On January 24, the parliamentary delegation of Azerbaijan to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) made a statement at the meeting of the organization. As the statement concludes with the decision of Azerbaijan withdrawal from the organization, what will be consequences and what was the reason for the tensions between the two?

Fazil Mustafa, MP of Azerbaijan parliament, said in his statement to Ednews that the ongoing process will not bring any negative results for Azerbaijan:

"The reason for not being able to attend the PACE session is related to the presidential elections. Because we participate in the presidential elections as candidates. I think this in turn cannot cause any negative diplomatic consequences. We have the opportunity to do this in the next sessions. At the same time, we closely monitor the processes taking place there. In case of biased approaches in any way, we react accordingly. As I just mentioned, due to the election period, it is not right to present any political results in this matter. However, if a decision is made without the participation of Azerbaijan, our reaction will be revealed according to the nature of the decision, positive or negative."

American journalist, security expert and lawyer Irina Tsukerman emphasized in her comment that the decision was quite contradictory:

"The entire process is ironic because the credentials of the German delegation were challenged by their British counterpart as not reflecting the political balance in Germany. For the sake of transparency, it is necessary to take into account the context of the allegations, especially regarding the one-sided nature of the presence of these observers in Armenia. If there is a legitimate concern about the security of these observers, it would be optimal for Azerbaijan to allow the EU observers, all this information should be made public. Also, it is not clear who is meant by the allegations regarding the prevention of meetings with "political prisoners" and whether these appeals were justified or why they were rejected. If they are concerned that such meetings could be used for anti-Azerbaijani propaganda, this is a good time to voice those concerns, discuss safeguards to avoid future political attacks, misuse of such meetings, and create a pleasant framework. In this case, I think it will solve the concerns of these parties."

Expert also commented on the possibility of imposing restrictions on Azerbaijan:

Considering Azerbaijan's withdrawal, as a result, this will create a different point of view on the issues that concern the whole of Europe, and the solution of these issues will work in favor of the enemy or competing interests. Deliberate exclusion or limitation of members is likely to create tension, destabilize European affairs and create groupthink, undermining the diversity of perspectives within the committee, which will poorly serve the diverse interests of all members. Moreover, Azerbaijan could potentially cause problems for the rest of the committee by the legitimacy of members of other delegations, which could in turn impede the very process. Worth noting is that there are maybe other members of the Committee who are likely not in agreement with German delegation's challenge, and perhaps they could be brought in either to resolve the situation diplomatically or otherwise to challenge the very premise used for this type of discreditation. The various members of the committee have diverse interests and internal security concerns; the rules for the resolution of political issues should be made more clear and not applied arbitrarily against particular members. It is fair to restrict participation if known and objective rules are violated, but not merely on the personal disagreements between individual countries. The fact that there is no clear procedure for determining such claims creates procedural and substantive confusion that undermines the concept of legal and diplomatic parity."

The chief executive officer of the French "LaGazette", political analyst Jean-Michel Brun, noted that the declaration of the PACE was a scent of perjury.

On a geopolitical level, it is difficult to understand this position, which seems to ignore that the entire international community, notably through 4 successive resolutions of the UN Security Council, has reaffirmed the need to defend territorial sovereignty of Azerbaijan and insists that Karabakh is an integral part of the Azerbaijani nation. Resolutions that European countries, led by France, themselves voted for. This PACE declaration has, from this perspective, the scent of perjury. Surprising for an institution claiming to defend international law. Seeking to restrict Azerbaijan's right to vote, when it never sought to limit this right for Armenia during the entire period when it occupied it, is also surprising. Never again, when Azerbaijan became a member of the Council of Europe, did the latter take the slightest measure against Armenia's aggression against Azerbaijan and the occupation of territories, content with a few declarations without legal value. On a humanitarian level, the terms used are strangely reminiscent of the recurring declarations of Armenian nationalists, relayed by the very powerful Armenian lobbies: At no time were the Armenian civilian populations threatened, and at no time were they asked to leave. It was the authorities of the virtual “Republic of Arstakh”, which has not been recognized by any country, Armenia included, who incited, sometimes by threat, the inhabitants of Khankendi (“Stepanakert” for Armenian separatists) to leave the country. To speak of ethnic cleansing in this regard is a real fraud; while the only country in the region to have carried out mass ethnic cleansing was Armenia, which, let us remember, expelled the 250,000 azerbaijani living near the capital Yerevan in 1987, then forced the 750,000 to flee Azerbaijan from Karabakh during the Armenian invasion of 1991-1993. Calling Karabakh an Armenian “Homeland” is almost laughable. The President of the Armenian National Assembly, Alen Simonyan, himself implicitly admitted that the story of the millennial presence of Armenians in Karabakh was a “story” invented over the last 30 years.

Political analyst thinks that Europe need Azerbaijan than vice - versa, and the results will show itself in the close future.

Azerbaijan have just proven that they do not need Europe, nor any other country, to begin peace negotiations, which makes Strasbourg's ranting quite derisory. As Azerbaijan ceasing all activity within this organization,  the European institutions find themselves faced with a choice: either maintain an independent and coherent policy, with regard end respect to all its members and allies, without discrimination, or continue to play the game of American Atlanticism, by relaying the propaganda of nationalisms, Armenian in particular, and sinking into political corruption, discrimination, ethnic and religious hatred, double standards, arrogance and chauvinism. In the second case, its future as a major player in international politics is likely to be forever compromised. Azerbaijan is a leading country in the field of energy and international transport, and is poised to become one in renewable energy. The stability of the region is essential for the balance of Europe. Especially if it does not want to lose its economic and political influence to the exclusive benefit of Russia and China. Alas, it seems that ideologies trump reason. In the meantime, according to the Arab/Turkish proverb: “The dogs bark, the caravan passes. »

Akbar Novruz