It remains speculative as to how PACE leadership will respond to Azerbaijan’s demarche, whether it will attempt negotiations or take other actions. There are numerous possibilities.
However, the real issue at hand is PACE’s approach, which seems to be procedural. Herr Schwabe can talk about anything from “refusal to cooperate” to “human rights violations.” But in reality, Azerbaijan is being punished for successfully countering external aggression and restoring its territorial integrity within internationally recognized borders. There are many arguments about who cannot accept Azerbaijan’s victory in Karabakh – first the 44-day war and liberation of the city of Shusha, then local anti-terrorist raids and the flag over Khankendi. Some may argue “Christian solidarity.”
Some want to see Azerbaijan weak and dependent. Others seek a lever of pressure on our country. Many are simply funded by the “Armenian lobby” or Russia’s “Gazprom,” for whom Azerbaijani gas projects and the disappearance of military threats are a dagger to the heart, and so on. But the motives are one thing, and the ability to realize these motives in a forum like PACE is another. In any case, Herr Schwabe’s initiative was in stark conflict with the norms of international law and the principles of the Council of Europe itself, and its acceptance indicates a deliberate decision. Unfortunately, it fits into the Council of Europe’s hypocritical behavior. For all the years since the countries of the South Caucasus became members of the Council of Europe in January 2001, Armenia has not even been reprimanded for ethnic cleansing and occupation of Azerbaijani lands.
And now PACE has hit rock bottom, deciding to “roughly punish” Azerbaijan for correctly ousting occupiers with an “Iron Fist.” This was unexpected and unplanned.
It becomes clear: PACE has already created a very dangerous precedent. Not for Azerbaijan, which they intended to punish. Under President Ilham Aliyev’s leadership, our country has restored its territorial integrity, so PACE’s initiatives won’t change anything “on the ground.” Azerbaijan’s relations with European countries, thanks to Ilham Aliyev’s far-sighted policy, infrastructure projects, and attracting investments, have reached a level where threatening with a “European club” must be cautious. But the Council of Europe is laying an impressive “time bomb” under the security and statehood of too many countries.
Masking external aggression as “protection of a national minority,” whose rights the central authorities terribly infringe upon – this fraudulent tactic was used by Hitler against Czechoslovakia, when Goebbels’s propaganda screamed about the need to protect the rights of Sudeten Germans. Then there was the Balkan War, where even before Kosovo, “Belgrade butcher” Slobodan Milosevic tore apart the territories of Croatia and Bosnia, creating the Serbian Krajina and Republika Srpska. And, of course, the collapse of the USSR.
The same policy was pursued in the USSR, where Karabakh was not the only such mask. In the early nineties, Georgia faced the occupation of its territories. Moldova had Transnistria severed. In 2014, the same policy was extended to Ukraine. Yes, the Council of Europe’s tough response to the Ukrainian war followed, creating grounds for hope that now in Strasbourg and Brussels, they finally remembered the territorial integrity of the new independent states. But now, after Schwabe’s initiative, these hopes have been dashed. The Council of Europe is covering up aggressors.
This is an alarm signal for many states. We’ll deliberately exclude the purely military aspect of the issue. Today, several member states of the Council of Europe face the occupation of their territories. Many face a direct and apparent threat from the repetition of the “Karabakh scenario” of aggression masked as separatism. It’s not excluded that if Ukraine, changing its strategy, liberates Crimea, PACE won’t find its own “Herr Schwabe” who will immediately scream about the “violated rights” of Russian speakers relocated after the occupation and that Ukraine should have negotiated, not fought. That Georgia might also face the same foul-smelling “surprise” if Tbilisi decides to follow Azerbaijan’s example and liberate Sukhumi and Tskhinvali.
Finally, Moldova, where talks of replicating the Azerbaijani experience started in the wake of Armenia’s defeat in the 44-day war, might also encounter its own “Frank Schwabe initiative” in the Council of Europe and face arm-twisting attempts. Estonia with a “Russian-speaking majority” in Narva, where they fear Kremlin attempts to stage a “Crimean scenario,” Norway and the border port of Kirkenes with 10% “Russian speakers” and a risk of the “Crimean scenario,” capturing the entire chain of unfrozen Arctic ports up to Tromso. Today, when plans for a “great war” between the Russian Federation and NATO are openly discussed, all these “time bombs” have a different value. And if Azerbaijan restored its territorial integrity by military means, it doesn’t mean that all other countries can be unconcerned about external aggression.
If someone in the corridors, offices, and halls of the Council of Europe does not understand the true danger of Schwabe’s initiative, it changes nothing.
