The second semi-final of the Eurovision Song Contest takes place
today. For some countries the results tonight are incredibly important. One
example is Georgia, a country keen to promote itself on the world stage. Part
of the process of constructing “the nation” involves establishing the state
within the wider geopolitical context. For a small country participation in
events like the Eurovision Song Contest offer an opportunity to do exactly
this.
Earlier this week I attended a reception with the Georgian
Ambassador here in Sweden who spoke about the importance of events such as
Eurovision for promoting the country. This wasn’t the usual affair with free
wine, food and banal chat. This was a Georgian cultural afternoon where the
Ambassador presented for 20 minutes about Georgia and the importance to them of
European integration. For years the Estonian government have been advising the
Georgians on reform and it is clear from speaking to them that this is a
country which is hungry for recognition as a full and equal European partner.
What’s this got to do with Eurovision though? Well smaller,
lesser known countries have few opportunities to punch above their weight. As
the Irish showed in the 1990s, Eurovision gives host countries the chance to
say something to the world and on their own terms. The publicity gained from
winning and staging the contest could not be bought. What’s interesting is that
with Georgia, it is mere participation in this event which is important to
them. It’s not just smaller, lesser known countries which use Eurovision as a
promotional opportunity. Some use it as an exercise in public diplomacy.
Greece, on its knees financially and yet still continues to participate in
Eurovision. Failure to take part would effectively present an image of the
country as a poor relative of the EBU. Last night the Greeks performed their
song at the Euro Café here in Malmö. Before doing so they performed the Turkish
entry from 2004 before announcing “Turkey should be here in Eurovision”. This
is hugely significant and a reflection of the progress the Greeks and Turks
have made in terms of their relationship. Eurovision offers an opportunity to
further international relations and I think this is what makes it just that
little bit more than a TV show.
Rehearsals are continuing here in Malmo; some good, some bad and some very ugly! I'm not going to provide a critique as there are so many others blogging about the performances. I will say though, it's amazing how opinions change, as they always do. Songs which I hadn't even considered qualifying are now coming across very strongly. I have a sneaky suspicion about Malta now! Time will tell...
The Swedes are injecting a little bit of politics into the event this year, even though the EBU continuously insist that Eurovision is "not a political event". The slogan for this year, "We Are One", is said to reflect the diversity of Europe and the importance of universal human rights. Given that the contest is taking place in Malmö, one of the most diverse cities in Sweden, this is fitting.
The Swedes aren't afraid to tackle the difficult questions that were dodged so many times in Azerbaijan. At the press conference for Belarus our host, Alexandra Pascalidou, asked the delegation about the situation in their country with regards to freedom of expression. Awkward. The team, unsurprisingly, didn't answer the question and just said how much they love Eurovision. Their Dear Leader would have been proud I'm sure. Some journos here questioned the appropriateness of such an angle given that "it's only Eurovision". I think it's completely appropriate. These are press conferences and yet they're used as an opportunity to fawn over random acts. There are very serious and real questions concerning freedom of speech and human rights amongst so many of the participating countries. I spoke to Alexandra after the press conference, she's a feisty woman and was completely unrepentant about asking those delicate issues.
"I have fought hard for equality for all throughout my life. I'm a Greek Swede born in Romania. We have countries in this contest which don't uphold basic freedoms which most of us live by. I will not be told not avoid certain subjects by anyone".
I think it's important to speak for people who have no voice, to raise these issues. Yes, the singers can't do anything to change things but it would be wrong to simply sweep it under the carpet. I'm not meaning to have a go at Belarus, it's one of my favourite songs this year, however it is essentially a regime country. The EBU are in a very awkward position and will be should the contest ever go to Minsk.
Tonight it's the Belarusian party, I'll be there. I will try and speak to some of the delegation about life in Belarus. Is it really as bad as is reported? I doubt I'll get a true picture of the situation. It's important not to let ourselves become pawns in a propaganda exercise, no matter how much free booze they ply us with. We aren't one. That's the point that the Swedes are trying to make and fair play to them, they're certainly not "running scared".
Just two weeks ago I was in the middle of the Eurovision bubble, in Baku. Now, it's like it never happened. Eurovision 2012 may be over but it won't be easily forgotten by those who were there.
Something interesting happened this year though, the big fan favourite of the contest actually won! Sweden's Loreen was riding high in both the betting odds and fan polls and yet somehow I didn't think she would actually take the trophy. There have been too many times when a big fan favourite has failed at the final hurdle; Hungary in 2011, Iceland in 2010, Sweden in 2008 and of course two of the most spectacular flops: Belgium in 2006 and Cyprus in 1999. Personally, I didn't mind the song, I thought it was ok and still do. It wasn't my favourite (good old Eesti was, and still is!) but I am happy that Sweden won. Why? Well two reasons: firstly, it's a massive hit all over Europe which is good for the contest. "Euphoria" is currently sitting at number three in the UK top 40. This is an amazing achievement and means that the 2012 Eurovision winner is the biggest non-UK Eurovision hit since Germany's Nicole hit the top spot 30 years ago! The second reason is a purely selfish one; Sweden is easy to get to and accommodation will be (hopefully) pain-free to arrange! Now the beer prices, well, that's a whole other matter!
Hard luck to the UK, finishing second last was certainly disappointing. I thought the BBC made a brave decision to choose The Hump and in terms of UK audience, it was a stroke of genius. When it was announced that Engelbert Humperdinck would be representing the UK in Eurovision, there was intense media interest. The story featured on both the BBC and ITV news programmes. In terms of the profile of the contest, it was a triumph.
As for the song, it was pleasant, unoffensive and perfectly crafted. However, it wasn't instant enough for the average viewer and poor Engelbert's renditions were just a little bit off. On the Friday evening, when the juries were voting, The Hump didn't turn in his finest performance. That will have undoubtedly cost the UK valuable jury votes. On the Saturday night final, he looked a little out of his depth and ultimately delivered a disappointing performance. There was also the draw which didn't help poor Engelbert and the fact that this year was deemed by many fans to be a strong one and the winner too close to call.
I don't buy into the notion that "Europe hates us". We just weren't good enough. As much as I think the BBC made a brave and genius decision to select The Hump, he hadn't had a hit since the 1970s. Yes, there is always neighbourly voting - that's always been the case in Eurovision and probably always will be. The UK and Ireland are just as guilty of that these days. Ultimately though, the winner received points across the board with only one country, Italy, failing to give Sweden anything.
If the UK are hated so much by the public then how come Blue finished 5th in the televote last year? How come Jade Ewen finished 5th overall in Moscow in 2009? Eurovision is a television show on a Saturday night, do we really think people are sitting at home thinking "that's a great song from the UK but I couldn't vote for it because of David Cameron"? I think such notions, quite frankly, give too much credence to the average voter in Eurovision. Part of the issue may also lie in the voting structure in Eurovision. Only ten countries score points (1-8, 10, 12) so technically The Hump might have been mid-table with many countries and failed to score.
In a strong year, in a field of 42 entries, what makes us think that we deserve to be up there for simply gracing the stage? If the UK public couldn't get behind the song (it charted at number 60), then how can we expect Europe to vote for it? Such attitudes fail to acknowledge that Eurovision has changed and we have to change with it, come back next year, with something fresh and new and give Europe a damn good thrashing! Hard luck Engelbert, you were a fantastic ambassador for the UK and didn't have a thing to lose! Thank you for the music!
Azerbaijan was an interesting setting for the 2012 contest and one which I am incredibly glad that I went to. It was a year to remember for a number of reasons. Baku is four hours ahead of UK time which certainly played havoc with the old body clock! Allegations of human rights abuses, concerns about freedom of the press and freedom of expression, coupled with tensions between Azerbaijan and both Armenia and Iran meant that Eurovision 2012 was perhaps the most politically-charged contest of all time. I met some incredibly brave and inspiring people in Baku and I salute those from organisations such as Sing For Democracy who put themselves on the line. Activists did not want us to boycott Azerbaijan, they wanted us to come to the country and experience it for ourselves. A year ago there was no discussion concerning Azerbaijan's human rights record, where as now, there is a dialogue and I see that as a positive thing. I hope that the work that human rights activists do is allowed to progress without hindrance. It was interesting to note that Anke Engelke, one of the presenters from 2011, directly addressed the political situation in Azerbaijan during the voting:
"Tonight nobody could vote for their own country. But it is good to be able to vote. And it is good to have a choice. Good luck on your journey, Azerbaijan. Europe is watching you."
The volunteers and the ordinary people I met in Baku were wonderful. They were so incredibly friendly and helpful and were a credit to their country. Special thanks should also go to my friend Zuly who helped to arrange accommodation and contacts for me and also her brother Haji who was incredibly hospitable and provided us with a memorable evening of fine cuisine and followed by some karaoke I'd rather forget!
For me personally, Eurovision 2012 was exciting and interesting. I was fortunate to be interviewed by a variety of media outlets including the BBC's World Service as well as The Telegraph, Daily Express and even The Sun! I owe a debt of gratitude to the BBC3 team as well who produced the UK coverage of the two semi finals and provided me with a platform as 'Dr Eurovision'. I came home feeling very exhausted but overall, incredibly happy. Many of my friends talked about experiencing PED or Post-Eurovision Depression. I too have had a few pangs and certainly missed the friends I have made over the years and the new ones I met in Baku. I am already looking forward to being reunited again as our thoughts turn to Sweden in 2013. Ulimately though, it's back to reality which for now, is outside of the Eurovision bubble.
Well I've been in Baku nearly a week now and feel like I've lived here for years. I've finally sorted out my sense of direction and even know how and when to argue with the taxi drivers! Progress indeed!
I walked to the arena this morning - in glorious sunshine - and managed to get burned and step into a deceptive puddle. It looked about half a centimetre deep and turned out to be a crater of clay! Messy! I asked one of the gardeners to hose the shoe down and he went one better, he put it on and used the jet spray. Poor chap got soaked in the process but he was happy to help. The locals here have been so helpful and continue to work throughout the day and night in preparation for next week. A disabled toilet has appeared in the press centre. When I say disabled, a sign has been placed on one of the doors and railings have been inserted. The cubicle however, has not been widened so it's somewhat pointless and clearly an afterthought.
The Ralph Siegel party is actually on Sunday - I'm hoping to go! So another night in Euroclub it was. The DJs are mixing Eurovision music with more dancy stuff and it seems to be working. Unlike Moscow there the lack of Eurovision music really made the Euroclub a disappointing place to be, here in Baku, there is an attempt at compromise.
I often wonder what the security guards think of the delegates at Eurovision - loads of camp queens flouncing around and dancing to bizarre music. The volunteers also continue to dance the night away and are always great fun. A slightly awkward moment came last night when Armenia's 2010 Eurovision entry, "Apricot Stone" was played in the Euroclub. I've never seen a dancefloor clear so quickly! Some Azeris did stay, although it's unclear if they knew what they were dancing to. Another young lad ran around waving the Azeri flag vehemently. Politics is never far from Eurovision.
Bemused security guards at the Euroclub The party in full swing
The UK delegation are flying over tonight and will rehearse tomorrow. Then of course it's the opening party. More later!
The politics of Eurovision is heating up after Armenia’s withdrawal from the 2012 contest. After initially confirming their participation in the event, the country has decided not to send a delegation to Baku after all. Not a huge surprise. Armenia and Azerbaijan have had a difficult relationship in Eurovision not to mention on the world stage. Azeri law forbids citizens of Armenia to enter the country so an Armenian delegation was never going to be a particularly welcome one in some circles. Even if they had been given extra security there would have still been an element of risk involved. Was this decision entirely pragmatic though? Why did they initially apply to take part in the first place? Could it be a case of Armenia trying to "get one over" on Azerbaijan?
As the Soviet Union crumbled an explosion of national questions emerged from Vilnius to Vladivostok. Campaigns for independence emerged in the Baltic States whilst internal divisions came to the fore within the Russian Federation itself. Nagorno-Karabakh was an autonomous oblast within the Azeri Soviet Socialist Republic with a majority Armenian population. By the end of the 1980s there were movements from within the territory to secede from Azerbaijan and unite with Armenia. A referendum in favour of this was returned, of which the Azeri population boycotted the vote. By 1991 the conflict had escalated into a full-scale war which saw thousands killed, wounded and displaced. An uneasy ceasefire was declared in 1994 leaving the territory in the hands of Armenian forces although with neither side officially backing down, Nagorno-Karabakh remains de jure part of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
This conflict has been reflected in the Eurovision Song Contest since Armenia first entered in 2006 and Azerbaijan in 2008. In 2006 the Armenian singer, Andre, had his place of birth listed as “Nagorno-Karabakh” on his profile. After complaints from the Azeri media this section of the singer’s biography was removed. In 2009 a series of disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan unfolded throughout the live broadcasts of the semi-finals and final. During the semi-finals, an introductory “postcard” leading into the Armenian performance depicted, amongst other monuments, a statue located in Stepanakert, capital city of the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. The delegation from Azerbaijan complained to the EBU that the video clip was unacceptable based on the fact that Nagorno-Karabakh is officially a part of Azerbaijan, and it was subsequently edited out for the broadcast of the final. In retaliation, the presenter of the Armenian votes held up a clipboard with the monument’s picture on it multiple times as she read off the votes. In the background a screen in the capital’s main square could also be seen to display the disputed monument.
In August 2009 the BBC reported that several people had been questioned in Azerbaijan after their votes for Armenia were traced by mobile phone service providers. According to the BBC “one man was accused of being unpatriotic and a “potential security threat” after he sent a text backing Armenia’s song […] the Azerbaijani authorities said people had merely been invited to explain why they voted for Armenia” (BBC News, 18 August 2009). The issue was investigated by the EBU and whilst they found no evidence to pursue the affair, a clause preventing telecom communication providers from disclosing personal information was added to the rules of the contest.
Armenia and Azerbaijan are not the only countries to have had political disputes via the Eurovision Song Contest. Georgia initially refused to take part in Eurovision in Moscow in 2009 as a result of the war with Russia in South Ossetia in August 2008. Other countries including the Baltic States tentatively considered boycotting the event as a protest at what they saw as Russian aggression. However by early 2009 Georgia confirmed their participation in the event. However the song, “We Don’t Wanna Put In”, was largely seen as a swipe at Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and deemed to the “too political” by the EBU. The Georgian broadcasting authorities were asked to change the lyrics of the song or submit a different entry. The Georgian Public Broadcaster declined to do this and Georgia therefore did not take part that year.
Groups such as Amnesty International allege that there are widespread human rights abuses occurring in Azerbaijan. Yesterday The Observer reported that Iceland is considering pulling out of the competition and that there have been similar calls in other countries too. However not everyone is so dogmatic, others such as Emin Milli, an Azeri blogger see Eurovision as an opportunity for Azerbaijan’s civil society. The spotlight is going to be on Azerbaijan as it prepares to host one of the biggest live events in the world. According to the EBU, the national broadcaster of Azerbaijan, İctimai Television has stated that freedom of the press and freedom of expression will be upheld in the country. With this come opportunities for dialogue which is surely a good thing?
All things considered, I didn’t really expect Armenia to sing in Baku. I did however think that they might “do a Georgia” and enter a song which could perhaps be read as a political jibe. They haven’t done that, instead they have quietly walked away. The EBU have expressed their regret over this decision and it’s an unfortunate one for many reasons. Eurovision was created to unite fractured European nations through song. It seems that in this case, Joy Fleming’s 1975 mantra is not true; a song can’t always build a bridge.
