POLITICS


Germany today: a hegemon or a vassal?

A+ A

Europe opposed to German hegemony

On 30 May 1941 is the day when Greek’s Manolis Glezos made fun of Adolph Hitler. Together with a friend of his, he removed fascist Germany’s huge flag from Acropolis in Athens and threw it onto the floor, thus becoming a hero.

Der Spiegel writes that 92-year-old Glezos currently represents Greece’s ruling party SIRIZA in the European Parliament. One of the activists of the resistance movement during World War II, the Greek hero witnessed the outcomes of Germany’s dictatorship in Europe. According to him, this process is taking place again. “This time, however, it is not the military, but politicians and business people who are seizing Greece by the throat. German capital is calling the shots in Europe, while Greek misfortunes and torments play very much into its hands. However, we don’t need their money.” Glezos believes that Germany is linked to its horrific past even now. At the same time, when saying this, he emphasizes that he refers to the German government, not German people. “Germany is still an aggressor. Its attitude to Greece is reminiscent of the attitude of a tyrant towards a servant.”

Glezos recalls an article called “the Year 2000” by the main ideologist of fascist Germany Joseph Goebbels. In that article, Goebbels shares his views about the future of Europe with the leadership of Germany. Glezos says that the forecast of Goebbels was justified only 10 years early.

Experts believe that the global economic recession provides Germany, a country with powerful economic potential, with the opportunity to realize its ambition of European hegemony. This is encountering stiff resistance across Europe: German Chancellor Angela Merkel is described as the author of this expansion. Cartoons showing her wearing Hitler’s moustache and depicting Europe under the caterpillars of German tanks are widely circulating in Greece, Bulgaria, Spain, Great Britain, Poland, Portugal and other countries. The Nazi symbols are often described as an integral part of Germany’s tough policies in relation to other countries. Europe talks of the formation of the “Fourth Reich”, the successor of the “Third Reich” in Germany.

Azerbaijani-German relations: excursion into the historical domain

At a time when Germany is on a mission of subjugating the rest of Europe, how does Azerbaijan, the shining star of the South Caucasus and post-Soviet republics, intend to build its relations with this country and the European Union it claims to be in charge of? After Azerbaijan regained its independence in 1991, the relations between the two countries developed fairly smoothly for some time.

The diplomatic relations between Germany and Azerbaijan were established and embassies were opened in 1992. Just as Azerbaijan was in great need of political support and investments and therefore interested in establishing close relations with Europe’s strongest economy, the newly-united Germany could not but expand the sphere of its influence and build relations with Azerbaijan, a country located in a strategically important region, possessing ample natural resources and a strong economic potential. The visit of the then Foreign Minister of German Klaus Kinkel to Azerbaijan in December 1995 and of Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev to Germany in July 1996 elevated the relations between the two countries to a new level. In subsequent years, the countries successfully developed their cooperation in political, economic, scientific-technical, defense, security areas and the fight against terror. The strengthening of political relations and the favourable investment environment may be seen as the main reasons for the arrival and successful operation of German companies in Azerbaijan. Around 150 German business entities, including such giants as “Siemens”, “Ferrosstal”, “Interselekt” and “Mercedes Benz”, started their successful operations in Azerbaijan.

As far as the nature of political relations is concerned, as is the case with all other countries, Azerbaijan is interested in establishing and developing equitable relations with Germany on the basis of mutual respect, effective cooperation and non-interference in each other’s affairs. As an independent state, Azerbaijan does not tolerate the relations of a big and small brother in relations and expects the same attitude from others. At the same time, Azerbaijan requires all countries and international organizations it cooperates with to express an attitude to the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. One of the key prerequisites of these relations is the support for international law. This represents an important precondition in the development of German-Azerbaijani relations.

It is fair to say that Germany has repeatedly expressed its support for Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity at the highest level. In particular, its President Horst Keller said in 2004 that “Germany has always supported Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and this position remains unchanged”. German ex-chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said that Azerbaijan was Germany’s partner and that “Germany recognizes and respects Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity”. The Resolution on “Security, stability and strengthening of the South Caucasus” adopted by the Federal Council of the German Bundestag on 14 May 2010 says that “Germany reaffirms its support for the principle of unacceptability of changing the borders of states without their consent”.

On the one hand, the development of cooperation between Azerbaijan and Germany led to the strengthening of Germany in such an important region as South Caucasus and paved the way for German companies and NGOs to the region, while on the other it also led to the enhancement of Azerbaijan’s relations with the European Union and communication of objective information about the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh to the European public. It would be safe to say that the visit of President of the Republic of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev to Germany in February 2007 and the agreements reached there have played a very important role. The view of German Foreign Minister Walter Steinmeier expressed during his visit to Baku in October 2014 is quite important from the standpoint of Azerbaijan’s importance to Germany and the European Union. “Azerbaijan is a strategically important country located between the East and the West. It plays the role of a bridge. Azerbaijan is also an important country from the point of view of energy. It plays a significant role in European energy security. Azerbaijan is the only country of the region where the German Chamber of Commerce operates. It includes 140 members. This is an indicator of our broad economic relations. In addition, the Southern Gas Corridor ushers great opportunities for the development of our bilateral cooperation even more.”

Azerbaijan and the “Fourth Reich”

At a time when the relations between the two countries were developing fast and the trends of strategic cooperation were picking up, the aggressive conduct of a number of German NGOs, media outlets and even senior government officials in 2011 was somewhat incomprehensible. Experts believe that the anti-Azerbaijan campaign launched by Germany-led Western circles in the run-up to the Eurovision-2012 song contest in Baku can be explained by a number of factors. First and foremost, they link it to Azerbaijan’s aspiration to transport its natural gas to European markets, Germany’s hegemony ambitions and attempts, at the behest of the United States, to establish control over Azerbaijan, the central country of the South Caucasus. Of course, attempts to realize these intentions were disguised as struggle for democracy and human rights. However, the guise was so primitive that even German Ambassador to Azerbaijan Herbert Kvelle could not provide a plausible explanation in an interview with Azerbaijani media. The Ambassador stated that after Azerbaijan’s victory in the 2011 Eurovision song contest in Dusseldorf, the German media started to take greater interest in Azerbaijan. Along with positive information about our country, people came across and embellished numerous negative reports related to Azerbaijan. The Ambassador went on to say that the federal government of Germany is unable to exert any influence on the independent media. Of course, the Ambassador’s attempt to defend his country’s position and provide a different angle to the problem is understandable. If Mr. Kvelle had approached the matter from the angle of German interests in important trans-continental energy projects, the intensified contacts of his country’s government and other political circles with the Azerbaijani opposition, the active role of German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle and his deputy Michael Link in the process, the relationships between authoritative German foundations run by leading political circles with the Azerbaijani opposition and, finally, the topics he had personally discussed with Azerbaijani opposition “leaders”, the panorama would have been completely different and the Ambassador could not have been accused of any bias.

Shortly afterwards such leading German editions as Der Spiegel and ARD started publishing unfounded and clearly biased stories about Azerbaijan, exposing the interests of some circles of this country in Azerbaijan. Foundations such as Konrad Adenauer, Fridrix Nauman, Henrix Böll and Fridrix Ebert became much more active in their activities in Azerbaijan, while the meetings of German officials and MPs with leaders of Azerbaijani opposition parties became more frequent.

The German government’s Humans Rights and Humanitarian Aid ombudsman, Loening, became one of the key masterminds of the anti-Azerbaijan campaign. During a visit to Azerbaijan in August 2011, he made a number of scathing remarks. He told representatives of the opposition that “Germany is ready to provide you with all possible assistance in order to bring about changes in Azerbaijan.” Loening’s anti-Azerbaijan campaign lasted until 2013, when the UN Human Rights Commission disclosed a report on violations of human rights and freedoms, as well as cases of racism and xenophobia in Germany.

Another German campaign against Azerbaijan was orchestrated through the notorious human rights rapporteur of the Council of Europe, Kristofer Strasser. However, his report on Azerbaijan suffered a complete fiasco at a PACE session in January 2013, as MPs consigned it to history together with Strasser proper.

Another direction of this campaign was pursued by the Green faction of the German Bundestag. The deputy chairperson of Bundestag’s parliamentary group for South Caucasus and one of the most active members of the Greens, Viola von Kramon, who is noted for a pro-Armenian stance, said the group would succeed in urging European Union countries to boycott the Eurovision song contest in Baku. The party’s representative in the German parliament, Volker Berg, explicitly stated that Baku was not a suitable place for hosting the Eurovision contest.

Along with all this, the visit of German Foreign Minister Guide Westerwelle to Azerbaijan in March 2012 and the frequent meetings of German Ambassador Herbert Kvelle with opposition leaders suggest that Germany had embarked on an anti-Azerbaijani campaign at state level. It is no coincidence that the appointment of Michael Link, deputy chairman of the Bundestag group on the South Caucasus and one of the leading persons in all the events conducted by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation in Azerbaijan, as Deputy Foreign Minister in 2012 was received with huge jubilation by the Popular Front Party of Azerbaijan. Ali Karimli described Link as a “friend” and said to his entourage that his appointment was no coincidence. Ali Karimli probably implied that the Friedrich Naumann Foundation was in close cooperation with the Free Democratic Party of Germany, while M. Link is an active member of this party. Thus, the appointment of M. Link both opened the Foundation’s money sack to the PFPA and paved the way for the German government’s and the Free Democratic Party’s support of the PFPA.

As is evident, German officials, state bodies, media outlets and NGOs chose Azerbaijan as the main focus of their activities. Experts analyzing German interests in Azerbaijan suggested at the time that against the backdrop of Georgia moving in the direction of the European Union and NATO, Armenia joining the Russian-made Collective Security Treaty and entering the orbit of its northern neighbor, Azerbaijan did not join any associations or blocs and continued to pursue an independent policy. Unable to come to terms with Azerbaijan’s independent course, the US attempted to exert its influence over Baku through Germany. Germany tried to deploy the Eurovision-2012 song contest and the traditional Western tool, democracy, to put pressure on Azerbaijan. These plans of the “Fourth Reich” to get a foothold in the South Caucasus and take over the Baku oil received a fitting rebuff. Whereas the “Third Reich” wanted to implement this plan in a military way 60 years ago, Angela Merkel turned democratic Institutions into a bayonet pointed at Azerbaijan. However, it didn’t work out and the scenario of 1942-1943 was repeated 60 years later. But why was Germany unable to break Azerbaijan’s resistance?

Hidden aspects of the failed anti-Azerbaijan campaign or what did Ilham Aliyev tell WEsterwelle?

The yet undisclosed details of a visit by the German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle to Azerbaijan in the run-up to the Eurovision-2012 song contest are of tremendous importance from the standpoint of public interest.

On 15 March 2012, at a time when an anti-Azerbaijan campaign was launched, it is possible to suggest that President Ilham Aliyev expressed his concern at the issue in a meeting with Guido Westerwelle. The latter probably attempted to convince the President that these did not represent an official course of the German government but the activity of local groups. Responding to a question regarding the campaign against Azerbaijan in a press-conference with Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov, Westerwelle said, “the German media are free and there is no control over them. However, there is a difference of opinion about Azerbaijan in Germany, and some people think that Azerbaijan is a developing country.”

Interestingly, just a month later, in mid-April, German Ambassador to Azerbaijan H. Kvelle sent an address to the Presidential Administration of Azerbaijan, requesting that President Ilham Aliyev meet with G. Westerwelle again during a visit to the USA. The reason for the request was the concern in Azerbaijani society over the further intensified anti-Azerbaijan campaign in the German media and the organization of a strong reaction. The Azerbaijani government was considering the possibility of revising its economic cooperation with the German government.

We recall that on 4 May 2012, President Ilham Aliyev visited New York to preside over a session of the UN Security Council. It was during this visit that a meeting with Westerwelle took place. According to official reports, President Ilham Aliyev pointed to the presence of extensive opportunities for a further development of the relations of friendship cooperation between the two countries.

However, it is possible to say with confidence that President Ilham Aliyev informed Westerwelle during the meeting that the insincere conduct of the German government in respect of Azerbaijan was causing an adverse impact on bilateral relations. The course of events suggested that the anti-Azerbaijan campaign was not chaotic and that there are serious forces behind it. Therefore, if the German government continued its destructive activities, there is no doubt that German-Azerbaijani relations would be at risk of being undermined, the relations of cooperation would be disrupted and partnership would end. Considering the strategic interests of Germany in Azerbaijan, Westerwelle convinced the President of Azerbaijan that he would take all possible measures to eliminate the problem. It is also possible to say that Westerwelle even promised that this would not happen again.

It is true that the problem was not resolved as soon as it was expected. But the Azerbaijani side also realized that it would be impossible to bring a machine that had been running for quite some time to a complete stop immediately. Most importantly, subsequent developments show that government activity and the operation of institutions close to it were brought to the minimum. This primarily manifested itself through the activities of the likes of Kristofer Strasser, Markus Loening, Ambassador Kvelle, Deputy Foreign Minister Link, NGOs and media outlets close to the government.

The analysis of the developments that took place in the run-up to the Eurovision song contest suggests that Germany cherishes serious plans in relation to Azerbaijan. The West is trying the break the resistance of the South Caucasus’s only country pursuing an independent course, incorporate it into its own sphere of influence and establish a dominant position in the geo-strategic region.

Walter Steinmeier`s guarantee and a new stage of German-Azerbaijani relations

Angela Merkel`s election as chair of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) party in December of 2012 created favourable conditions for her claims to become Chancellor for the third time. Interestingly, CDU members gave her 97.94% percent of the votes as she became the party`s chair for the seventh time in a row. In the autumn of 2013, Merkel won a third term as chancellor after her party claimed a landslide victory in the parliamentary elections. One of the highlights of her government reshuffle was Merkel`s entrusting the post of foreign minister to Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who already held the post from 2005 until 2009.

Steinmeier is a familiar figure in the Azerbaijani society. He visited Baku in 2007. The German FM`s next visit to Azerbaijan took place as part of his South Caucasus tour in October, 2014. Steinmeier came to Azerbaijan for an important mission as he was facing the burden of moving the relations between the two countries that had been at a standstill since 2012. The German government even put up a package of proposals. But Azerbaijan had its own demands, which, Steinmeier most likely was told about by President Ilham Aliyev who received him in Baku. What could these demands be? Azerbaijan is an independent state and does not want to come under influence of any force, including Germany and the European Union. Azerbaijani-German relations can turn positive only if official Berlin undertakes not to pursue or be involved in another campaign against Azerbaijan. Obviously Steinmeier was also informed of Azerbaijan`s opinion about the features and main goals of the smear campaign run by Germany ahead of the Eurovision song contest, and was told that fruitful cooperative relationship is not possible under such circumstances. Steinmeier, who came to Azerbaijan with a clear aim, had nothing to do but express the German government`s interest in developing the cooperative relations and say that measures are being taken to prevent a repetition of such cases. This was the German Foreign Minister`s guarantee that Germany would treat Azerbaijan in a sincere manner in the future.

Most likely after Steinmeier`s guarantee President Ilham Aliyev instructed the Azerbaijani government to restore economic, political and humanitarian ties with Germany and create favourable conditions for the activity of German companies in Azerbaijan.

Germany`s foreign policy is a clear evidence of hypocrisy

Analyses give a reason to say that an anti-Azerbaijani campaign during the first European Games is launched and run by the USA, with Germany again being one of its active participants. Influenced by the USA and unable to restrain its hegemonic claims, Germany again demonstrates hypocrisy against Azerbaijan.

First glimmers of this hypocrisy manifested themselves during Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev`s working visit to Germany in January of 2015. During the visit Ilham Aliyev and Angela Merkel discussed all aspects of the bilateral relations. Indeed the two leaders reached important agreements to develop German-Azerbaijani ties. This positive mood was observed during the two leaders` press conference too. But it featured a premeditated provocation against Ilham Aliyev. A man suddenly entered the room, raised a poster and started shouting anti-Azerbaijani slogans. Although the man was later identified, how he entered the press conference room still remains a question. The Azerbaijani President supposedly preferred not to react to this provocation taking into consideration positive results of his talks with Merkel and other officials. He probably believed that a small provocation had not to cast a shadow on the results of the visit. This indeed can be characterized as a manifestation of Ilham Aliyev`s greatness, his confidence in development potential of the relations with Germany and his commitment to all agreements. One can suppose that the Azerbaijani government`s post-visit initiatives and steps to develop cooperative relations with Germany in all areas were a result of Mr Ilham Aliyev`s instructions.

Merkel`s “Europarliament-Bundestag” game

And how did Germany respond to Azerbaijan`s goodwill? In a typical manner: clever and in line with its own interests at first sight, but in reality, primitive and superficial. Incited by the USA and under Merkel`s personal instructions, this anti-Azerbaijani campaign was transferred from Germany to the European Parliament platform. In fact, using the European parliament as a tool for exerting pressure is not a new tactic. It should be noted that until 2007, the number of members of the European Parliament was set at 736 by the Treaty of Nice. In 2007, Lisbon Treaty set the number of parliamentarians at 751. But it`s surprising that no more than 50 or 60 MEPs were involved in the discussion of and voting on the state of human rights and freedoms in Azerbaijan. For example, only 54 MEPs participated in the discussion of and voting on the resolution that was adopted on May 12, 2011. Only 56 MEPs attended the discussion of the resolution adopted On May 20, 2012. The same happened on June 15, 2013 and September 18, 2014 when biased anti-Azerbaijani resolutions were adopted on the initiative of a group, which is acting on instructions, and a small number of the members of the parliament.

A closer look at the composition and structure of the European Parliament reveals quite an interesting analogy. The point is that the organization is reminiscent of the German Bundestag and duplicates it. Like in Germany, Christian Democrats (European People`s Party – EPP) and Social Democrats (The Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats S&D) have been the largest groups in the European Parliament for many years. For example, in the 2014 elections, EPP collected 22.9% of the votes to get 221 seats, while S&D won 191 mandates with 25.4% of the votes. The two groups, which share a total of 412 seats (53.8%) in the European Parliament, have all influence opportunities in the palm of their hands. Communists and leftists, greens, regionalists, liberals, conservatives, nationalists, Eurosceptics, far-right and independent MEPs are not capable of seriously influencing the decision-making.

In the 2013 election to the Bundestag, Angela Merkel’s bloc (CDU-CSU) got 41.5% of the votes, with Social Democrats (SPD) receiving 25.7% of the votes. Again Christian democrats beat social democrats. Just like in the European Parliament, these two parties maintain dominance in the Bundestag too. Even division of legislative power between the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union is reminiscent of power division between Bundestag and Bundesrat. The European Parliament is reminiscent of Bundestag both in terms of structure, membership and activity, and there is no doubt that it is Germany that sets the tone in the organization. If one can say so, the European Parliament is controlled by Germany. So there is all the more reason to link the organization`s aggressive attitude towards Azerbaijan to Angela Merkel`s Reich Chancellery.

On the other side, president of the European Parliament Martin Schulz is a German national. In 2014, he ran for the president of the European Commission as the leader of the social democrats. But he lost the struggle to Jean-Claude Juncker, a candidate of the European People`s Party, accepting the proposal to head the European Parliament for the second time. According to European media reports, it was heads of states who decided at the EU summit on June 26-27 – rather than MEPs as demanded by the Treaty of Lisbon - who of these two persons will be the head of the European Commission and who will head the European Parliament. MEPs just voted in accordance with the will of their leaders. Of course, if it`s about Europe, then this can be recognized as another manifestation of “democracy”.

Jean-Claude Juncker was elected President of the European Commission as a candidate of the German Christian democrats, who dominate the European People`s Party. So he is another project of Germany. One of the facts proving this is that immediately after the election a researcher made serious accusations against Juncker at the organization`s website. According to Belgian newspaper Libre Belgique, the scandal, known as Luxembourg Leaks, saw the release of thousands of secret documents detailing how Luxembourg, the country he led for nearly 20 years as prime minister, helped companies avoid paying taxes. The media alleged that the release of the documents just after the European Commission elections could be the handiwork of the British government, a strong opponent of Juncker`s election. But for some reasons the story did not move on, and was quickly forgotten just as the story about Martin Schulz`s taking large amounts of bribe from the Yanukovych government in Ukraine was not investigated and was withdrawn from the circulation.

So apart from maintaining control over the two major groups at the European Parliament, the German government has placed its own people in different bodies of the European Union, holding control over them in the palm of its hands. This gives reasons to say that no decision can be made and no resolution can be adopted at the European Parliament without Germany`s consent. On the other hand, all anti-Azerbaijani hearings at the European Parliament were initiated by Greens. In the 2014, election the group collected 6.7% of the votes to get only 50 seats. Its analogue, Alliance '90/The Greens, gained 8.4% of the votes which means 63 seats at the Bundestag. There is plenty of similarity. However, the most interesting point is that the recent anti-Azerbaijani hearings at the European Parliament were initiated by Ulrike Lunacek, an Austrian national, Vice President of the European Parliament, member of the Greens/EFA group and an LGBT activist. And her close allies are German MEPs. Does Germany, who is dictating its will at the European Parliament, really think that it can remain in the background by pursuing an anti-Azerbaijani campaign through an Austrian representative of Greens?! Does Ms Merkel really think that people around the world have so much primitive mindset? At least, the fact that Greens “punished” Bundestag after President Ilham Aliyev`s meeting with Guido Westerwelle in New York in 2012, suddenly calmed down reveals how seriously the German government influences Greens!

It is well-known who was behind the hearings called “Sport and human rights” initiated by Greens` European Free Alliance on the eve of the first European Games on June 11, and a joint protest rally and a press conference of the US “guards” and German “legion” which were organized a day earlier. The silhouette of a “US-German alliance” is clearly seen here. But a seriously elaborated show has been a fiasco most likely because not everything was well arranged or many MEPs realized that it is a trick played against an independent state. A question arises: why after the European Parliament hearings failed similar hearings were immediately held at the German Bundestag on June 12, and not at the parliament of the Great Britain, French Senate, Danish Folketing, Swedish Riksdag or a parliament of any other European country. Why did only 35 out of 631 parliamentarians participate in the hearings on the resolutions titled “Demanding Protection of Human Rights in Azerbaijan” and “Observing democracy, constitutional state and human rights in Azerbaijan during 2015 European Games”? Discussion of the two resolutions lasted for only 30 minutes, and they were adopted with 21 voting in favor, 10 voting against and 4 people remaining neutral.

The history of parliamentarians has never seen a more shameful or ridiculous show. Is the USA`s domination over Germany so huge that it spoils, in one day, its relations with an independent state that holds particular interest for it, and makes a mockery of the country`s parliament?! Anyway it is meanness of the Merkel government.

Parliamentarians who participated in an expanded meeting of the Milli Majlis Committee on International Relations and Interparliamentary Ties released a statement on the Bundestag resolution, saying they consider it a biased “document” far from reality and aimed at undermining Azerbaijani-German relations and cast a shadow on Azerbaijan`s international reputation. They said a purposeful campaign has been carried out against Azerbaijan in Germany. “If on the one hand, it is related to the Germany-based Armenian lobby`s influence, on the other hand, it is related to some German political circles` intention to take revenge on Azerbaijan for the “Strasser case” which at one point sparked tension in the two countries` bilateral relations. So the parliamentarians asked the government to draw relevant conclusions from the Bundestag resolution, and not to receive, on the high level, the official German delegation, which is planning to visit Azerbaijan soon.

In addition, German Ambassador in Baku Haydrum Tempel was summoned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijani side expressed its protest and gave a warning over the issue, and also expressed its serious concern about the prospects of Azerbaijani-German ties.

As seen it is because of the German government`s insincerity, hypocritical policy that German-Azerbaijani relations have been thrown into crisis. There is no certainty that further promises of Westerwelle, Steinmeier and other German officials would stabilize the situation. What promises and sincerity can one talk about, if Chancellor Merkel is playing a double game?

Moral values of German diplomacy from Elmar Brok to Wilfried Lemke

Elmar Brok represents Germany`s ruling party and is the current chairman of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs. He loves to sharply criticize Azerbaijan, and praise songs for Armenia. For example, he sharply criticized Azerbaijan for pardoning Ramil Safarov. Mr Brok also always exaggerates Azerbaijan`s “faults”. Centennial of the so-called Armenian genocide left its mark on Elmar. Continuously urging Turkey to recognize the so-called Armenian genocide, he even demanded that official Turkey should apologize to Armenians. In his free time, the head of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs deals with more serious issues. The Ukraine problem, for example. But what he was involved in Ukraine…

Describing Elmar Brok`s visit to Ukraine in January of 2013, “obozrevatel.com” website said – providing details and witnesses` evidence – that he spent much more time in bacchanalian orgies in Kiev`s night bars than searching for ways of solving the Ukraine crisis. The information provided proved that Mr Brok, who traveled on Brussels-Moscow-Kiev route, held his talks with visitors of the night bars, rather than with Vladimir Putin and Viktor Yanukovich. In his statement made in the morning after one of such nights, Brok said that at his talks with the Russian leadership he agreed Ukraine`s joining the European Union, rather than the Eurasian Union. Concerned with this statement, the Ukrainian media, helped by special services, investigated Mr Brok`s negotiations in Ukraine. It appeared that he enjoyed orgies at “Tusse”, “Viva Art”, “TEO Club” and“Quli-Quli” night bars in Troeschina, Kiev, and then spent the night with prostitutes at an apartment. But whether he met the Ukrainian and Russian official or not still remains a question.

So moral qualities of members of Angela Merkel`s anti-Azerbaijani team, including Schultz, Lunacek, Brok and others, proves that Germany mobilized depraved elements in its campaign against Azerbaijan. Most likely the reason is that ordinary people, serious public and political figures, experts and others do not want to be part of this ridiculous show. Having made the European Parliament its plaything, official Berlin established dictatorship at the German parliament too. Given this, who will take the allegations of Special Adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General on Sport Wilfried Lemke that “there is dictatorship in Azerbaijan” for serious? Are there any guarantees that he is not speaking on Merkel`s instructions like other high-ranking Germans?

Anatomy of offensive campaign against Azerbaijan

In general, the West approves with all of its actions that the British Empire`s “We don’t have eternal friends, we have eternal interests” policy is topical today and is widely applied. This principle is especially observed in the policy of the USA, Germany and Great Britain.

Offensive campaigns run in these countries against Azerbaijan during the First European Games allowed to build a complete picture about how this process is carried out, their players and aims. An anti-Azerbaijani campaign started with the target texts published in the media, and statements of international NGO’s.

That is why reputable media outlets like the BBC and Reuters, The Guardian, The İndependent, The Telegraph in Britain, Der Spiegel, Stern, Deutche Welle in Germany, Le Monde, France-Presse in France and other countries published materials that repeated one another. The main idea of the materials was a call to set free members of the US “5th Column” in Azerbaijan who were imprisoned for concrete crimes. This campaign was strengthened with the speeches of competent officials in the international organizations influenced by the US against Azerbaijan (Nils Muižnieks, Dunja Mijatović, Ulrike Lunacek, Michel Forst, Wilfried Lemke, Elmar Brok, Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein and others). In the course of the process the materials were enriched with the description of the situation, interrogation of the local activists, and with the articles and interviews of the international NGO’s who take part in the campaign as Rebecca Vincent, Ketty Pearce, Georgi Gogia, Emma Hughes and cosmopolite Azerbaijanis living abroad Arzu Geybulla, Emin Milli, Gulnara Akhundova, Idrak Abbasov and others. At the same time, there was an attempt to build a negative opinion against Azerbaijan in social networks. Protests were carried out in numerous European capitals. It is very interesting that in the process run from the US only a few were taking part. There was nothing but infrastructure created for years: well-known international NGOs and negative opinion of reputable media outlets of foreign countries. The next stage involved Christiane Amanpour from CNN, British TV presenter John Olivier.

So this concept proposed as the “international public opinion” is nothing but a collection of big titles without human resource indeed. This is nothing but an ordinary soap’s bubble, which Azerbaijan duly resisted and was able to show that to the whole world.

Even a simple research approves that as it was in 2012, the German media turned to one of the key figures of the offensive campaign against Azerbaijan during the First European Games too.

Suffice to say that the German media issued nearly 30 critical materials against Azerbaijan from June 1 to June 15.

German model of democracy or the irony of fate

A report raised for discussion in the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva on April 25, 2013, was literally a serious blow for the German government – a “Black Friday”. The country’s delegation including Human Rights Commissioner Markus Loening was forced to answer why the human rights in Germany fell into such a tragic situation in front of nearly hundred UN member countries.

Turkish Representative in UN Oguz Demiralp spoke how hostility against foreigners has recently become widespread, and a serious threat to three million Turks who live in Germany as a result of the government’s inactivity. Head of the Russian delegation Alexey Goltiayev in his turn expressed his concerns about growing hostility against national minorities and migrants in Germany. German Human Rights Defender Loening responds to facts-based charges with standard words. Germany will do what it can to further prevent such crimes committed by Nazis. However the number one human rights defender in Germany was forced to confess and several apologize to Turkey and the UN for fatal errors made by the German investigators on behalf of his country. Even Great Britain and France put forward serious demands before Germany and condemned manifestation of racism in this country. It had been noted that the German police exaggerates its use of force and abuses its authority, neglects worthy investigation of crimes. Taking into account sharply critical speeches of other countries’ representatives, UNHCR adopted a decision on preparing guidelines for Germany.

Indeed, along with exposing human rights situation in Germany this report was the end of the human rights defender Loening’s career who was constantly attacking Azerbaijan. But in the same session along with apologizing Loening had to answer such a question: Why Germany is periodically denying the resolution called “Combating the glorification of Nazism” in the UN General Assembly. Isn’t this a true example of how the German government defends neo-Nazism? Mr. Loening had to answer another question as well: How dare Ombudsman from a country with a shameful state of human rights to criticize another country?

The German city of Dresden is the center of PEGIDA (Patriotic Europeans against Islamization of the West) organization. On January 5, 2015 the biggest protest rally against Islam in Europe was held in Dresden. Experts consider that Islamophobic tendencies that have strengthened in Germany remind of escalation of Anti-Semitism in 1930ies.

According to the results of a survey conducted by Bertelsmann Foundation in Germany, every second German considers the religion of Islam a source of danger. While Law enforcement authorities in fact are not investigating crimes based on the racial background? That is why it is not surprising that the case of 22 year-old Turk Burak Bektas, who was shot dead in Berlin, and a 16 year-old Russian and a 17 year-old Arab who was shot along with him and seriously wounded was neglected by the police and the murderers were not found. According to statistics, attacks against foreigners in 2012 increased 4.4% in comparison with the previous year. In total 17,616 crimes were committed by the ultra-Rights. Some 842 crimes were committed by neo-Nazis with special violence. This is 1.7% more than in the previous year. A research conducted by Maastricht University suggests that German companies are the rudest violators of human rights worldwide. According to it, 87 % of 1800 cases of human rights violations were committed in Germany.

Corruption is not considered a barrier for engaging in business activities in Germany. Forgery and corruption risks are more rigorously manifested in the construction, healthcare and in the government procurement sectors. According to the German Criminal Code bribery charges are not applied to companies, but only to individuals. As giving bribery, paying and receiving it by the individuals is illegal. As a result there are ample opportunities for taking bribery at a corporative level by the companies.

However, corruption is also a widespread phenomenon in public bodies of Germany. A fact emerged that German President Christian Wulff received a low interest loan of 1.5 million Euros using his authority in the end of 2011. On the eve of the adoption of the law on the abolishment of the VAT in the hotel business, the party led by Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle received a donation of 1.1million euros. Regardless of astronomical expenses spent for the construction of the European Central Bank’s new office and Willy Brant International Airport one should wait a long time to see their finish. The construction of the airport was numerously postponed which cost 120 million euros to the budget. The report made by “Business under Control” shows that there was a 3 billion euro corruption case in the construction of the airport.

The report made by “Transparency International” shows that if 45% of German people were thinking that corruption increased in the country in 2003, in 2007 this indicator rose to 69%. Some 77% of the nation considers the government’s measures against the struggle with the corruption irrelevant. Only in 2012 bribery and attraction of the officials cost German economy 250 billion euros. “Die Velt” newspaper claims that if it was possible to revert the bribery to the level that it was in 2004 the economic loss would have reduced by 30 billion euros.

Protests held in the country against the human rights violations, corruption and other negative tendencies are violently prevented by the policy. The government’s brutal attitude against the protest rallies in Frankfurt and Hamburg may be a good example. Violence was committed not only against participants of the protests, but also human right defenders at the time. This is the analogy of the attitude towards the black protestors in the US’s Ferguson and Baltimore, NGO’s defending them and journalists who were covering the events. Indeed, repeated law violations show intolerance of the Western ruling circles that they are careless against the values of the right for assembly, freedom of expression. One of the main facts that show the attitude of the German government to the freedom of speech and information was the apprehension of employee of Al Jazeera TV channel Ahmad Mansour at Berlin International Airport for extraditing him to the Egyptian law enforcement bodies. According to the information, during the official visit of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to Berlin two weeks ago agreements had been reached between the two countries and German Siemens company attained the right to carry out highly profitable projects in Egypt. Even INTERPOL declined the request of Cairo to arrest Ahmad Mansour. Experts believe that the Merkel government`s eagerness is their response to the agreements reached with Egypt.

According to the Spiegel Online international magazine, Ramstein military base in the territory of Germany is the US’s main base for carrying out “drone” operations in the Middle East and the Southeastern Asia. The US is destroying various vibrant or technical objects in different parts of the world through the special secret headquarters equipped with transmitting antenna alert systems without showing any reasons or giving any explanation. The German government continues to turn a blind eye to these crimes, becoming its accomplice.

However, this is not the only issue that official Berlin is turning a blind eye to. It also creates opportunity with the close participation of its special intelligence agencies for Americans to overhear to everybody in larger areas, including the governments, businessmen, civil society institutions. Recently when it was discovered that the USA`s Bavaria-based overhearing stations are overhearing even the German authorities, Angela Merkel was forced to make a speech in the Bundestag, and to justify, in a shameful manner, what had happened.

Europe`s hegemon or America`s vassal?

Experts believe that Germany is seeking tougher control over the European Union. For many of its features, this union was founded as an Anglo-Saxon project aimed at taking control over Europe, particularly Germany itself. Having failed to restore its sovereignty, Germany`s ambitions, however, cover the whole of the continent. The Fourth Reich is not just a dream of a propagandist, but the future of Germany, if it manages to overcome Anglo-Saxon control.

Let`s look at experts` opinions featured in the foreign media.

It was only in the middle of the last century when Germany`s policy reached a qualitatively new level thanks to a merger of Adenauer (West-oriented) and Brandt-Schmidt (East-oriented) lines. Having headed Germany since 2005, Angela Merkel is trying to transfer economic leadership in the EU to political leadership, and restore Otto von Bismarck-created German Reich in a new appearance. But how is this happening?

According to the BBC, the policy of the Europeanization of Germany, which was launched 20 years ago, has had side effects as Europe started to be Germanized. Although Germany began talking about how to save Europe`s economy hit by the global economic crisis, in fact, it is pursuing a policy aimed at strengthening its national economy and becoming Europe`s hegemon through ruining other countries and taking control over their economies.

European experts believe that the demands that Germany put on several European countries are inhumane. Angela Merkel does not care about pan-European interests, but is seeking to increase her country`s economic power at any price. For example, for three years Germany has demanded spending cuts in Greece, including social ones. However, military spending was an exclusion because Greece accounts for 15% of Germany`s arms exports. The sales of submarines to Greece alone earned Germany two billion euros. This means that the lion`s share of the money lent by Germany to Greece returns to Berlin through military spending. This is indeed a scheme to enrich Germany at the cost of throwing Greece into poverty.

This is why European countries, especially those hit by Germany`s financial expansion, are speaking of Merkel`s plans to restore the Fourth Reich. Germany is occupying Europe from an economic point of view. There are also plans to build a military stricture of the European Union, and it is Berlin that stands behind this idea. Merkel wants to go down in history like Bismarck. But will she?

In fact, the two chancellors have more differences rather than similarities. Bismarck`s foreign policy was called “the game with five European balls” (Austria, Russia, Great Britain, France and Germany), while Merkel`s maneuvers between the Normandy Four and the Weimar Triangle also reminds of a game.

Merkel is most probably unable to choose and pursue a political line for Germany independently because her country itself is a plaything in the hands of an overseas juggler.

However exotic it may look, Germany has not got its full sovereignty, and, in fact, remains under U.S. occupation. According to chief of German intelligence service Komossa, starting from 1949 all German chancellors must sign special “Chancellor Pacts” binding them to be vassals of America. Merkel`s behavior with respect to the Ukraine events gives reasons to say that the “Chancellor Pact” is still in force.

But this is today`s reality. Tomorrow after occupying Europe Germany will show its muscles to America too. Those who brought Adolf Hitler to power in 1933 with the aim of destroying the USSR and taking control over an extensive area including Europe are today implementing a plan to make Germany Europe`s hegemon.

Azerbaijan`s oil played an important role in ensuring the defeat of the Nazi Germany in the World War Two. Today our oil and gas are reaching Europe too. One can confidently say that if Germany takes full control of Europe, even Azerbaijani oil will not help Europeans.

Henceforth, Azerbaijan will be weighing up how to build relations with others, whom to believe and whom not? What trust and sincerity can one talk about in the relations with the authorities that cannot decide something by themselves.

“AZERBAYCAN”

 

© Content from this site must be hyperlinked when used.

FEEDBACK

Fields with * are required.

Please enter the letters as they are shown in the image above.
Letters are not case-sensitive.