The European Parliament’s plenary session: Continued repression of civil society and independent media in Azerbaijan and the cases of Dr Gubad Ibadoghlu, Anar Mammadli, Kamran Mammadli, Rufat Safarov

December 18, 2024 — Strasbourg, France

The European Parliament has issued a strong condemnation of Azerbaijan’s escalating repression of civil society and independent media. In a session that spotlighted the plight of political prisoners, particularly that of Sakharov Prize finalist Dr. Gubad Ibadoglu, MEPs called for decisive measures to uphold human rights and reassess the EU’s partnership with Baku. The debate reflected growing frustration with Azerbaijan’s disregard for its democratic commitments and raised critical questions about the EU’s continued reliance on the country for energy supplies.

Dr. Ibadoglu’s case became a symbol of the regime’s relentless crackdown. The prominent economist remains under house arrest, denied medical care, and barred from participating in international events such as the Sakharov Prize ceremony. His family, subjected to threats and intimidation, faces the same tactics deployed against many dissidents. Sebastião Bugalho emphasized that Dr. Ibadoglu’s situation is not isolated but part of a broader pattern of targeting those who dare to challenge the regime. “The price for freedom in Azerbaijan today is life itself,” Bugalho warned, urging the EU to stand unequivocally with those fighting for democracy in the country.

The discussion highlighted Azerbaijan’s hosting of COP29, which many viewed as a chance to expose the regime’s human rights abuses on a global stage. However, as Matthias Ecke noted, the event became a tool for further repression. Activists and journalists were arrested in its wake, revealing how the regime used the international spotlight not for reform but for entrenching its power. “We hoped COP29 would open the eyes of the world, but it only emboldened a regime intent on silencing dissent,” Ecke remarked. This critique reflects not just disappointment in Azerbaijan’s actions but also in the international community’s passivity. By failing to hold Azerbaijan accountable, world leaders missed an opportunity to challenge its authoritarian practices. The arrests that followed COP29 underscore the danger of engaging with such regimes without robust conditions, raising questions about how global events can inadvertently legitimize oppressive governments when accountability mechanisms are absent.

The EU’s dependence on Azerbaijani oil and gas was a contentious point in the debate, with lawmakers grappling with the ethical implications of sustaining energy partnerships with a regime accused of widespread human rights abuses. Petras Auštrevičius crystallized this tension in a stark observation: “More fossil fuels, fewer political rights, and growing numbers of political prisoners. This is the reality of Azerbaijan today.” His statement underscored the paradox at the heart of the EU’s approach, pursuing energy security while tolerating authoritarianism that directly contradicts the Union’s commitment to democracy and human rights.

This dilemma extends beyond Azerbaijan. As the EU seeks alternatives to Russian energy, it increasingly risks entrenching relationships with regimes that exploit the Union’s dependence to suppress dissent at home. The Azerbaijani government, buoyed by its role as a key energy supplier, has shown little willingness to improve its human rights record. This raises a critical question: does the EU’s reliance on such partnerships inadvertently embolden regimes that violate the very principles the Union claims to uphold?

Other MEPs called for a recalibration of the EU’s energy strategy, arguing that dependency on fossil fuels from authoritarian states undermines the Union’s global credibility. They highlighted the contradiction between the EU’s rhetoric on democratic values and its actions, which often prioritize short-term energy needs over long-term ethical governance.While energy partnerships are often framed as pragmatic necessities, they create moral hazards when regimes like Azerbaijan use the resulting economic and political capital to fortify authoritarian practices. Without conditions or accountability, such arrangements risk signaling that the EU will overlook violations of fundamental freedoms in exchange for energy security.

As the session concluded, there was a clear sense that the Parliament was reaching a turning point in its approach to Azerbaijan. The debate was not just a critique of the Aliyev regime but a broader reflection on Europe’s responsibility to uphold its principles, even in the face of economic and geopolitical challenges. Reliance on authoritarian energy suppliers is no longer just a policy issue, it is a fundamental test of the EU’s identity and values. For Dr. Ibadoglu and countless others languishing under repression, the European Parliament’s message was one of solidarity and resolve: their struggles are seen, their voices are heard, and the fight for freedom in Azerbaijan remains a moral imperative for Europe.