In her keynote address the president of Center for National and International Studies, political analyst Leyla Aliyeva underlined that one of the major Azerbaijan’s achievements is construction of a secular society. And for this “Azerbaijan Democratic Republic which laid the foundation for tradition of construction of secular society in Azerbaijan must take great credit”, Leyla Aliyeva noted.

Kamran Ismayilov, historian,  gave political assessment to the role of ADR in construction of secular society.  “Unfortunately, relationship between state and religion during ADR has not been sufficiently studied by historiography. It is precisely under ADR that laicism was, for the first time, proclaimed as official state policy”, Kamran Ismayilov stated.      

Professor Alaeddin Yalchynkaya telling about Turkish experience of construction of secular society remarked  “reforms in any sphere shall be based on common sense and pluralism of opinions. Ataturk, for instance, having conducted reforms of the Turkish language and being publically criticized for that, after 3 years admitted that they were blundering”.

Hikmet Hadjizadeh, political analyst in his speech on “Religion and State in post-Soviet Azerbaijan” noted that “nowadays Azerbaijan is experiencing a profound crisis in relationship between religion and state”.  “Gгeat problems are encountered in freedom of belief and religion. Meanwhile, no one has the right to limit this right.  At the same time, every believer is to display tolerance. Religious freedom can be unrestricted unless it does not present a real threat for the society”, – emphasized political analyst.

The representatives of southern regions Esmira Turkhida and Zair Amanov – have also made speeches at the conference, underlining the peculiarities of relationship between religion and state in the region.

In their closing speeches  Leyla Aliyeva , Kamran Ismayilov and Hikmet Hadjizade emphasized the necessity to conduct regular and open discussions of these issues, high culture and  tolerance and the necessity for an overall context of reforms in the society.

 Dr. Leyla Aliyeva, head of the Center for National and International Studies opened the conference with welcome speech and emphasized that the main purpose of the conference is to study and compare an experience of the state building in transition periods of Azerbaijan and Turkey and to review them in the historical context. “As far back as 92 years ago when the Azerbaijani Democratic Republic was established the laws adopted by the government left far behind the laws of many European countries. For instance, the laws on equal voting women’s rights were adopted in France only in the 50s of the last century and in Switzerland only in the 60s”.

 Dr. Irada Baghirova, a historian, spoke about the formation of state, based on the modern  rule of law,  in Azerbaijan and stated that in Azerbaijan it began at the end of the 19th century. “At early 20 century Baku Municipality had already operated in Baku. But today there is no any Baku municipality…”. She stated: “The issue of laying of the water pipe to Baku was discussed for more than 10 years and all discussions were highlighted in the mass media. And it is another striking demonstration of the rule-of-law state.”

Speaking about the development of the  rule of law in Turkey Ms.Zehra Odyakmaz stressed that: “The judicial system of Turkey is excellent. 8 independent courts which do not interfere in each-other affairs and established as a pyramid system  operate in Turkey. This judicial system is inherited by us from Anatolia Seljuks and then it had been improved in the periods of Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkish. But the only problem is human factor. Due to lack of judges or professionalism, its implementation faces some problems. Formation of qualified and honest judges begins from the family, and then it continues at school and in professional activity: – emphasized Prof.Ms.Zehra Odyakmaz.

After the speech of Mubariz Khalilov, a scholar from Hajigabul city, Dr. Alasger Mammedli, a lawyer, characterized the development of the rule of law in Azerbaijan in the post-Soviet period and the controversies related to this process.   

At the end of the conference Leila Alieva thanked the guests who had accepted the invitation and took part at the conference, and made closing speech.

The conference was held with support of National Endowment for Democracy and German Marshal Fund of the United States.

L. Alieva met with a number of experts of multilateral cooperation  in the areas of energy and transportation, politics and security, trade and commerce. The research trip also included meetings with the representatives of the EU delegation in Kazakhstan.

The results of the research will be reflected in the final policy paper on sub regional multilateralism in the Caspian basin.

Leyla Aliyeva, President of Center for National and International Studies opened the conference and informed on modern democratic development of Azerbaijan and the civil society’s role in this development.  In her speech she emphasized that “today, there exist two conflicting opinions on the civil society’s role in the development of democracy. On the one hand, some people emphasize that the civil society has been strengthening recently. But some analysts persisting on slackening of democracy in Azerbaijan try to prove the weakness of civil society. Today, we have gathered to clear up this or other questions”, and then she gave the floor to Aicha Ergun.

Aicha Ergun began her speech with historical excursion to establishment of civil society and its development in Turkey. “Though there were a number of civic organizations in Turkey up to 1980s, they could not be named as “civil society”. At that time one could meet with different names such as organization, club, circle, etc. But all of them were acting on voluntary bases. Upon the military coup happened in the early 1980s, non-governmental organizations engaged in human rights and gender issues were established”, said Aicha Ergun. According to the Turkish scientist, in the modern sense of the word, non-governmental organizations in Turkey established in large numbers in the early 2000s. “In the early 2000s the civil societies began to act having their own financial resources. From that time the process of Turkey’s accession to the international organizations and implementation of different projects started “, emphasized Ms.Aicha Ergun.

Then the floor was given to Hikmet Hajizade, independent political expert. He said that the civil society in Azerbaijan was developing very weakly. “Today the civil society faces both internal and external repression.” Hikmet Hajizade also emphasized that “in general, “civil society” (vetendash cemiyyeti) expression is wrong and it should be replaced by “civil society” (mulki cemiyyet). This notion was used during the soviet time and it is an expression thought up by the Russians.”

 “Today, the civil society should be more active, because civil society is a real base for democratic development of the country”, said Hikmet Hajizade and yielded the floor. 

Rashad Shirin, a young representative of the civil society emphasized in his speech that now the civil society should approach to the solution of the issues practically and it should define “what and how to solve.” He sees the way out of the situation only by establishing “thought and thinking” centers. According to Rashad Shirinov, there was no such kind of center in the country. Maybe someone established such center, but there was no any thinking center up till now that could affect the thinking of the people on a mass scale”, emphasized Rashid Shirinov. 

In his speech Ilgar Mamadov said that “every society should not called as civil society. Only the societies that do not commit any illegal action and prejudice to the society could be considered as civil society.”  According to Ilgar Mammadov, financing of such kind of societies “weakens the democratic norms in the country.”

At the end of the conference Leyla Aliyeva thanked the guests who had accepted the invitation and took part at the conference, and made closing speech.

The conference was held by support of National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

During the trip Leila Alieva met with the independent experts,  diplomats of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russian Federation, representatives of RELEX Moscow. The subject of research was the state of sub regional  multilateralism in the Caspian Sea basin, the cooperation in the areas of energy and transportation, politics and security, environment and maritime issues, along with trade and commerce.

The results of the research will be incorporated in the policy paper on EU policies and  the multilateralism in the Caspian Sea basin– the final product of the EU4Seas project.

Among the participants of the conference were the President of CNIS, Dr. Leila Alieva, Professor of Middle East Technical University, Dr. Ayse Ayata, political analyst Zafar Guliyev, local expert from Sumgayit, Esabeli Mustafayev, as well as representatives of political parties and civil society, students.

Upon her opening remarks, Leila Alieva stressed the importance of discussions about political pluralism and electoral democracy in today’s Azerbaijan.

Doktor Maryam Orujlu talked about emergence of political pluralism and electoral traditions in Azerbaijan at the turn of XIX and XX centuries. Political analyst Zafar Guliyev shared his analysis about elections and pluralism in modern Azerbaijan while Esabeli Mustafayev made an interesting presentation about elections and political pluralism in the city of Sumgayit and challenges that they face.

Professor Dr. Ayse Ayata shared her insights about Turkey’s electoral history and experience as well as political pluralism.

At the end of the conference, the participants received a special CNIS edition titled “Democratic Values in the History of Azerbaijan.”

The conference was held within a project supported by the National Endowment for Democracy.

Among the guests of the conference dedicated to the 91th anniversary of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, there was a professor of Ankara University Çinar Özen, the head of the Forum for Azerbaijan Eldar Namazov, Dr Kamran Ismayilov of National Academy of Sciences and Dr Elvan Aliyev from Ganja, as well as local intellectuals, civil society activists, students and journalists.

Professor Çinar Özen of Turkey shared some insights about his country’s experience of European integration and Eldar Namazov talked about problems and perspectives that Azerbaijan can face in the same road.

In the end of the meeting, the participants received a publication about previous CNIS conferences on Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and its heritage.

Historic breakthrough Controversies: Will Azerbaijani lands be free soon?

by LEILA ALIEVA

Turkish President Abdullah Gül (L) with his Armenian counterpart, Serzh Sarksyan (R), before their meeting in Turkey on Oct. 14. The Caucasus region is once more at the eve of events of historical significance — a century-old conflict between Armenia and Turkey may be coming to an end.

While leading politicians and the public in Europe and the US are watching events with excitement and judicious appraisal, the nearly 1 million Azerbaijani internally displaced persons (IDP) and refugees wonder with growing concern whether the chances for their right to return to their lands and homes will decrease with these much-praised developments.

The biggest controversy is developing around opening the Armenia-Turkey border, as there are opposing opinions as to whether it will have a positive or negative effect on the resolution of the major conflict in the region.

While Azerbaijan’s lack of economic relations with Armenia does not cause any questions, Turkey’s closure of its borders with Armenia, rightly perceiving the escalation of war in 1992-1993 as a threat to regional security, intentionally or unintentionally came as a counterbalance to Russian military involvement on the side of Armenia and sanctions of the US government, which denied any aid to the democratically elected government of Azerbaijan.

However, the absence of economic relations with Armenia has an even deeper meaning, which can be understood in the context of the root causes of post-Soviet conflicts. The Soviet centralized economy deprived the Caucasian republics of a sense of interdependency on each other. All ties and trade relations between the republics were mediated by Moscow through an authoritarian command system, which led to the republics’ underestimation of the degree of their dependence on each other. Armenia, for instance, was sure that regardless of the state of affairs with Azerbaijan, that nation would supply oil or gas to the republic, even at the expense of their own citizens, under pressure from Moscow.

In fact, this perception has developed in the post-Soviet era. Regardless of their occupation and ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh and seven more regions of Azerbaijan, Armenia was sure that there always would be Moscow, Brussels or Washington to pressure Azerbaijan to restore economic relations without reciprocal acts of compromise by Yerevan. In this sense, Turkey’s act of closing its borders was an important signal to Armenia: one cannot enjoy the fruits of cooperation with neighbors without respect for their borders and sovereignty.

A great deal of aid from the US since 1991 and significant aid from Europe, along with remittances and investments from the diaspora, has somewhat neutralized the effect of the absence of trade with its neighbors and fed into Armenia’s feeling that it is possible to survive without regulating relations with its neighbors.

And the last meaning of the closed borders is that although it bears a character of sanctions it is an alternative to a military way of resolving the conflict. Thus, the opening of the borders by Turkey may weaken the effect of the trade sanctions as a peaceful regulator of international relations by narrowing the space for non-military conflict resolution and increasing the chances of a forceful confrontation seeking the return of the lands.

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict broke out in the course of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the first conflict to create deep divisions in the region and prevent South Caucasus states from uniting, unlike the Baltic states. After the open and bloody war which marked the beginning of the two states’ independence, the conflict reached its long-standing stalemate, which froze developments in the region in terms of security, politics and economics.

Since then, the South Caucasus knot has represented a complex mixture of local, regional and international interests, where the most pressing issue of the primary victims of the conflict — those displaced and deported — has been largely left behind the scenes of political intrigue.

Conflict overshadowed by rapproachment

The issue of ongoing conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan somehow became overshadowed by the resolution of historically tense Armenian-Turkish relations, mainly because the latter was on the agenda of more powerful actors and thus seemed easier to resolve.

The ongoing processes in the region create an impression that for Europe, the issue of how Turkey addresses its past and its Christian neighbor has been more important than the fact of Armenia’s present occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh and seven more regions of the other neighboring state. Indeed, while an open intervention by Russia in Georgia caused immediate reactions from the European Union, followed by the dispatch of a monitoring group and intense negotiations with Russia at the highest level of the EU, the resolution of the Karabakh conflict was given to the framework of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the mechanism of which contributed to the “frozenness” of the status quo, where military advances by one party (Armenia) in violation of the state border of Azerbaijan are used as a bargaining tool in negotiations. This created a precedent, which probably inspired Russia 14 years later to move into the territory of another Caucasus state.

The secrecy of the Armenian-Turkish bilateral negotiations was the one of the causes of reservations related to the generally positive assessment of this process, which may, according to the promoters of this rapprochement, create a favorable environment for the resolution of the Karabakh conflict. But the opposite is also true: it may not necessarily lead to the quick resolution of the conflict if it legitimizes selective recognition by Armenia of its neighbors’ borders, weakens the effect on the economy and makes the party violating borders more intransigent.

Moreover, if the Armenian-Turkish rapprochement, which contains an important provision on border recognition, remains without similar recognition in the other case — the recognition of Azerbaijan’s borders by Armenia — it looks as if one party — Turkey — is resolving its historical issues with Armenia at Azerbaijan’s expense.

In this political context, the recently observed tensions in Azerbaijani-Turkish relations would look quite natural, if not the extreme form of its expression and the fact that it took place at the level of state actors. The incident with the national flags could signal an emotionally charged popular reaction, if not the unanimously expressed opinion of 40 prominent public leaders in Azerbaijan who in a recently issued statement announced that they found it unacceptable that the flags had been removed from monuments, Turkish enterprises and educational institutions in Baku and noted that “the people of Turkey can be sure that nothing and nobody can spoil our brotherly relations.”

This confirms a major flaw in the international approach to resolving conflicts in the region, where the public plays very little role, if at all, in the “big deals” between the actors in the region.

The positive event — the signing of the Armenian-Turkish protocols — initiated from above rather than from below, besides lacking the specific vision of its implication for the major regional conflict, may have little influence in geopolitical terms on long-term stability and its short-term humanitarian implications. This is even more so if the interests of the primary victims of the current situation — refugees and IDPs from the occupied territories and other victims of the conflict — are not viewed as the most pressing issue today.

In this regard, the uncertain outcome of the resolution of the Karabakh conflict and the long awaited Turkish-Armenian rapprochement comes at too high a cost for those who have been suffering from the present, not the past, conflict.

Leila Alieva started her lecture with concept of “integration into Europe” and talked about various interpretations put behind these words. The lecture brought some light into various stereotypes and conflicting points as well as touched upon problems, obstacles and challenges Azerbaijan faces while tries to integrate into Europe.

Why Azerbaijan should integrate into Europe? Integration into Europe – what will it bring to us? When and how can Azerbaijan integrate into Europe? Does Europe wants our integration? Leila Alieva helped to answer these and similar questions during her lecture.

Also during the lecture, another interesting point surfaced – does Azerbaijan have any alternatives to eurointegration? Students analyzed these alternatives and compared them to eurointegration in the balances of logic.

At the end of the lecture, Leila Alieva gave distriputed signed copies of her recent book about Azerbaijan Democratic Republic.

Original news.

Historians, politicians and representatives of civil society discussed Azerbaijan’s democratic past and the heritage of its first republic.

On 2 October, Center for National and International Studies (CNIS) organized a conference titled “Democratic Values in the History of Azerbaijan.” Attended by several prominent Azeri historians and politicians, as well as the representatives of civil society and youth groups, the conference held discussions around Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (1918-1920), its short experience of democracy-building and its heritage. Conference participants gave their interpretations about Azerbaijan’s first democratic republic’s legacies in the lights of today’s events. Discussions touched upon not only the role and policies of ADR, but also its implications for modern days and its comparison with the political system established in Azerbaijan now.

In 2008-2009, CNIS has held eight similar conferences on the occasion of the 90th anniversary of the ADR in various regions of Azerbaijan. The main purpose of this project (project manager Leyla Aliyeva and project coordinator Aydin Balayev) was to research and discuss democratic traditions and values throughout Azerbaijani history.

The conferences that were held looked into the traditions of parliamentarianism in Azerbaijan (Sheki), the problems of Azerbaijan’s integration into Europe (Ganja), oil revenues and their mutual link with  reforms being implemented in the country (Salyan), the traditions and problems of Azerbaijani journalism (Shirvan), agrarian reforms (Quba), gender issues (Masalli), local government (Barda) and independent courts (Balakan). Several participants of these conferences were also present at final event in Baku.

During the last conference held in Baku, a special edition of CNIS containing minutes of all the previous conferences were presented to guests and participants.

The project was supported by the National Endowment for Democracy.