Why was PACE not worried about Azerbaijan twenty-three years ago?

After the settlement of the Garabagh issue, Azerbaijan witnessed the next double standard. About twenty-three years ago, when Azerbaijan appealed to the PACE and other institutions about the liberation of the occupied lands and at least the cessation of the Armenian occupation, the following answer was expressed: "We do not deal with the resolution of conflicts."

But we wonder why the assembly, which is trying to deprive the delegation of Azerbaijan of its powers in PACE, preventing free expression of opinion, is going the extra mile to protect a non-existent, unrecognised so-called state.

PACE's approach towards Azerbaijan seems to have shown their more brutal position than Armenians. We wonder to what extent it is possible to distinguish between right and wrong in such an institution.

As we know, Azerbaijan is on the brink of being excluded from the PACE, which is a negative result in international diplomacy. However, looking into the EU policy and double standards they use against Baku's will, it gives full authority to Azerbaijan to cut off relations with such organisations. Let's analyse the processes more precisely and in detail: Since Azerbaijan acceded to the Council in 2001, 19 years of PACE's bare negligence in the issue of Armenia's occupation did yield neither any result in the conflict resolution nor was any avail in the peacebuilding in the South Caucasus. Until 2020, the 44-day Patriotic War, PACE's saying the conflict resolution is out of its responsibility, and when Armenians were kicked out of the occupied lands, Europe's way of insolently reacting and acting against Azerbaijan exposed its true bias. So, the double standards appear again, which is not acceptable within mutual diplomatic relations and is against international law. Maybe we still don't know that according to PACE, only the rights of Armenians prevail in international law?

The representatives of the Council of Europe are sceptical that the extraordinary presidential elections to be held in Azerbaijan will be transparent. In fact, Azerbaijan did not invite any of them as observers. And there was no need for it. The question arises: do the EU representatives that want to observe a democratic election respect the sovereignty of the state they want to visit?

Azerbaijan patiently listened to the promises of the Council of Europe for a long time, hoped that the territories would be freed from occupation and peace would be established in the region, and reckoned with the opinions of the institutions within the union. After the end of the Garabagh War, Armenia mutually recognised the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, both verbally and on paper, and put the issue aside. However, PACE, which talks about democratic elections today, cannot or does not want to spell Azerbaijan's internationally recognised territories correctly. For example, the term "Nagorno-Karabakh", whose status has long since expired, is still used in the PACE meeting hall. With this misguided, unrecognised 'artsakh' expression, the assembly has stained its reputation. After all, we enjoyed international law. All states have sovereign territories and territorial names. No territory or state called 'artsakh' exists on earth. However, the organisation that loves Armenia more than Armenians shamelessly violates the sovereign rights of Azerbaijan and tries to justify an occupying state.

Azerbaijan's withdrawal from PACE was inevitable and unavoidable. Because expecting the right step from any European organisation in a situation where legal norms are violated would be like looking for a needle in a haystack. Azerbaijan clearly states that it does not need PACE or any organisations that defend Armenians. Because there is no topic to discuss about Garabagh, as this issue was closed back in September 2023. The only urgent issue on the agenda is the peace talks, which are being delayed by unnecessary interference from outside.