– Mr. Mammadov, what`s youropinion on the European Parliament`s position with respect to Ramil Safarov?
– Azerbaijan has already expressed its position on the extradition of Ramil Safarov, and there`s no need in reiteration. The extradition was carried out in compliance with international law and the Constitution of Azerbaijan.
It seems like the job of a group of parliamentarians (40 out of 750 MPs) - led by the European People`s Party - at the European Parliament is just to sit and wait until something related to Azerbaijan happens, and then immediatelyto convene to criticize it. As if the crisis, which left some European countries still floundering, unemployment, economic decay, and other problems, have nothing to do with these parliamentarians. If you know everything so well, then deal with these problems, satisfy voters in your countries. They are staging protests on the streets from morning to evening from Monday to Saturday. And everyone sees how they are treated. It`s interesting who violates their rights to live, to work, etc.
The problem is that we could have had little confidence in these parliamentarians` justice and objectivity if they had applied – ina 20-year period since the occupation of our lands – international law to Azerbaijan and emphasized that four UN Security Council resolutions still remain unfulfilled. Some circles in the European Union don’t want to understand that they are wrong to disregard public opinion in different countries.
Almost every journalist has been speaking and writing about RamilSafarov`s extradition recently as if it was the most pivotal event affecting global processes. And this has its own reason: as I already mentioned some circles can`t stand a young, secular Muslim country`s making great achievements on most important fronts of foreign relations, its vital successes in domestic policy.
They haven`t said anything concerning Armenian terrorists` crimes in different parts of the world (the USA, France, etc.), including in Azerbaijan, or cases of extradition of Armenian terrorists so far. How should one understand this? Look at modern history. Armenian terrorists, Dashnaks and ASALA, a terrorist organization, carried out hundreds of terror acts killing hundreds of people, diplomats, official figures, etc. in the last century. You can make a research and you`ll make certain that the European Parliament, any international or regional organization have not made a single statement or expressed their position on the issue. They have never done this, they haven`t considered this necessary. But when it comes to Azerbaijan, the number of their opinions is innumerable. As if they even dream about Azerbaijan.
If these European parliamentarians are so fair and respect international law, then let them adopt a single resolution concerning seven Azerbaijani regions, which have been under occupation for more than 20 years. Armenians do not and cannot have any claim to these lands. Some 750,000 people living in these lands are now IDPs. Don`t they have rights?
What`s the legal basis for Armenians` razing to the ground and keeping Azerbaijani lands under occupation for more than 20 years. Isn`t this a subject of international law? But these parliamentarians behave themselves as the blind and the deaf. Why are they doing that? Have they ever given any explanation or expressed their position?
If they are so fair, then let them assess Anders Breivik`s terror act and the ideology he founded and propagated, let them express their stance on a court ruling to sentence him to 3 months in prison for each murder case. Why don`t they do this? And they are looking for an opportunity to convene once a month to discuss Azerbaijan-related issues.
As you can see a biased approach is pretty obvious here. How long can they speak of Azerbaijan`s commitments to international organizations? Don`t these organizations, agencies and states have any commitment to international law? But when they created international law they knew that it completely consists of commitments. How can it be that these commitments don`t apply to them? Did they undertake a commitment to deal with commitments in a way they want?
And, finally, they are parroting their position on RamilSafarov, claiming it is this case that prevents efforts to ease tension and establish peace in the region.
How can one have such a wrong approach to the processes which continue for over 20 years? And what has been a barrier to reducing tension and ensuring peace in the region in the last 20 years? Aren`t Azerbaijani lands under occupation? Doesn`t anyone want to see this and express his position? How can one be so biased? Is there anyone who can answer this question?
Unfortunately, such positions, approaches cause different problems. And it`s obvious. Having an unfair approach to world processes can bring about a lot of trouble.
USD
EUR
GBP
RUB