PACE rapporteurs express concern about recent developments

Clare Doyle 7/22/02

A Q&A with Andreas Gross and Guillermo Martinez Casan

Andreas Gross and Guillermo Martinez Casan, rapporteurs for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), concluded a fact-finding mission to Azerbaijan on July 20. During their visit Gross, a Swiss national, and Martinez Casan, a Spaniard, examined a variety of state-building issues, including the planned constitutional referendum, Islamic radicalism and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. During their visit, the two PACE rapporteurs spoke to EurasiaNet contributor Clare Doyle about the pressing issues facing Azerbaijan. Both expressed concern about recent developments in Azerbaijan and urged Western European countries to take a greater interest in promoting stability in the country. The text of their comments follows:

EurasiaNet: What's your assessment of democratic conditions in Azerbaijan on this trip, compared with 2001?

Gross: This is a very difficult country in a very difficult situation, and there are some elements which give me some hope, for instance, I was very impressed by a new governor in a region about 200 km north of Baku, I was positively surprised by the ombudswoman who has just been appointed recently, and we had a very open and frank debate with the Minister of the Interior. But nevertheless, I am extremely concerned by the way this country is not integrated. To put it a little bit provocatively, power is not rooted in society and the opposition is also not rooted in society; the opposition, in my opinion, is hardly a better alternative to the authorities, so the majority of people are left alone politically, and this creates apathy, and also a vacuum, which is very dangerous. Each clash could escalate, and this is a little bit of the feeling that I have. I'm very concerned also that Europe is not paying enough attention to this situation, because it's strategically a very important and extremely dangerous geographical region.

Martinez Casan: I would say that yes, [this visit] makes me think of this country in a slightly pessimistic manner. Although I see changes all the time, I don't think the sense of democracy is rooted, either in the political class, or in the population. The government is making efforts and achieving things to abide by the letter of the obligations they undertook when they became members of the Council of Europe, but I have the impression they are treating it like an examination, without really believing that democracy is good for the country, that democracy is good for the people, and democracy is good for themselves.

EurasiaNet: What about your consultations with the government? How did they go?

Gross: We spent the whole day today with officials, and for me, parliament was quite a disappointment. Openly speaking, in my personal opinion, it's not a strong parliament, and you can also see the effects of this weakness, which is not in the interests of democracy-building here. But some ministers are convincing personalities, and with these people you could make more and better [progress] for the future of democracy-building and capacity-building in society.

Martinez Casan: I would say that on the whole, the experience has been a positive one, because we've been able to talk to the people, the opposition, the NGOs, the government, the ministers. But I want to expand on what Andreas said about the role of parliament: I think they've missed a wonderful opportunity to have a good debate on the referendum and the changes that will have to be voted on next month. Because that's not dangerous, and that would have helped to unite, at least theoretically, all the political forces in a general debate on something which is essential for the future of the country and for the future of the people. By not doing that, they missed an opportunity to show the world that they believe in democracy and that they believe in the parliamentary system. I have to say that, on the other hand, I am very disappointed, profoundly disappointed, by the role of the opposition. Because in every civilized country, government and opposition dissent, but they always find grounds for mutual understanding in matters which are good for the general interests of the state. But in this country, anything is good for any party in the opposition to fight the government, even if it goes against the general interests of the state, and the general interests of the citizens.

EurasiaNet: You mentioned the referendum. You've publicly commented and so has [Council of Europe Secretary General] Walter Schwimmer on the constitutional referendum, but there's no sign so far that there's going to be any compromise on that. What's the next stage, as far as you're concerned?

Gross: You have to separate two different issues as far as the referendum is concerned. First is the content, and the other side is the procedure. And we are not supposed to speak too much about the content, because the countries are free to choose the system they like. The real point is that they propose changing 39 things in 24 articles of the constitution, and it's not possible to do this with one question, so that people have to say "yes" or "no" to 39 changes, 24 articles, on the spot. This does not give legitimacy to the changes, nor does it contribute to the integration of the country. We proposed that the referendum should be postponed, because two months between announcing the changes and the vote is not good for parliament and not good for the public. Second point, you have to regroup the questions around their common substance – changes in the power of the president, adaptations in the human rights sector – then people would have the right to say "yes" or "no" to different issues. But we are pessimistic, the postponement seems not to be possible, and also they are not ready to rethink some propositions in the material sense. I don't think that these changes in the long run are in the interests of democracy-building in Azerbaijan. .

EurasiaNet: What about the next stage then, if they go ahead with the referendum?

Martinez Casan: Well, it is their right to go ahead with the referendum, since the referendum is legal, and the questions they ask in the referendum are legal, although they are not perhaps the best way to do it. But if they hold the referendum, and I think that's the will of the government, we still have to see whether it is held in a legal manner, or whether there is ballot-stuffing again. Once the referendum is carried out in a legal manner, the number of voters reaches the required limit, and the options presented by the government are approved, then that's a constitutional change, but we still have to wait and see. I very much hope that the law will be applied in the voting procedure.

EurasiaNet: I'm sure you're familiar with the events which happened in Nardaran last month and which are ongoing. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. What is your view of the Nardaran situation?

Martinez Casan: I come from a country (Spain) which has suffered for many, many years from the problem of terrorism and I would say that one of the most important things for me is security and stability and the fight against terror and international crime. I think that Nardaran is a very problematic place, as far as I know, in which there is a mixture of many different factors, such as religious fanaticism or radicalism or fundamentalism, as you may call it, social problems which are either the cause or effect ... It is a place in which the state finds it very difficult to apply the rule of law because it is hardly reachable by the state representatives and the state security police, and I really think that it might have been possible that there was a real provocation on the part of fundamentalists, which made the state react in a manner which was necessary, although not desirable, but I understand that when one has a focus of instability and perhaps even crime, you have to be strong and defend what has to be defended.

EurasiaNet: Even to the extent of firing on unarmed civilians?

Martinez Casan: Well, it still has to be decided, because as far as I know, the minister of the interior has asked on various occasions for the body of the young person who was unfortunately killed to be exhumed in order to assess whether the bullet which killed him was one of the bullets which could come from a police weapon, or a bullet that could have been fired from some other weapon, and the exhumation has been refused, and the investigation cannot continue. There are different versions, there are different possibilities, but what is true is that it is a very conflictive village, in which the rule of law is very difficult to apply, and under those circumstances, I want to give credit to the Minister of the Interior and the stability of the village. But if I'm presented with results that indicate any other responsibility or action, I will be very happy to accept them.

Gross: In this sense, we are marked by our own history, and I have the privilege not to come from a country that suffers terrorist attacks and terrorist practices, so I continue to uphold my position that shooting by police into their own people is a sign of weakness. But I have to accept that it's not yet proven where the bullet came from, and the police force says that it was not the first to shoot, and I also have to accept that when a policeman is attacked by gunfire, he or she has the right to fire back. But nothing is proven, and something which we have to consider much more is the fact that even in the Soviet times, Nardaran was a village or place with a very special religious affection, and now we are in a country, and this is a difference from most Western European ones, where 80 or 90 percent of people are Muslims, but nevertheless, this is a country where the radical Muslims seem to have a special impact. And then there is a third factor, radical Islam is one thing, but Iranian-influenced radical Islam is another thing, and Nardaran seems to be a place where you have all three elements, and in this sense, the authorities are very much under the impression, under the fear, that you have here Iranian interference, and that people are trying to undermine the legitimacy of the whole Azerbaijani state. These are things we hear a lot from the government side; we don't hear much convincing evidence from the other side, so we still have to find out. Parliament perhaps made another mistake by not making an investigation committee, because this is in general the normal way to find out the truth in the most legitimate way.

Martinez Casan: I think it's very difficult to accept for a democrat that in any state which is either a democratic state or on the process to democracy, there is a village or a part of the town which is not subject to the rule of the state, and for me it is very difficult to accept that there is a village where the signs and symbols and flags of the state are not allowed, where the state authority is not allowed to act, and where only religious flags are allowed and religious rules are followed, because you have to ‘render to Caesar what is due to Caesar, and render to God that which is due to God.'

Posted July 22, 2002 © Eurasianet