TOTAL OBEDIENCE FIXATION: THE POUTING HEGEMON STRIKES BACK

AZERBAIJAN

It so happens that lately a gust of familiarly intoned “human rights” criticism has been directed at Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliev and his government, originating from their erstwhile US and European strategic partners. (Yes, gentle reader, if you are endowed with memory and have finely honed political antennae, you have correctly noted the significance of the current president’s surname. Indeed, Papa Aliev, whose prehistoric affiliations included membership in the notoriously human rights sensitive CP of the USSR Politbureau, and who was eagerly lionized by the same “Western partners” in the 90s  when their immediate agenda was the breakup of the Soviet Union and access [and denial to Russia] to Azerbaijan’s vast oil and gas riches, is not just the biological progenitor of the current president, but the political founder of the modern independent Azeri state as well.)  As is the rule in these matters, all was proverbially well as long as submissive “cooperation” and “nation building”, with the simultaneous rape of natural resources by Western trans-nationals and the utilization of Azeri territory for subversive operations against nearby recalcitrant states, could proceed without hindrance. The current emergence of human rights issues (what an unusual coincidence!) coincides with certain policy corrections introduced, following his father’s departure, by the younger President Aliev. In the relevant full spectrum dominance chancelleries such effrontery was interpreted as no less than lèse-majesté, an impermissible interference with the settled order of things, requiring immediate disciplining of the offender.

Aliev: Fall from grace, suddenly a serious "human rights violator".

As soon, therefore, as the current President Aliev – guided by whatever considerations – made his choice in favor of an independent and more balanced foreign policy, some standard script things promptly transpired. Until literally the day before an admirable democratic partner, he was now pronounced to be an obnoxious authoritarian, a human rights violator, and a consistent scoffer at “democratic values.” (Underlining the gravity of these charges, and to make a political point that surely would be noted all the way to Baku, a committee of the US Congress, also known in some naïve circles as “the greatest deliberative body on earth,” met at 2 p.m. on November 5, 2015, having nothing more pressing to consider than “The rule of law and civil society in Azerbaijan,” thus amply earning their keep for the day from the American taxpayers.) It is also broadly indicative that the opening of the European Games in Baku, in 2015, was demonstratively not attended by any of the Western leaders, their underlings, or even their office cleaning ladies. Talk about isolation and sending a strong message! Going even further, to rub it in on the eve of the aforementioned European Games, the German Bundestag dutifully passed a resolution in condemnation of “human rights violations in Azerbaijan.” The “all the news that’s fit to print” New York Times was not far behind with its own fulminations about the “rule of law crisis” in the same unhappy land. Predictably, the US State Department also chimed in with its own lurid allegation.

Mammadov: A pseudo martyr of convenience. The Western propaganda machinery manufactures them on demand.

In concert with these human rights authorities (but without suggesting any conspiracy theory, of course) Brussels soon added its own two cents’ worth. At the end of September 2015, at a meeting of a committee of the Council of Europe, Secretary-General Thorbjørn Jagland called for the introduction of sanctions against Baku for “systematic violations of democratic principles and human rights.” Jagland then brought up to the attention of the world public a new outrage committed by the hapless Azeri government. It arrogantly refuses, he claimed, to honor the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) with regard to a certain Ilgar Mammadov, leader of the opposition ReAl (Republican Alternative) Movement, imprisoned for inciting social disorder but proclaimed by Brussels to be Azerbaijan’s poster boy “prisoner of conscience.”

There, once again, we see the familiar double-standard pattern. While verbally committed to “stability” and the related mantras, in practice Western political mechanisms and their covert services are actively undermining the government of a sovereign country, all for daring to introduce a measure of balance in its foreign relations.

Not to be intimidated, President Ilham Aliev curtly responded to these pressures by raising the entirely thinkable possibility of his country’s departure from the meddlesome Council of Europe. “If Azerbaijan withdraws from the Council of Europe,” he noted with remarkable common sense, “nobody will even notice, and nothing will change for us. As a result, we will be neither richer, nor poorer. We are fulfilling our international obligations not for the sake of gaining the approval of the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe but for the sake of our country’s development.” As indeed nothing whatsoever would change in such an event, any more than anything did as a result of the United States’ withdrawal from UNESCO.

Not one to let pass making a fitting repartee, Aliev made his own recommendation to the Council of Europe. Before taking up Azerbaijan’s case, he suggested, it ought to ensure first the implementation of over 10,000 European Court of Human Rights verdicts by such “advanced democratic countries” as Great Britain, France, and Spain, as well as others such as Italy and Moldova, to name just a few.

But to return to the gist of the matter, mindful of the recent experience of other targeted states, the Azeri government has no illusions about the ultimate purpose of the local Western-financed “NGO” network. At best, they are aiming for a Ukrainian scenario in Baku, and at worst its Syrian variant. In Azerbaijan (and also, as we shall soon see, in Serbia) Western “partners” are playing their all too familiar double game. While shaking hands with President Aliev, and still even pledging support, they are financing simultaneously such violently subversive outfits as Meydan  TV, which calls from the safety of far-off Berlin for turning vibrant Baku into a replica of desolated Damascus.

Apparently, if one may judge by the pattern of support being extended to local Azeri discontents, the hegemon is not loath to entertain even the horrors of the Syrian scenario in the maniacal quest for absolute obedience. How else to explain the massive funding, in Azerbaijan, of revolutionary outfits which make no secret of their commitment to undermining the foundations of a stable, secular authority? Behind these subversive factions are “all the usual suspects,” USAID, NED, EED, and other institutions of a similar ilk.

[dropcap]Q[/dropcap]uite recently, in fact, the infamous NED funneled over a million dollars to Azeri opposition “NGOs”. A notable feature of this operation is that NED conspicuously refused Azeri government’s request to furnish a list of local grant recipients. By contrast in Georgia, where imperial influence is deep and widespread, a similar request by that country’s government was complied with. The confidential nature of the identity of the Azeri grantees strongly suggests that they are slated for covert utilization as pawns in the forthcoming regime change operation to be directed against the errant government of that country.

At the same time, it should be noted that the Azeri government itself is not entirely blameless of naïve good faith actions that ignore established lessons in dealing with Western “partners” and are also clearly to its detriment. A case in point is Baku’s decision to release Emin Huseynov, a “journalist and human rights activist” avidly promoted by kindred soul Christiane Amanpour, who was facing serious criminal charges. Huseynov is now in Switzerland whence he is predictably conducting a subversive campaign against the Azeri government that released him, amply supplied with Western funds. A classical mistake, of course, which even the legendary Putin did not manage to avoid when he ordered the release of his designated oligarch nemesis Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who is now plotting against him – another awkward coincidence – also from Switzerland.

If the hegemon so values “stability,” further and related questions can appropriately be raised. If stability is the goal, why shake up the Azeri status quo by unleashing agents of influence such as Ilgar Mammadov — leader of the foreign cultivated ReAl Movement? Is Washington so naïve as to be out of the loop about Baku’s success in uncovering the financing scheme for ReAl – the most radical and aggressive of Azerbaijan’s opposition organizations? Is the State Department blissfully ignorant of the incendiary rhetoric of another of its “dissident” favorites, Natiq Jafarli, in the social media? If they are aware, why are they incessantly supplying them with money?

SERBIA

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]e now cross over from the Caspian to the Danube, from Azerbaijan to Serbia, to briefly check out the comparative situation in our other case study, and to see how it complements the picture about the way the imperial total obedience fixation functions.

A fundamental difference between the two leaderships must be stressed at this point. Whatever insouciant (to use Craig Paul Roberts’ apposite term) flirting the Azeris may have engaged in with their Western “partners,” they were always mindful of their country’s national interest. Their Serbian counterparts, on the other hand, never entertained any such concerns because they were entirely bought and paid for from the start.

The steady drumbeat of Western articulated criticism, with identical refrains and – more importantly – exactly the same fingerprints as in Azerbaijan, is now mounting against the Serbian government. Yet what rather markedly distinguishes that government from its Azeri counterpart is that [1] regardless of the tainted source, all the harsh criticisms levelled against it so far are absolutely and provably correct, and have been manifestly so for a very long time before the drumbeat was turned on, and [2] while from the imperial perspective, on the scale of disobedience, the Azeri government may indeed be guilty of some policy deviations, their Serbian colleagues are absolutely blameless of that charge, having been humbly compliant to a fault. But regardless, pending completion of some important unfinished tasks, the Serbian regime is now in line to be unceremoniously thrown under the bus. The recent arriviste presidential inauguration bacchanal in Belgrade, involving the pitiless slaughter of thousands of helpless beasts, intended to put no less than a kilo of beef on the plate of each of the 6,000 lucky invitees,  a veritable animal Srebrenica (tactfully, the government has withheld information on whether guests were also provided with doggy bags at public expense), was quickly overshadowed by a wave of professionally organized and well financed anti-government demonstrations, which erupted the very next day after the Serbian president’s extraordinary electoral triumph was proclaimed. A slap in the face such as only Western “partners” are capable of administering.

The reasons for the no-holds-barred assault on President Aliev are clear enough: his moderate attempts to bring his country’s policy in line with the reality of its geopolitical environment and, most importantly, national interest. But his Serbian colleague, and his corrupt clique, cannot possibly be held accountable for any such offense. Far from being disobedient, they are in fact happy plantation slaves, singing contentedly as they pick the cotton for their master. Where did they go wrong and how can they now correct the error of their ways?

Their error turns out to be not that they were unwilling in principle, but that they have left the impression of being insufficiently avid to fulfill the master’s tasks by the deadlines that were set for them. There are three such absolute priority tasks: recognizing in the name of Serbia the NATO created mafia state of Kosovo, joining NATO, and cutting even the slender remaining ties to Russia, in the name of EU’s foreign policy coordination.

The fulfillment of these tasks, a tall order for anyone, to be sure, in a staunchly pro-Russian and anti-NATO country like Serbia, has now been prioritized and is on track for completion some time in 2018.

Barring the intervention of some unanticipated circumstances, there is little doubt that Serbia’s servile – and now justifiably desperate – leadership will make an earnest effort to please their masters in the puerile expectation that such compliance, to their country’s gravest detriment, will help remove the sword of regime change now hanging over their heads.

We shall, of course, follow these developments with great attention, but without prejudging the outcome some probabilities can be identified in advance. There is no example in empirical experience where imperial trust, once willfully or inadvertently lost, was ever successfully restored. Serbia’s venal and moronic leaders can take it for granted that they have been written off. The best they can hope for is for the executioner’s sword to be delayed long enough for them to complete their disreputable assignments. After that, they will be given one remaining task which none of their Western interlocutors so far has been honest enough to disclose to them. It is to take the blame for the disastrous consequences and the ruthless betrayal of their people and to be driven out of office so that a new set of quislings, of unsullied reputation, can take over to carry on unhindered with the heinous work of treason.

Is there an escape from the obedience school?  There most assuredly is an escape, and the positive example of Azerbaijan demonstrates that, taking into account all the mistakes that have been made along the way.

A fundamental danger for Azerbaijan is that – in its quest for total control and in order to install at any cost a reliable pro-Western regime – the hegemon will not hesitate to also incidentally undermine the foundations of the Azeri secular state. Some movement in that direction can already be detected in the form of large scale investment in radical religious propaganda.

It goes without saying that the battle for Azerbaijan (in its own way every bit a “prize,” just as the Ukraine was said to be a few years ago, in the famous words of Western think tank functionary Carl Gershman) will continue at a furious pace. Imperial political warfare specialists are developing and adapting strategies designed to implant in strategically important Baku a fully subservient set of players, ensuring the country’s permanent and unequivocal pro-Western orientation. The pressure on the Azeri government will therefore continue unabated and material designed to compromise President Aliev and his staff will continue to be publicized (another proof that the playbook is virtually the same is that lately a number of close associates of the Serbian president have also come out with scintillating exposes). In the division of labor, Brussels’ role will be to issue ultimatums insisting on fundamental changes in Azerbaijan’s internal policy, with emphasis on “democracy” and alleged persecution of local “civil society.”

However, due to the operation of the law of unintended consequences that may in the end prove to be a very counter-productive approach. By pushing Azerbaijan into a corner the West may leave it no other practical solution than to pursue all-out integration with regional blocks. (For obvious geographical reasons, in Serbia’s case such a maneuver would be much more difficult to execute.) The contours of a triangular entente of Azerbaijan, Russia, and Iran are already visible, and coincidentally a new and interesting Russia – Turkey geopolitical axis is also taking shape. Time will tell, but these regional geopolitical realignments may in the end lead to the formation of a new block of cooperating regional states – including Russia, Iran, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan – that would be guaranteed to increase the displeasure of imperial strategists.

To which the reminder might be added that Azerbaijan and Russia are petroleum and gas exporting countries. Moscow and Baku are jointly building pipelines, thus depriving the US of the European market for its expensive liquefied natural gas. They are assisted in that project by Turkey as a vital transit country.

One may suppose that with Azerbaijan it is a matter of utmost importance for Europe to refrain from interfering in its internal affairs and to cease addressing it using the rhetoric of ultimatums. As luck would have it, such a turnaround should also suit Europe, assuming that it has drawn the lessons from collective policy mistakes it committed in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.