Azarbaycan, Azerbaijan Sept 9 2017 Baku warns USA of repercussions if criticism continues Obama-era stereotypes still exist in the USA [groong note: the below is translated from Azeri] Over the past few days Azerbaijan has faced a new smear campaign, which was launched by some Western forces and which may cast shadow on the prospects of US-Azerbaijani relations. Baku under attack On 4 September, The Washington Post and The Guardian published two sponsored articles, signalling a new wave of attacks [on Baku] and setting in motion a giant discreditation machine, which also involves "the fifth column". There were no doubts that Azerbaijan has once again become the target of criticism from various international organisations and the official representatives of several states. On 7 September, US State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said in a statement that the jailed head of Turan news agency, Mehman Aliyev, should be released. Then pro-Armenian Senator Richard [Dick] Durbin proposed amendments to the fiscal year 2018 State And Foreign Operations appropriations bill, envisaging sanctions against Azerbaijani officials. David Kramer and other critics on staff remaining from the Obama administration have started a campaign for the implementation of sanctions. Thus, it can be seen that Soros-linked circles and the Armenian lobby, which always target Azerbaijan, took the opportunity to try and spoil the US-Azerbaijani relationship and strategic partnership. Trump vowed non-interference We have to admit that that after Donald Trump was elected US president there were hopes that the problems that emerged between the two countries during the Obama administration would be solved. [Passage omitted: Presidents Trump and Aliyev had a telephone conversation after Trump's election; President Aliyev was invited to the 2017 nuclear security summit; President Trump congratulated Aliyev on Azerbaijan's Independence Day] On the other hand, Mr Trump said repeatedly that unlike in previous years, the USA would not build its foreign policy on the principles of interference into other countries' domestic affairs and would not try to control them. That made one think that the US president has set an objective to develop equitable and mutually beneficial relationships with other countries. This policy could be a good start to reverse negative trends and the cold spell that happened in US-Azerbaijan relations during President Barack Obama's tenure and to develop an effective and equitable cooperation and strategic partnership between the two countries. But the latest events have shown that official Washington has not yet removed the Obama-era stereotypes and various lobbying groups' serious levers to influence state policy. Forces maintain important positions within the State Department, Congress and other important executive and legislative institutions and are interfering in independent countries' domestic affairs and instructing the USA's partners to review their policy under the pretext of "democracy" and "human rights", which runs counter to Mr Trump's strategic line. These forces believe that Azerbaijan should not have a statehood and national interests and that it should not cross the limits they set. This is a completely wrong way of thinking. Azerbaijan has already proved that, as an independent state, it alone defines its internal and foreign policy and international relations, and it does not need any advice from foreign power centres or forces. Maybe that is why some circles in the USA think that Azerbaijan "does not accept" the West and its values. That is why some Western media, including The Washington Post, which is considered to be the State Department's mouthpiece, publish fake reports about Azerbaijan that contradict the concept of partnership and go beyond [media] ethics, and that is why the Human Rights Watch, Freedom House and other organisations of this kind are used to exert pressure [on Baku]. Baku tolerates criticism For many years Azerbaijan has tolerated such accusations, doing everything possible to prevent these unjust attacks from casting a shadow on the strategic partnership, mutually beneficial bilateral and multilateral ties. On the one hand, Azerbaijan has shown its commitment to its strategic choice, duties and obligations. On the other hand, it has shown that, as an independent state, it is eager to build relations with all global political powers on the basis of equal cooperation and will never take any step that could put its national interests at risk. Within this context, the sincerity of Azerbaijan's attitude to the USA and the European Union could be considered as exemplary. The reality is that official Baku has not yet given up this choice and is trying to develop its strategic partnership with the European Union and the USA despite pressure from different power centres and some regional states. ... but may have had enough But can official Baku review its partnership policy towards the West and take appropriate steps if the anti-Azerbaijani forces and lobby interests prevail in the USA and if the Magnitsky Act, which was imposed on Russia, is applied to Azerbaijan? What could be these steps? According to experts, experience shows that although official Baku is quite sincere in its relationship with its partners, it has never tolerated a policy of pressure and dominance. From this point of view, it seems quite possible that the Azerbaijani government may take appropriate steps to end its strategic partnership with the West. As it was said, Azerbaijan's partnership with the West concerns and irritates some regional states. But remaining committed to a multi-vector and balanced policy, official Baku has endured pressure, and maintained and developed its strategic partnership with the US and the European Union. Sanctions and similarly incorrect actions may force Azerbaijan to review its foreign policy and make a one-sided choice. That would be a serious loss for the USA and Western states that have serious interests in the region. It is known that Azerbaijani peacekeepers were part of the peacekeeping missions in Kosovo in 1999-2008 and Iraq in 2003-08. Azerbaijani soldiers joined the peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan in 2002 and continue to perform their duties well. Azerbaijan is supporting Nato troops in Afghanistan by opening its air space and allowing [Nato] to use its air transport infrastructure. But Azerbaijan may stop its military and geostrategic cooperation with the West, cease participation in anti-terror operations and peacekeeping mission and refuse any logistical support to Nato troops in Afghanistan. Those who authorised this fresh campaign against Azerbaijan naively believe that it will help them protect "the 5th column" and their "friends" [in Azerbaijan]. For many years, Azerbaijan has tried to turn a blind eye to anti-national elements such as [journalists] Khadija Ismayil, Mehman Aliyev, Emin Milli as well as to the arbitrariness of Western NGOs and media networks and tolerated them although it was quite clear that they were fulfilling a certain mission. However, when the activities of this network started shaking the foundations of the state, it became necessary to take preventive measures and the necessary steps were taken. The West's new "demarche" can become a serious basis for further actions. Of course, the list of what actions may be taken is long and not limited to those mentioned above. But is that necessary? What good will it do the West to exert pressure on and alienate Azerbaijan? Azerbaijan is loyal to its relationship with the USA and the West and wants these relations to deepen further. One would like to hope that the Trump administration will not repeat the mistakes of the Obama-era and will not let the Soros-backed network and the Armenian lobby to gain ground and spoil its ties with Baku. In this case, neither absurd steps like sanctions nor retaliatory steps will be necessary.