EUROPEAN GAMES: THE WEST’S BIASED POLICY AND BAKU’S TACTICAL SUCCESS

upa-admin 03 Temmuz 2015 1.237 Okunma 0
EUROPEAN GAMES: THE WEST’S BIASED POLICY AND BAKU’S TACTICAL SUCCESS

The current global stereotype about Europe has been that the Europeans are primarily the defenders of freedom and democracy bulwarking the humanism and tolerance as the foundation of their major values. Objectively speaking, the Europeans did indeed create this image and had been consistently promoting it around the globe throughout the recent decades.

Despite a few critical turning points in the European history from the ancient times to the modern civilization, the world has been witnessing a different Europe creating a new form of mutual relations exemplified by the European Union since 1950s. And even if a number of European scholars predicted ”the dawn of Europe” on the backdrop of global conflicts and the establishment of another totalitarian regime in Germany proper, they have discovered reliable ties between the irreconcilable Germans, French, and the Poles nowadays. But right now we shall discuss the pretexts which Europe uses as clear discontent with such a globally acclaimed event as the first European Games in Azerbaijan and the reasons why Europe’s participation in them are ”condescendence” to us.

The absence of ”major” European guests at the sports festival in Baku certainly didn’t impede the opening ceremony of this outstanding event and this absence thwarted even those who hadn’t hesitated to visit our country on that special day. The European Games successfully started in the Azerbaijani capital and Baku again presented another large-scale project to the whole world since the Eurovision Song Contest. Thus, the denigration campaign by some Western circles in an attempt to ultimately damage the global image of the thriving Azerbaijan eventually failed. It is no novel that there have always been the Western powers that tried to cast aspersions on Azerbaijan. However, it is somewhat unclear why this propaganda is carried out with the support of the leaders whose countries have normal partnership relations with Azerbaijan. This especially refers to the impartial position towards the official Baku by Germany and its chancellor, Angela Merkel.

The reliable resources report that the lady chancellor was ultimately proactive in preventing the European Games participation of almost all European leaders that were under her control. Almost all European leaders followed the order by the new boss of Europe. This is understandable because they had no choice. Interestingly, the visit to Baku by the EU Council president, Donald Tusk was also postponed for this reason. The situation was not favourable at all, yet our establishment demonstrated its customary political wisdom and deep diplomacy by focusing on the organization of the grand event at the highest level.

It should be reminded that a number of state leaders visited Baku just like the Turkish and Russian presidents who defied the flat refusal by Mrs. Merkel. This list included the Serbian president, Tomislav Nikolić, the president of Montenegro, Filip Vujanović, the chairman of Bosnia and Herzegovina Presidium, Mladen Ivanić, Prince Albert II of Monaco, Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, the Romanian PM, Victor Ponta, the Bulgarian PM, Boyko Borisov, San-Marino state leaders – Captains Regent, Andrea Belluzzi and Roberto Venturini, the Georgian PM, Irakli Garibashvili, the chairman of the Czech Republic MP Chamber, Jan Hamacek, the Italian PM first deputy, Claudio de Vincenti and others. No doubt that these men had been added to the German chancellor’s ”honorary black list” after such indifference to the recommendation by Germany’s “Iron Lady”.

Another point to be specially touched upon is the position of the Baltic leaders that were not watching the festive opening ceremony of the European Games. The point is that, even at the times of the former Union membership, the Baltic states always stood apart with their strategies being totally different from the other former Soviet states’ positions. The Baltic states were always keen to be a part of Europe. And after becoming a part of the European family, they have to deal the European whims with caution as the foul play in ”the game” may back-fire their own interests. Yet on the other side, the Baltic states have quite good relations with Azerbaijan which offers convenient and reliable cooperation at least for the sole reason that Azerbaijan is primarily a reliable partner and a supportive ally. Unfortunately, the short-sighted Baltic strategists have missed this significant detail.

As for the general relationship between the EU and Azerbaijan, there is much to be desired. The prejudiced European policy towards Azerbaijan is somewhat reminiscent of the US strategy. The vain efforts by the European value dictatorship to politicize and transform the European Games into the geopolitical dispute arena as well as the US attempts to form the 5th column in Azerbaijan and impose the US democracy and human rights ideology eventually failed.

The failure of ”geopolitical games” against Azerbaijan through the first European Games is the tactical victory of Azerbaijan. On the other side, it is absolutely clear that the US political technologists are trying to politicize the grand event for getting more global attention through their own prism of democratic values and human rights.

The idea that ”the European Games are a good opportunity to put pressure on Azerbaijan” reflects the creation of ”Sport for Rights” organization by famous Rebecca Vincent. Besides the anti-Azerbaijani propaganda, the ”suggestion package” has been made up with the human rights, free press and other ideas calling for the boycott of the first European Games. It is believed that by the negative ideas ranging from ”the uselessness of the first European Games for Europe” to ”the impossibility of hosting major sport events in the country with human rights violations” Europe and US tried to achieve the disruption of the first European Games’ programme and eventually force Azerbaijan to knuckle down under the US pressure. But this only stayed in the hypothetic fantasies of our ”well-wishers”.

And for the this particular reason, investigating the financial sources of the civil societies that joined the anti-Azerbaijani campaign, it is not surprising that they were linked to the US donors and their budgets depended on the US Department of State through USAID. In its turn, the EU is not an independent power centre but just a tool for implementing the US plans. It is interesting that the US influence tools are simple and even plain. Their essence is searching compromise on different officials through simple auditions. The rest is just a matter of skill, as the saying goes. Accordingly, even if Europe, including Mrs. Merkel had made statements on the shortcomings of such democratic values and rights, the last say rests with the US. In short, who would doubt it?

Newtimes.az

Leave A Response »

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.