AZERBAIJAN ‘RIGHT TO HAVE EXPECTED BETTER’ FROM USA
news.az
May 5 2010
Azerbaijan
Ramil Maharramov News.Az interviews Ramil Maharramov, an alumnus of
the Center for Public Policy and Administration at the University
of Massachusetts.
Does the huge Armenian diaspora in the US seriously affect US foreign
policy towards the South Caucasus and Azerbaijan?
Historically the United States has a strong track record of acting as
US strategic and economic interests command. So far there have been
no or very few cases when the United States has acted contrary to its
strategic and economic interests. This will be increasingly so in the
22nd century where the intensified global competition for resources
and influence, in large part thanks to the rapid rise of China,
India, Brazil and Russia as regional and global powers, will force
the US to act more and more as its strategic and economic interests
dictate. The United States no longer possesses the global resources
and influence to command countries to behave and act as it wishes or
wants. As such, it can’t easily lose a country that matters for its
strategic and economic interests.
Therefore, it can easily be stated that the role of the Armenian
diaspora in defining US foreign policy towards the South Caucasus
and Azerbaijan is at best marginal. The Armenian diaspora tries to
influence US foreign policy through its few highly committed supporters
in the US Congress. However, we should know that the US Congress is not
responsible for US foreign policy. It’s the executive branch of the
US government led by the president that is responsible for planning
and conducting US foreign policy and that is also accountable for
the consequences of US foreign policy. The US Congress at best has an
advisory role, which is often ignored as US national interests require.
Many Americans, including American politicians at all levels, be it
the US President’s Office, Congress or US state legislators, do not
posses much information about Armenia and Armenian issues. Few people
in the US can easily find Armenia on a world map. This environment
has indeed helped Armenian diaspora organizations to create an image
of ‘strong’ American support for Armenians and Armenian causes by
mostly working through several members of the Congress and some
staff of the US President’s administration, and to a lesser degree,
churches, academics and journalists. They have managed to produce
‘considerable noise’ over Armenian issues through their own noisy
propaganda activities and media stories.
Turkey and Azerbaijan share some responsibility for this outcome
(Azerbaijan to a lesser extent as it is a young state which entered
international relations only after the collapse of the USSR), as
Turkey unilaterally did not take the Armenian diaspora seriously
and did not take adequate action to counter the activities of the
diaspora in an organized and planned way when Armenia launched its
propaganda machine in the 1960s. Unfortunately, Turkey began to take
the Armenian diaspora seriously only when ASALA (Armenian Secret Army
for the Liberation of Armenia) began its attacks on Turkish diplomats
and then in the 1990s. Azerbaijan immediately started to contribute
its share and we are starting to see the fruit only nowadays, which
makes the Armenian diaspora extremely nervous and more aggressive as
they have begun to realize that the global information space is no
longer at their disposal.
The negative influence on Armenia of the Armenian diaspora is seen
by some as the main obstacle to a Karabakh settlement. Why does the
diaspora not accept any compromises in the settlement process?
There is some truth in this opinion. However, we should differentiate
the Armenian diaspora from the Armenian diaspora/lobbying
organizations. Taken as a whole, the Armenian diaspora is a very
heterogeneous community which varies in terms of location, economic
affluence, world vision, connection to traditions, awareness of
Armenian identity, church attendance, mixed marriages, integration with
the local American community, the problems they face in their daily
lives, and so on. The only causes that have the power to mobilize
the Armenian diaspora and bring them together are the so-called
‘Armenian Genocide’ claims and the Armenians’ territorial claims
on Nagorno-Karabakh. These two causes are masterfully used by the
nationalist ‘Armenian Church’ to mobilize Armenians, to keep them
organized, to carry out hate propaganda against Azerbaijan and
Turkey and to prevent the Armenians living in the US and Europe
from assimilation. However, the ordinary Armenian diaspora remains
preoccupied with their daily problems in the communities where
they live. It is the Armenian diaspora/lobbying organizations
and the Armenian Church abroad that are the gatekeepers of the
Armenian diaspora, have a negative influence on the solution of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and reject any compromise. As you know, they
are trying to present the seven occupied districts of Azerbaijan as
‘Liberated Armenian Lands’ or the buffer zone required to ensure the
security of Armenians in Nagorno-Karbakh.
Coming to the degree of this negative effect, it mainly depends on the
charisma, influence and power of the person who holds the presidency.
When the president is powerful enough and commands greater support
from the citizens of the Republic of Armenia, then he and of course
Armenia are less susceptible to pressure and the negative effect
of the Armenian diaspora. However, if this person doesn’t have
strong charisma and doesn’t command popular support, then he is
more vulnerable to external pressure including from the Armenian
Diaspora and Russia. Unfortunately, compared to past presidents Levon
Ter-Petrosyan and Robert Kocharyan, Serzh Sargsyan is relatively less
powerful and has less popular support, which leaves him vulnerable
to the demands of the nationalist Armenian diaspora and makes any
resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and any Armenian comprise
almost impossible. Unfortunately, in this context Levon Ter-Petrosyan
and Kocharyan were in a better position to achieve a compromise-based
resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict than Serzh Sarkgsyan.
The Azerbaijani leadership accuses the US, Russia and France of
trying to improve the economic situation in Armenia and not putting
pressure on Yerevan to liberate Azerbaijan’s occupied lands. How
can you explain this position of the international community? Is it
because of the influence of Armenian diaspora or for some other reason?
The Azerbaijani leadership’s position is right, justified and
well-informed. The reason for these countries not putting enough
pressure on Armenia to compromise definitely lies in their own
national, strategic and economic interests. The Armenian diaspora
has a marginal role at best. The Armenian diaspora is often used by
the political and economic elites in these countries (US, Russia and
France) to conceal their real intentions which are driven by their
strategic and economic interests. For example, Russia doesn’t feel any
urgency to push for the resolution of this conflict, as the Karabakh
conflict gives it a lot of hard and soft levers to manage/control
both Azerbaijan and Armenia or to keep these two countries in its
orbit of influence. Russia can use this conflict to punish Armenia
or Azerbaijan, if either country takes actions counter to Russia’s
strategic and economic interests in the region.
The United States doesn’t feel any urgency on a conflict resolution
either. The US is mainly interested in the stability of the region
which is a must to ensure the continuity of energy projects in the
Caspian region, the smooth operation of the Western energy companies in
the region and diversification and introduction of new energy supply
routes to the West. Therefore, The US would prefer the status quo
(continued occupation of Azerbaijani lands) to any action or change
of position that would destabilize the region or instigate military
operations. The current US administration also understands that its
ability to influence or manage regional conflicts is hampered by
its distance from the region (as well as its preoccupation in Iraq,
Afghanistan and with Iran’s nuclear project) and that in any conflict a
more assertive and confident Russia would play a bigger role, ending
in results that would be unfriendly towards the US.
As to France, it is supposed to represent the EU in the Minsk Group.
However, the EU suffers from a lack of an centralized,
well-articulated, feasible and active foreign policy in the region.
This can be seen from the widely differing statements and approaches
of EU member countries in respect to Azerbaijan, Armenia and the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Therefore, France represents the most
impotent of the three parties and has minimal if any potential to
affect the solution of the conflict. France’s publicly more visible
pro-Armenian stance is mostly the result of its historical ties
and commitments to Armenians (whereas France understands its role
in promising Armenians ‘Greater Armenia’ in the early 20th century,
but failing to ensure this outcome which resulted in tragic massacres
of Turks, Kurds and Armenians), and of cultural reasons rather than
the presence of the Armenian diaspora in France. I don’t think France
has the economic or strategic ambitions and interests to push the
Armenians to compromise on a solution to the conflict.
The Azerbaijani side is very disappointed with the role of the US in
the Karabakh problem. Some experts even say that it has already harmed
the strategic partnership between Azerbaijan and the US. Do you agree?
Azerbaijan was right to display its discontent with the US position
on Turkish-Armenian rapprochement, ignoring Azerbaijan’s strategic
interests and pushing Turkey to mend relations with Armenia at the
expense of its relations with Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan has been right
to expect better treatment from the US as it was Azerbaijan not
Armenia that provided significant support to the US in the war on
terrorism, opened its air space to US military transport, gave shares
to American companies in Azerbaijan’s multi-billion energy projects,
took into consideration the US interests and position in choosing oil
and gas transportation routes, and acted and still acts as the only
safe corridor for US access to Central Asia. However, judging from
the recent statements and official trips, it is possible to state
that the parties have already begun mending the damage done to the
relations, given that this partnership benefits both countries and
meets the interests of both the US and Azerbaijan.
The Armenian side says that independence for Karabakh is the only
way to solve the conflict. May Armenia expect support from the
international community if Yerevan is the first to recognize this
‘independence’?
Armenians are well aware of the fact that no country in the world
will recognize Nagorno-Karabakh even if Yerevan does. Even Russia,
the closest ally of Armenia, clearly stated that Nagorno-Karabakh
is a different case from Kosovo and no parallel should be drawn
between these two cases. The Armenians have already exercised their
right to self-determination. They have their own internationally
recognized state. Azerbaijan will never tolerate the creation of a
second Armenian state at the expense of Azerbaijan’s territory. If
any country supports the Armenian claim to a second state, let them
give Armenians the territory and land to create the second state.
What are the prospects for progress in the Karabakh settlement? Can
it be resolved in 2010?
I don’t expect any solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict soon. A
solution would definitely be very difficult, if not impossible,
in 2010. A solution to this conflict is possible only if public
opinion in Armenia changes or Armenia gets a new visionary leadership
(president) with strong charisma, who can command popular support and
convince the Armenian population of the futility of their dream of an
independent Nagorno-Karabakh and who can also show them the benefits
of peace with their neighbours and in the region. From what I observe,
Armenian public opinion remains ultra-nationalist and the majority
outlaw any compromise solution to the Karabakh conflict. In these
conditions, only Azerbaijan with a strong and diversified economy,
healthy and well-educated human capital, a strong army and efficient
administration can bring about the solution of this conflict any
time soon. If outsiders see that Azerbaijan possesses all these
characteristics, then they will themselves put pressure on Armenia
to compromise in an attempt to save Armenia from crushing defeat
and collapse. In parallel, Azerbaijan should continue its policy of
isolating Armenia from all regional economic and trade relations.
Ramil Maharramov is Alumni of Center for Public Policy and
Administration, University of Massachusetts; Consultant in Management &
Development Industry.