia offered a historical choice.”

PACE has in the past adopted resolutions calling for Armenia's withdrawal from Nagorno-Karabakh, as has the UN Security Council, the Organization of Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the European Parliament.

But Suleymanov pointed out: "This document I tabled was the first motion for resolution demanding the application of sanctions against Armenia for its occupation of Azerbaijani territories tabled in an international organization in 22 years."

He added: “This is an illegal occupation by Armenia which has been recognized by all international organizations and imposing sanctions against Armenia would have sent a meaningful signal that this occupation must stop. We need concrete steps taken, similar to those taken against Russia over the annexation of Crimea. The response from the CoE administration, though, represents a wasted opportunity. It amounts to double standards and I am very disappointed.”

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict emerged in 1988 when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. A brutal war between the two sides broke out in 1991 amid the collapse of the former Soviet Union. The region of Nagorno=Karabakh was in Azerbaijan but it was populated predominantly by Armenians.

Up to 30,000 people were killed and a million forced to flee their homes before a tenuous ceasefire was agreed in 1994. Most of those who were displaced during the war have never been allowed back. Their homeland now resembles a war zone. An estimated 600,000 Azerbaijanis, or 7% of the country's population, live meagre existences in Soviet-era schools, hospitals or university buildings - families of five, six or seven people sharing one tiny room.

The war displaced over one million Azerbaijanis and Armenian armed forces have since occupied over 20% of Azerbaijan's internationally recognized territory, including Nagorno-Karabakh and seven adjacent regions.

The disputed region is controlled by Armenia but Azerbaijan wants it back. It is still subject to sniper fire from both sides.

The UN Security Council's four resolutions on Armenian withdrawal have not been enforced to this day. Peace talks, mediated by Russia, France and the US through the OSCE Minsk Group, are under way but the negotiations have been largely fruitless so far.

Wedged between Russia to the north and Iran to the south, oil-rich Azerbaijan is a strategically key player in the region, not least for the role it plays in ensuring Europe’s energy security.

Suleymanov said that the refusal to put his original motion to a vote demonstrated the Council’s apparent “reluctance” to find efforts to find a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem “in compliance with Azerbaijan's territorial integrity and sovereignty”.

“For reasons best known to itself, the Council seems more intent on not rocking the boat,” he said.

In its “country progress report” on Azerbaijan, the European Commission said that 2013 was a “decisive year” in EU-Azerbaijani bilateral relations.

Azerbaijan's participation in the Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius in November resulted in the signing of a visa facilitation agreement and “underlined the potential to further develop EU/Azerbaijani relations”. Negotiations continue on the Association Agreement and a Strategic Modernisation Partnership while on energy issues, cooperation continues.

But Suleymanov warned that the reluctance to impose Russian-style sanctions against Armenia could jeopardize attempts to forge ever closer ties between the EU and Azerbaijan.

He said: “The  EU cannot expect our support for closer ties unless it more fully supports us in our attempt to get our land back.”

Lawrence Sheets from the International Crisis Group has warned the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan has the danger of pulling in “major regional powers”.

“That would mean NATO-member Turkey on one side and Russia on the other. And with Iran next door and the  region a crucial source of oil and gas for Europe, all-out fighting would have serious implications.”

Share this article: