POLITICAL PARTY LEADERS AGREE TO CONDUCT DIALOGUE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 BAKU 000063 SIPDIS SIPDIS DEPT FOR DRL A/S LOWENKRON, EUR A/S FRIED E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/27/2016 TAGS: PREL PGOV PHUM KDEM AJ SUBJECT: POLITICAL PARTY LEADERS AGREE TO CONDUCT DIALOGUE DURING DRL A/S LOWENKRON'S VISIT Classified By: Charge d'Affaires Jason P. Hyland per 1.4 (b,d). ¶1. (C) Summary: During a lively December 19 dinner discussion with visiting DRL A/S Lowenkron and the Ambassador, ruling and opposition party leaders agreed to conduct a political dialogue based on the GOAJ's commitments to the OSCE and the Council of Europe. In agreeing to the dialogue, opposition leaders Isa Gambar, Ali Kerimli and Sardar Jalaloglu affirmed that they seek democracy through peaceful means; Gambar also said he would be willing to conduct dialogue with representatives from the ruling Yeni Azerbaijan Party, a prospect he previously had rejected. This agreement -- without any conditions -- could be a significant political breakthrough. Yet given the degree of accusation-slinging that preceded the agreement (with familiar charges that the opposition resorts to violence and the GOAJ is authoritarian),it is unlikely to begin, much less flourish, without support from the international community. As a first step, we will impress upon all parties the importance we attach to their agreement to conduct dialogue; we also will explore with the OSCE a possible role in facilitating the dialogue. End Summary. ¶2. (SBU) On December 19, the Ambassador hosted a dinner with political party leaders in honor of Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Barry Lowenkron. Guests included: de facto Chair of the ruling Yeni Azerbaijan Party Ali Ahmadov, opposition Musavat Party Chair Isa Gambar, opposition Popular Front Party Chair Ali Kerimli, opposition Liberal Party Chair Lala Shovket, opposition Azerbaijan Democratic Party Chair Sardar Jalaloglu and independent Yeni Siyaset (YES) Bloc Chair Eldar Namazov. DRL/AE Deputy Director Lisa Heller, DRL/AE Officer Wendy Silverman, Pol/Econ chief (notetaker) and poloff also attended. ¶3. (SBU) A/S Lowenkron opened the discussion with an overview of the Secretary's perspective on the three tenets of democracy: the right to participate in the political process (e.g., free and fair elections); governance, including accountability, transparency and anti-corruption measures; and civil society, including the right to shape and advance a country's agenda. In Azerbaijan, Lowenkron noted that the US Ambassador had organized these tenets into five categories: democratic political process, rule of law/judicial independence, media freedom, respect for human rights, and the development of an engaged, empowered and educated citizenry. He underscored that all of these values and rights are universal. OPPOSITION ASSESSES THE STATUS QUO -------------- ¶4. (C) Honing in on Lowenkron's message that democratic values are universal, Liberal Party leader Lala Shovket Hajieva worried that the Government of Azerbaijan is creating conditions that are bad for democracy, including fraudulent elections and a parliament dominated by the ruling party. She noted that Azerbaijan had created the first democratic republic in the Muslim world, in 1918, and is ready for full democracy today. She said she deeply regrets the current "enemy-like" relations between the government and the opposition and expressed support for a dialogue. ¶5. (C) Musavat party leader Isa Gambar thanks A/S Lowenkron for visiting Elmar Huseynov's grave, saying it sent a strong message. He worried that democracy is the United States' lowest priority in Azerbaijan. Characterizing the GOAJ as an "authoritarian regime," Gambar said that in Azerbaijan, elections are falsified, rights are violated, there is no freedom of assembly, and the functioning of political parties is restricted. Gambar said he understands the responsibilities of the Azerbaijani people to work for democracy, but argued that peaceful regime change is not possible without international support. Gambar also argued that the US employs "multiple standards" and "different tools" to achieve its democratic goals in different parts of the world. In Azerbaijan, the US uses dialogue and engagement, while in Iraq, the US used force. Gambar offered that perhaps the democratization model used in Ukraine was the most successful, but even that could not be characterized as a complete success. He also argued that US attempts to spread democracy in 2005 and 2006 had failed, and asked whether A/S had any new ideas to turn this around. A/S Lowenkron responded that all three US interests in Azerbaijan -- democracy, security, and energy -- are equally important to the United States; he also argued that although there naturally will be setbacks in the US Freedom Agenda, it is an BAKU 00000063 002 OF 003 integral part of our national security policy and will not go away, as it enjoys strong bi-partisan support and is part of the fabric of American foreign policy. ¶6. (C) Noting that this dinner gathering of both opposition and ruling party leaders was a "unique chance for dialogue," Popular Front Party Chair Ali Kerimli said that the "step-by-step" approach to democracy pursued for the last 13 years in Azerbaijan had resulted only in regression. At the same time, some senior Azerbaijani officials told the opposition that they needed to be more patient. Kerimli added that Azerbaijan suffers from fraudulent elections, denial of freedom of assembly, a worsening media environment, and severe restrictions on opposition parties' ability to conduct normal activities. "We want to achieve democracy by peaceful means, and we agree a step-by-step approach is needed. But reforms need to start," Kerimli said. "We want to discuss this with the government," Kerimli said, "but the Azerbaijani government is authoritarian and needs to changes its position and views." ¶7. (C) Azerbaijan Democratic Party leader Sardar Jalaloglu echoed Kerimli's pledge of non-violent peaceful change. Jalaloglu also stated that in some respects, independent Azerbaijan was worse than the Soviet Union. As an example, he noted that he had never been arrested for opposition to the Soviet regime. Since Azerbaijan's independence, he had been arrested and tortured. Something needed to change, he concluded: perhaps the opposition's approach, but definitely, the approach of the West. ¶8. (C) Eldar Namazov, leader of the independent YES Bloc, and a former senior official under previous president Heydar Aliyev, took a more optimistic view, arguing that as in Latin America, the Azerbaijani people are learning from even failed attempts at democracy, and the number of people "looking for reform" in Azerbaijan continues to grow. Nevertheless, Namazov argued that the prospects of an authoritarian regime pose grave dangers for Azerbaijan. He said Azerbaijan risks becoming overly dependent on its enormous energy revenues, without the rule of law necessary to ensure the development of a market economy, and argued that the pattern of GOAJ falsification of elections and pressure on "democratic forces" indicated that Azerbaijan did not have the requisite system of rule of law to develop its non-oil sectors. Namazov said the people of Azerbaijan are unhappy with the opposition for "failing to come to power" and also are increasingly unhappy with the United States, as demonstrated by recent public opinion polls. People in Azerbaijan are increasingly turning to political Islam as the solution, Namazov said, pointing to the strong showing of an Islamist-leaning candidate in the November 2005 parliamentary elections. (Namazov said the candidate won 5 of 29 precincts in his district.) "If nothing changes in 15 years," Namazov said, "the Islamists will win." Lala Shovket echoed his concerns, stating that many of her party's former supporters had now turned to Islam, as they see religion as the "only source of justice" in Azerbaijan. RULING PARTY RETORT -------------- ¶9. (C) Ruling party leader Ali Ahmadov, who had remained quiet throughout the opposition leaders' comments, said that the "reality" of Azerbaijan is strikingly different from the opposition's rhetoric. He argued that much had changed over the last 13 years, including a restoration of stability and law-and-order that were absent in the early 1990s. The current government reflects the people's desire for stability, and that, he said, is a fundamental requirement for democracy to develop. Azerbaijan has "certain problems," he admitted, that can be discussed when the opposition "desires political development." "Every citizen has the right to be concerned about Azerbaijan's future," Ahmadov said, "and should take steps to address them. If we all work together, we can develop Azerbaijan." However, Ahmadov also argued that the international community must take into account "local conditions" as it discusses Azerbaijan's democratic development. The ongoing Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, for example, affects Azerbaijan's democratic development. He also stated that he partially agreed with the views expressed on political Islam. The ruling party was thinking about this problem. YES TO UNCONDITIONAL DIALOGUE -------------- BAKU 00000063 003 OF 003 ¶10. (C) Musavat leader Isa Gambar said that "everyone at the table" was trying hard to hear what "one guest" (Ahmadov) had to say about political dialogue. Gambar continued that there is "no other way out" from the current political situation except "discussion." Stating that "force and violence are not acceptable," Gambar said that the opposition is "always ready for dialogue, with no preconditions." He noted that President Aliyev had called for dialogue but there had been no steps forward; the opposition, Gambar said, does not even have access to the ruling Yeni Azerbaijan Party (YAP) or de facto party chair Ahmadov. Ahmadov interjected that the opposition had not yet "applied" for an official dialogue. "Let me reiterate," Gambar said. "We are ready for dialogue. What application is necessary?" "I am at your disposal," Gambar continued, "if the government is ready for dialogue, let's start now. And if the government is not ready for dialogue, let's start with YAP." In response to Ahmadov's point that the A/S would see for himself the true situation in the country, Gambar noted that the A/S would see the many entities named after former president Heydar Aliyev and the photographs on the streets of him; this spoke for itself. ¶11. (C) Ahmadov responded that it is easy for the opposition to remain on the sidelines and criticize the government. Azerbaijan is one of the fastest developing countries in the world, he continued, and "we can't blame the people for their decision." The US-funded exit poll "verified" the results of the 2005 parliamentary elections, Ahmadov said, yet the opposition parties argued about the exit poll's results. "Who should we trust?" Ahmadov asked. The government had conducted three rounds of dialogue with the opposition 18 months ago, and "we are ready for it now," Ahmadov said. However, the surest way to stop dialogue is to keep calling for dialogue while simultaneously blaming the government for everything - including calling government officials criminals. ¶12. (C) Lowenkron then asked the group whether they all agreed on the need for a political dialogue and whether they could agree on a specific agenda rather than trade recriminations. Ahmadov said that President Aliyev, as chairman of the Yeni Azerbaijan Party, had made his views clear. Shovket said that she too supported dialogue, but "not just for the sake of talking." In her view, political dialogue must have a specific topic in order to be effective. Namazov suggested that the leaders organize a dialogue on issues other than the political process, such as expenditure of Azerbaijan's oil revenues or Azerbaijan's reform program. He also offered that televised debate, conducted by experts from various political parties, could help forge national debate and build consensus on these critical issues. Implicitly rejecting Namazov's proposal, Shovket and Kerimli said they supported Ahmadov's offer of dialogue but believed it would be hard to conduct a dialogue without an objective, neutral point of reference to guide debate. Kerimli suggested that neutral documents, such as the implementation of Azerbaijan's commitments to the OSCE or Council of Europe, could be an appropriate vehicle around which to organize debate. Ahmadov and all other party leaders agreed, and Lowenkron concluded that the GOAJ's public commitments to reform would be a good way to start this dialogue. COMMENT -------------- ¶13. (C) This agreement to conduct political dialogue -- without any conditions -- could represent a significant breakthrough. The last round of GOAJ-opposition dialogue broke down more than a year ago, in the acrimonious run-up to the November 2005 parliamentary elections. Given the degree of accusation-slinging that preceded this agreement, it likely will prove difficult for both sides to conduct the civilized, issue-focused dialogue that they claim to want. Yet such a dialogue is critical to Azerbaijan's democratic development, and we will need to stay engaged with all parties to ensure that it begins and flourishes. We will impress on both sides the importance we attach to the pledge made to A/S Lowenkron to conduct dialogue, and also will explore with the OSCE's new Baku Head of Mission (expected to arrive in February) a possible role for the OSCE in facilitating this dialogue. ¶14. (U) A/S Lowenkron cleared this message. HYLAND