CLINTON’S VISIT TO THE CAUCASUS
Today’s Zaman
June 12 2012
Turkey
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a whirlwind tour through
the Caucasus, stopping in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia on June 4-6.
The visit focused international attention on the region, especially
given the sudden spike in deadly armed clashes between Armenia and
Azerbaijan while Clinton was there.
During Clinton’s six hours in Armenia, fighting broke out between
Azerbaijani and Armenian troops along the border areas. Armenia has
concerns about the US position on Nagorno-Karabakh for the two main
reasons: Firstly, the final declaration of NATO’s Chicago Summit
(May 2012) prioritized the principle of territorial integrity over
that of self-determination in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and
secondly, the State Department’s 2011 Human Rights Report, published
before the visit, named Nagorno-Karabakh as a part of Azerbaijan. In
light of this, the Armenian public sought to emphasize the shift
in US attitudes regarding conflict resolution, which now seem to be
weighted in Azerbaijan’s favor. When border skirmishes intensified
with military casualties on both sides, local media coverage suggested
that Azerbaijan was attempting to remind the US of the risk entailed
in this “frozen conflict.”
After the incidents, Clinton told reporters, “I am very concerned
about the danger of escalation of tensions and the senseless deaths
of young soldiers and innocent civilians.” It remains unclear which
side opened fire on the line of contact (LOC), through the fiercely
contested de facto border deep inside internationally recognized
Azerbaijani territory.
Examining the motivations behind the sudden and timely outbreak of
conflict, it seems that the clashes benefitted Armenian interests over
Azerbaijan’s. The Armenian opposition described the Chicago Summit
as a failure of Armenian diplomacy. In this regard, it was mostly
in the interests of the Armenian authorities to promote criticism of
Azerbaijan’s Nagorno-Karabakh policy; thus the local media stated that
Azerbaijan was responsible for the outbreak of these deadly clashes.
The second move was to suggest to the US that Azerbaijan holds
a destructive attitude towards peace negotiations, and prefers
such military clashes — in light of which the US should review
its attitudes. The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA)
published ten steps for Secretary Clinton to undertake prior to her
visit to the Caucasus, one of which was, “to clarify distinction
between territorial integrity and self-determination.”
Thirdly, Armenia is concerned about the possibility of the US
selling military equipment to Azerbaijan. The fact that the US
State Department is considering permitting a sale of surveillance
equipment to Azerbaijan resulted in fierce public debate. Washington’s
Armenian-American lobby and its allied members of Congress are
objected the sale under the pretext, that any similar sale can
damage the negotiating process or even lead to war. Supporters say
the equipment is needed to protect Azerbaijan, as Baku’s strategic
interests in the Caspian are potentially under threat from Iran,
while House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Democrat Howard Berman
sent a letter to Secretary Clinton on May 29 calling on her to “stop
the proposed sale of military hardware to Azerbaijan.” In the case
of deadly clashes, it will be easy for Armenian-American lobby groups
to argue in Washington that Azerbaijan will use the equipment against
Armenia, and thus the sale should be prevented.
While there remains a formal limit on US laws arms transfers to
Azerbaijan, known as Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, there
is a provision that allows the Secretary of State to waive the
restrictions if a transfer “is important to Azerbaijan’s border
security.” Azerbaijan has made it clear that the equipment in
question is needed to secure its borders following threats from Iran,
not Armenia.
During Clinton’s visit to Georgia, she said that the US would
provide support to Georgia to “better monitor [its] coasts and skies,”
“upgrade Georgia’s utility helicopter fleet” and help Georgia give its
officers “the 21st century training they need for today’s changing
missions.” President Mikheil Saakashvili announced that “for the
first time, after many years of hesitation, that the US will train
Georgian armed forces and assist us in monitoring our land.” The
Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement on June 6 that US support
and Secretary Clinton’s remarks during her visit would fuel Tbilisi’s
“revanchist aspirations.” Clinton not only urged further US support
for Georgia, but also emphasized that the US believes the upcoming
election in Georgia will be fair one, and mark an important step
in democratization.
The Secretary of State’s final destination in the Caucasus was
Azerbaijan, where the focus was expected to be Iran, above energy
questions. In fact, the key matter of Iran-Azerbaijan tensions was
not discussed publicly, likely due to its sensitivity. On the energy
issue, Clinton showed support for the Trans Caspian pipeline. The
US’ position on energy was cemented by Obama’s recent nomination of
Richard Morningstar as ambassador to Azerbaijan. Morningstar was one
of the founders of the US’ Caspian energy strategy back in the ’90s.
Secretary Clinton’s demonstration of support, interestingly, provided
the probable impetus for Russian President Putin’s declaration that
Moscow believes the project to be problematic, on the grounds that the
legal status of Caspian Sea status has not been yet been conclusively
defined and regulated. This assertion led to speculation in Azerbaijan
that the border clashes occurred on Moscow’s initiative, seeking to
diminish the role of the US in the region.
Further to this, since June 9, Russian fighter jets have been
conducting an increasing number of training flights over Armenia,
Russian military spokesman Col. Igor Gorbul, told the Interfax news
agency, which is an indicator that Moscow is looking for suitable
moment to intervene as a “peacekeeper” at any moment should violence
escalate further in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Secretary Clinton’s visit to the South Caucasus countries demonstrated
on the one hand that the US sees a moral obligation to promote
democracy across the region, and on the other signaled that the
countries will receive more attention from Washington following the
November presidential elections. One thing is clear: The political
situation in the Caucasus is increasingly vulnerable to threats from
Iran and Russia, who are acting together against perceived Western
“dominance” in the Middle East and the Caucasus. The question is
what’s next?