Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
April 18, 2005, Monday
AZERBAIJAN’S ACTION PLAN
SOURCE: Voyenno-Promyshlenny Kurier, No. 13, April 13-19, 2005, p. 3
by Dzhasur Mamedov
The Azerbaijan-NATO plan of individual partnership is expected to be
discussed and approved in late April. In his interview to our reporter
Araz Azimov, deputy foreign minister of Azerbaijan, noted that the plan
was elaborated together with NATO international headquarters. Once a
consensus is reached, this document will be submitted to consideration
of all NATO member nations, i.e. 26 countries. Only after this
procedure ends, the individual partnership will be endorsed and passed.
In case it is implemented, the Individual Partnership Action Plan
(IPAP) becomes a milestone for cooperation in NATO plus Azerbaijan
format, Robert Simmons, NATO secretary general’s special envoy for
the South Caucasus and Central Asia, stated in early February. This
project envisages quite clear targets in planning the defense policy
of Azerbaijan. Specific deadlines are envisaged there as well.
IPAP’s benefits for Azerbaijan
Leila Yunus, director of the Azerbaijani Institute for peace and
Democracy, who has regular contacts with NATO leaders, tried to explain
to our reporter what the plan actually implies. In her words, the
document proposes reforms in armies of countries, which are seeking
NATO membership and have individual cooperation with NATO. Besides,
the document envisages adjustment of the optimal budgetary forms,
which are to play the role of the financial basis in preparing a
specific country for integration into NATO.
“The draft plan of 35 pages envisages (as a priority) standardization
of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces to comply with NATO standards. In this
context the document presents framework agreements for Azerbaijan. For
instance, one of them envisages visits of NATO officers into our
country. Similar agreements open great opportunities for experience
exchange, conduction of war games and improving military education,”
Yunus said.
Interestingly enough, officials give no comments with regard to this
issue. For instance, above mentioned Araz Azimov denied announcing
the specific date when the action plan would be declared. Defense
Ministry officials left this question unanswered either due to the
fact that “the work is underway yet.” Colonel Ramiz Melikov, the
Defense Ministry’s press secretary added that both NATO specialists
and experts of the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry are working over the
plan and “when time comes, the plan will be presented to the public.”
At the same time, Melikov assured that Azerbaijan would fulfill all
of its commitments on implementation of the IPAP.
Unlike defense officials, Yunus said referring to Despina Afentouli
(a member of NATO public information office) that the full text
of the IPAP would soon be posted to the official NATO website. She
had received an official letter from NATO on this problem the day
before and is puzzled why this document is kept a secret. According
to Yunus, the Alliance has hitherto given the right for publication to
our authorities, which generated the negative response of Azerbaijani
national-patriotic organizations. “Only after this NATO promised that
the relevant information would be posted onto official NATO website,”
Yunus underscored.
How to integrate in NATO
Despite the silent conspiracy, the Doktrina center of journalist
military investigation (ZhTsVRA), managed to unveil some details
of the IPAP. With references to diplomatic and military sources the
center’s representatives noted that if the project is discussed and
approved this April, changes must occur in the military sphere of
Azerbaijan by 2007, which would make standards of the national army
closer to NATO standards. Seven out of fourteen sections of the IPAP
are solely dedicated to issues of Azerbaijan’s defense and security.
The first section has been entitled the nature and point of reforms
conducted in the Armed Forces and the security system. It gives a
list of significant reforms, which will enable to draw closer to NATO
standards and envisages amendments for the laws.
The second section indicates the names of the states, which would
aid Azerbaijan in this heavy cause, as well as directions of their
activities. In addition, this section talks about significance of
involving the Azerbaijani servicemen in war games conducted under
NATO standards.
The third section underscores significance of improving the security
system, which includes raising the level of material (uniforms,
nutrition, pay for servicemen) and technical (weapons and military
equipment) provisions, as well as a necessity for staff reforms.
Mentioned among the donor-states are the Baltic States (in the
sphere of improving military legislation), Germany and the UK
(military personnel training), the USA and Turkey (financing,
military equipment).
The fourth section entitled Planning is considered to be most
important. It specifies the timing for the reforms. Extra six months
could be added if Azerbaijan fails to fully comply with NATO standards
by 2007 (if this lateness is linked to contingencies).
Along with that, this section mentions the necessity for personnel
cutbacks, raising the number of civilians in military service. It is
planned to abolish some directorates and departments of the Defense
Ministry, which perform similar functions, and set up a consolidated
department on their basis.
The fifth section is dedicated to the optimal budget, which becomes a
financial source for the reforms. According to the plan, by the end
of 2007 Azerbaijan’s defense expenditures are to exceed the current
defense spending by several times, i.e. total some $350-400 million,
as specified in the IPAP. At the same time, a raise in wages for
servicemen must be installed in the budget.
The sixth section stresses significance of forming democratic
institutions in the defense sphere, i.e. creation of civil, public
control. The parliament is assigned the main “controlling” burden;
he must be more concerned for social benefits for the military than
other structures.
The seventh section is similar to the sixth one; demand for
transparency in the army and openness of maintenance spending is its
main distinction; i.e., the Main Inspectorate won’t be subordinate
to the Defense Ministry anymore and becomes an independent civil
structure.
Replacement of the military establishment
Nevertheless, according to experts, the issue of staff reforms, which
are inevitable in the military establishment (similar to what happened
in neighboring Georgia), is among priority details in the IPAP.
It should be mentioned that officers, who are graduates of military
schools complying with NATO standards, were involved in leading
the Georgian army as far back as in mid-2004. Georgian President
Saakashvili underlined that from this moment on only the officers who
have military education according to NATO standards would be admitted
into leadship in the national Armed Forces. The Georgian analog
of the IPAP was passed as far back as December 2004. NATO military
experts have lately arrived in Georgia to familiarize themselves to
implementation of this project.
According to experts, there will be formal reforms in Azerbaijan if
NATO personnel are not involved in leading the national army.
As should be expected, Defense Ministry spokesperson Melikov disagrees
with this point. In his opinion, officers representing the incumbent
Defense Ministry leadership, comply with all modern standards. “We
have Western career officers in our army now” he said but refused to
answer the following question, “Are any of them among heads of the
Defense Ministry?”
According to Melikov, the place where an officer gets his education is
not important. Most importantly, is that they have regular contacts
with their Western colleagues. “Moreover, Azerbaijani officers pass
training courses in many NATO member nations and the officers have
been trained in Azerbaijan according to NATO standards since 1997,”
Melikov emphasized.
In his turn, Sulheddin Akper, president of the Azerbaijan-NATO
Cooperation Association, former national security minister of the
Azerbaijani Republic, disagrees with Melikov. He noted in his interview
that if graduates of Russian military schools make the establishment
of the Azerbaijani army and officers prefer to speak Russian inside
the Defense Ministry, it would at least be inapt to maintain that
our army complies with NATO military standards.
“NATO leaders don’t conceal their demands that the military
establishment be replaced. Another phase begins after the IPAP is
approved – the Membership Action Plan. This requires our country to
lodge an official appeal to NATO. Both the plans require reformation
of the military sphere, as well as politics and the economy,”
Akper stated.
Leila Yunus doesn’t believe either that any drastic changes occur in
the Azerbaijani military establishment (which is unable to make the
reforms true) in the near future. According to Yunus, in issues of
integration in the European structures (including the army reforms)
Azerbaijan is not behind Georgia, which has real prerequisites for
becoming a NATO member, but Armenia either. “If we’ve decided to
integrate in NATO, we mustn’t hope for the off-chance; moreover,
a visit of Romualdus Razhuks, NATO’s liaison officer for the South
Caucasus, to Baku is scheduled for early April,” the expert reminded.