U. S.-Azerbaijan relations: Who is Provoking Problems?

You are here: Main page »» International Relations »»
 0 comment Line Spacing+- AFont Size+- Print
Line Spacing+- AFont Size+- Print

Baku, 15 January 2015 –

The geopolitical significance of the South Caucasus has been a subject of multiple researches and forecasts. This region can provide a great impetus for stability and growth within a vast geography. Regrettably, certain circles in the U.S. make spurious allegations against Azerbaijan. They distort the facts and aim to shape an opinion of the country that is not even remotely valid. It is as fascinating as what actually underlies these developments. Baku has always been and continues to be genuine in its relations with Washington. Apparently, the root cause of the problem lies with the other party, and this is when thought-provoking aspects emerge.

Flaws of Foreign Policy: Washington is Inconsistent

Being the leader nation of the South Caucasus – Azerbaijan is within the interest area of the big geopolitical powers. And the relations with the U.S. are relevant today. Unfortunately, a number of American officials and experts fail to understand the depth of the relations between the two nations and thus, make groundless claims; even some high-ranking State Department officials come up with erroneous accusations. They primarily speak of the constraining of human rights, the quelling of the freedom of speech and the failure to uphold the rules of democracy.

There can be two vantage points here. The first, the problem stems from the general ambiguity of Washington’s foreign policy. The second, there are certain quarters in the West, that for some reasons (affiliation with the Armenian lobby or interests in the field of energy of other quarters), aim to tailor a negative image of Azerbaijan around the world.

Experts also highlight the presence of certain vague spots in the American foreign policy and its unsystematic nature. In his book titled ''Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower'', Z. Brzezinski addresses this issue. According to the author, the U.S. has the responsibility to carry out the world leadership. That being said, there is a lack of a targeted foreign policy to achieve this. And in terms of its engagement, the official Washington goes ''from problem to problem''.

Such an engagement paves the way for the rise of the conflicts, strifes and armed clashes in different parts of the world because the tactic of moving from problem to problem hampers the understanding of the broader picture. And as such, makes it all the more difficult to determine the fair and efficient objective. Like it or not, this provokes a wish to exploit the grievances for the sake of own interests.

The Middle East and the South Caucasus are the vivid illustrations of that. Iraq, Syria, Libya and Egypt proved that the official Washington is resorting to controversial steps. For example, Libya was immediately bombed. Ousting of the legitimately-elected President in Egypt saw condoning. And in Syria, it is still unclear what the U.S. wants. Instability and raging terror in Iraq is a direct consequence of erroneous U.S. policy. The security of the state in Iraq remains compromised and the terrorism is rampant.

The very course of the processes in the region has left many nations to face the catastrophic situation. Regional war in the Middle East may ignite any moment. The most perilous aspect is that this region has become a ''terrorism exporter'' to other parts of the world. How can a nation that conducts a foreign policy that provokes so many threats possibly lead the world?

The U.S. policy in the South Caucasus has also stumbled. Double standards are an evident trend here. In the declarations, they talk about upholding international law, objectivity, democracy and justice, yet for years, they are unable to tame the tiny Armenia. And let us not forget that, geopolitically Armenia is highly dependent on the foreign powers. This nation lacks a privilege of independent decision making. Is this the kind of a country that the West struggles to pacify?

Sincerity: Something the U.S. Needs

Indeed, the West is capable of not only appeasing but neutralizing Armenia. But instead, Yerevan gets sympathy, while the separatists in the Nagorno Karabakh receive millions of dollars in assistance. Let us imagine for a moment that a certain Muslim nation provided assistance to ISIS! Washington would be quick to respond and make loads of accusations, whereas the very capital is using different pretexts to boost the Armenian terror.

The performance of the country in the capacity of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair is also far from satisfactory. So far, not even once, that Washington unequivocally demanded the aggressor withdrew from Azerbaijan’s territory. Washington strongly reacted to the violation of Georgia and Ukraine’s territorial integrity. And it was not just mere declarations, but real actions that were taken. And today, the U.S. is playing a notable role in ensuring Georgia’s sovereignty. In the case of Ukraine, America is not shying away from a confrontation with such a powerful state as Russia, as she aims to cripple the latter through imposed sanctions. Benevolence towards Armenia is the greatest injustice against such a backdrop. Alas, there is no palpable change on this front. Apparently, without cardinal changes to the U.S.’s foreign policy, contradictions and inconsistency are likely to prevail. Owing to these factors, stabilization of the situation in the South Caucasus will be a daunting task.

Along with the above mentioned, rather pronounced factors in the Washington’s foreign policy, there are also efforts to meddle with the internal affairs of other countries. Groundless statements against Azerbaijan, made recently by the likes of T. Malinowski and D. Kramer, is another proof of the very thesis. Instead of addressing the human rights violations in their home country, they opt to ''evaluate'' the processes in Azerbaijan. The U.S. has become a country with surging domestic controversies. The process is intensifying and is reaching an extent that can put the nation in a predicament. Aren’t Americans aware of that? Perhaps, they are so engulfed with the leadership ambitions that shortcomings are neglected? Indeed, this is the greatest deficiency.

This illustrates that, relevance of the US-Azerbaijan relations must be acknowledged in Washington. Azerbaijani side has always been adherent of just, peace loving and equal cooperation. The country’s unwavering commitment to the norms of the international law is unquestionable. Baku is an active participant of multiple energy projects, supports the initiatives of the North Atlantic Alliance and is closely involved with the fight against terrorism. These are not just simple facts. These are components of a consistent and systematic foreign policy conducted by the leading nation of the South Caucasus.

There is another legitimate point here. The big powers must acknowledge the independence of Azerbaijan in the South Caucasus as something notable, because it is none other than Azerbaijan that is a significant contributor to stability and cooperation. The experience demonstrates that other nations that attained independence in the region are unable to perform so efficiently, whereas Azerbaijan managed to establish normal and balanced policy with respect to all the big stakeholder-nations.

All of the aforementioned lead to a conclusion: US-Azerbaijan relations can be essential for the stability of the South Caucasus. And if there are certain difficulties, the entire responsibility lies with the Washington. It is fascinating that being acutely aware of that, America continues to be unjust and guided by the double standards. What if Washington has a vested interest in the possible chaos here?

If this is indeed the case, it evokes nothing but regret, because in the utterly sensitive modern world security of different nations is interconnected. And even the leader nations are not immune, as destructive elements also can wreak havoc within. It is not just the small countries that are preoccupied with security. The big powers have greater responsibility on this matter. Therefore, it would be beneficial for all, if instead of meddling with the internal affairs of the country, a genuine engagement with Azerbaijan would be pursued.

Related articles

Azərbaycanın xarici ölkələrdəki diplomatik nümayəndəlikləri twitterdə

↳Yeni layihə

Foreign press

What peace could mean for the South Caucasus
23 February 2021

What peace could mean for the South Caucasus

The South Caucasus is a region historically known for its instability, largely because it has stood at the intersection of the zones of influence of first Byzantium and Iran, then the Ottoman Empire and Iran, and finally between Russia, Iran and Turkey.

German portal highlights burning of houses by Armenians before Kalbajar handover
17 November 2020

German portal highlights burning of houses by Armenians before Kalbajar handover

The portal says the Armenians must pull out from the district according to the agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia, brokered by Russia.