18 Sep 2014 | Armenia, Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan News, News and features, Turkey
On 5 September, Azerbaijaini president Ilham Aliyev addressed the Nato summit at the Celtic Manor golf resort in Newport, Wales.
It was an unspectacular speech from an unspectacular autocrat. As he often does, he talked about the amount of money Azerbaijan was spending abroad, Azerbaijan’s rapid economic development, Azerbaijan’s role as a bridge between east and west, and Azerbaijan’s continuing dispute with Armenia.
The dispute between the two countries over the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, which has gone on pretty much since the break-up of the Soviet Union, flared as recently as this summer, when fourteen Azerbaijani troops were killed in clashes with their Armenian counterparts. It was easy to miss this, considering events in other parts of the former Soviet Union. As seems usual in international conflict now, neither side made any gain and both sides claimed victory.
A few weeks after that skirmish, and just before his Nato address, Aliyev met recently-elected president (formerly prime minister) Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey. Aliyev is keen to build an alliance with Turkey, and clearly sees common cause in a shared dislike of Armenia. After the meeting, the Azerbaijani leader tweeted that “Turkey has always pursued an open policy on the issue of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, has always stood by Azerbaijan, stood by truth, justice and international law.” He went on:
This was interesting, in that Erdogan did not seem to mention any discussion of the Armenian genocide in his press briefing after the meeting. In fact, the Turkish president has been perceived as attempting to soften the Turkish state’s hardline denial of the incidents of 1915, when one million Armenians suffered deportation and death at the hands of the Ottoman Empire, the predecessor of modern Turkey.
In April, on the 99th anniversary of the beginning of the ethnic cleansing of Armenians, Erdogan released a statement saying: “Millions of people of all religions and ethnicities lost their lives in the first world war. Having experienced events which had inhumane consequences – such as relocation – during the first world war should not prevent Turks and Armenians from establishing compassion and mutually humane attitudes towards one another.”
The Justice and Development (AK) party leader went on to express condolences to the descendants of people who had died “in the context of the early 20th century”.
Now, this isn’t quite an apology; it’s barely even an apology at upset caused. It’s closer to the “mistakes were made” formulation, which is designed not so much to pass the buck as fire the buck into the heart of the sun in the hope that no one will ever have to deal with it again, particularly not the person whose buck it is in the first place.
But in the context of Turkey, where not long ago talking about the Armenian genocide could get you killed, it’s as good as you’re going to get for now.
So why would Aliyev raise the genocide issue this month? Perhaps he is nervous that Turkey, a major ally in the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute, is going soft on Armenia. This year’s detente between Turkey and Armenia continued when Armenia’s foreign minister Eduard Nalbandian attended Erdogan’s presidential inauguration at the end of August.
Nalbandian, in return, formally offered Erdogan an invitation to Armenia’s genocide commemorations next year, repeating an invitation first extended a few months ago by the country’s president Serzh Sargsyan. Any newfound good relations between Armenia and Turkey would severely weaken Azerbaijan’s territorial argument, or more accurately, weaken its ability to make the argument forcefully in the international arena. Turkey’s dispute with Armenia, after all, is mainly historic, and Erdogan, having seemingly consolidated his own power base outside of both the secular “deep state” and the Islamic Gülen movement to which many assumed he owed his success, now has a free hand on shaping foreign policy. Azerbaijan’s dispute with Armenia is current and, Aliyev hopes, immediate.
And so Azerbaijan has chosen to try to reignite the issue for its own ends. Meanwhile, in his own country, human rights abuses continue, with reports last week that Leyla Yunus, Director of the Institute for Peace and Democracy, was in ill health after prison beatings.
In spite of all this, Azerbaijan will continue to attempt to buy respectability. Next June, Baku will hold the first “European Games”, backed by the European Olympic Committee, featuring such irrelevancies as three-a-side basketball and beach soccer. It is not exactly the real thing, but then, post-Soviet Azerbaijan is a country built of facades; facades of modernity and wealth and progress and “democracy”. Facades that hide an underlying ugliness.
This article was posted on Thursday 18 Sept 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
17 Sep 2014 | Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan News, News and features, United Kingdom
London-based daily newspaper Metro ran a feature this month extolling the delights of Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. The photo-driven feature article comes at a time when the government of President Ilham Aliyev is ratcheting up pressure on dissenters, including denying independent news outlets the kind of freedoms that a paper such as Metro, whose parent company is outspoken on the importance of press freedoms, enjoys in the UK.
Despite attempts to present itself to the outside world as a modern and open society — in part through a concerted international PR campaign — Azerbaijan has a woeful human rights record and continues to arrest, detain and harass any opponents to the regime of President Ilham Aliyev. In the last few months, many campaigners and activists have been arrested in an attempt to silence them.
Metro highlighted 10 things to do in Baku. Here we list just five things you need to know about Azerbaijan before you go. We ask our supporters and all those who care about a free press and free expression to draw attention to these so we can counter the whitewash of the Aliyev regime.
There is an ongoing crackdown on government critics
A number of high profile Azerbaijanis known for their criticism of authorities have been jailed in a matter of weeks. These include human rights activists Leyla and Arif Yunus and Rasul Jafarov, human rights lawyer Intigam Aliyev and journalist Seymur Hezi. This new wave of repression followed the jailing of two human rights defenders who lead the only independent group monitoring elections in Azerbaijan.
Independent media is silenced
Azerbaijan’s last independent newspaper Azadliq, which was named 2013 Guardian Journalism award winner at the Index Freedom of Expression awards in March 2014, was forced to suspend printing in July because of financial pressures from the government. This is a familiar pattern for Azerbaijan’s critical press, which has long been subjected to an array of attacks. Independent news outlets face economic sanctions and are often barred from distribution networks. Journalists are also victim to legal threats. In the first six months of 2013, 36 defamation suits were brought against media outlets or journalists. Award-winning investigative journalist Khadija Ismayilova was subjected to an aggressive smear and blackmail campaign in retaliation for her coverage of government corruption and continues to be targeted by authorities.
Internet users are targeted
Ahead of last year’s election Azerbaijan extended penalties for criminal defamation and insult to cover not just traditional media, but also online content, including social networks. The potential length of pre-trial detention has increased from 15 to 90 days. In May, a university student and member of the Free Youth organisation, was arrested for a Harlem Shake video posted on YouTube. A human rights defender was sentenced to four years in jail on hooliganism charges after posting videos on YouTube containing interviews with victims of a gang they alleged had connections to local police officers. A freelance journalist who was outspoken in his criticism of the government on social media was given a four-and-a-half-year prison sentence on charges that included appealing for mass disorder.
Artists are censored
Despite the fact that Azerbaijan has committed to respect and protect artistic freedom of expression, authorities restrict this right. This is especially the case for alternative artists and those deemed to be critical of the government, whose ability to perform, display, or disseminate their work is limited. Self-censorship is one consequence of this, with many artists shying away from producing critical or controversial work for fear of the possible consequences. Musician Jamal Ali, who has spoken out against President Aliyev, was allegedly tortured by the police.
Democratic principles are ignored
Current president Aliyev has been in power since 2003, when he took over from his father Heydar, and in 2009 he removed term limits for the presidency. According to the international observer mission, the October 2013 election “was undermined by limitations on the freedoms of expression, assembly and association”, with “significant problems” observed throughout election day. The 2003 and 2008 votes also failed to meet international standards. Transparency International has called Aliyev’s government the most corrupt in Europe. Meanwhile, authorities have engaged in a wide-reaching international PR campaign. In 2012, the country was given a chance to project a positive image to the world through hosting the Eurovision Song Contents. Preparations included urban renewal programs that saw homes demolished and families evicted. It remains to be seen what will happen next year, when the inaugural European Games come to Baku.
This article was published on Wednesday 17 Sept 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
17 Sep 2014 | Artistic Freedom, Index Arts, News and features, Religion and Culture, Turkey
Meltem Arikan is a Turkish playwright living in the United Kingdom.
“Oh, but of course,
you women have the right to speak!
Oh, but of course,
you have the right to laugh!
Oh, but of course,
you have a say over your bodies…
Oh, but of course,
freedom of expression!”
So they say, but in Turkey,
silence grows daily ever heavier
as the culture of fear expands.
If I shout ‘enough’,
will anyone hear my voice?
My voice…
a woman’s voice…
Aren’t women’s voices equivalent to muteness in Turkey?
As women begin to step outside the frames of their lives,
as modern tools for communication enlighten them about the world beyond,
the more curious they become
the more they inquire
the more they change
the more they demand more from their lives.
They dare to say no,
And they become those dangerous women
who are attempting to break the order…
Women, forced into passivity
scared to be counted as trouble makers,
they must be content to accept
the scraps thrown from men’s tables.
The traditional culture engenders fear
the fear of failure:
failing to satisfy the expanding demands of women
men lose self confidence,
when their constructed masculinity is perceived to be at risk,
they will stoop to violence and kill women and children.
So there are men
who feel that their manhood is under threat,
who take issue with their wives’ increasing demands,
who applaud this authoritarian system of government
as an example of how to deal with these problems.
Authority approves violence towards women,
the young and lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender people
by extending clemency to perpetrators of violence
instead of punishing them with the severity they deserve.
So there are men
Who are afraid facing up to their fear and pain.
Recoiling from pain and embarrassment of what has happened to them, rebound towards leaders
who apportion them so called high ideals.
So these men have become as dishonorable as the ones
who govern the country through fear and oppression.
Leaving aside, for the moment,
their antagonism towards organized resistance and protest,
just think: they can’t bear you,
the individual woman,
expressing your feelings
beyond the limitations they’ve decreed.
They can’t control their desire to destroy those
who raise their voices
who show resistance to their flawed dominance.
They’re always on the look-out for
the ‘other’,
an individual
or a group:
a race,
a sect
or a religion
on whom to project their hatred
and take revenge.
To mitigate their pain,
they target women,
the young:
anyone
or anything
that reminds them of their own inadequacies
and limitations.
Oppression first manifests in discourse…
Women are should have three children…
Women unveiled are like houses without curtains,
for rent or sale…
Women confirm that women who are raped
are at fault for wearing low cut dress.
It must be true: it’s reported in the press.
Women should not laugh in public.
Girls and boys must be educated separate.
No matter how much they want,
women can no longer shout out loud.
Enough is enough?
They cannot do it.
Shouting? Forget it!
Any female expression results in accusations,
exclusion and irreversible judgments.
If despite this
a woman insists on speaking her thoughts,
she will get a violent response
or at its extreme,
homicidal.
Perpetrate a greater violence
by politicking over women bodies
A genuine course of action against violence
would entail taking
their hands,
their politics
their ideas off women.
If I shout ‘enough’,
will anyone hear my voice?
My voice…
a woman’s voice…
Aren’t women’s voices equivalent to muteness in Turkey?
This poem was published on Wednesday Sept 17 at indexoncensorship.org
