Bryza in His Own Words Proves He was Wrong for the Job
Saturday, February 11th, 2012
by Ara Khachatourian
Matthew Bryza
Former US Ambassador to Azerbaijan, Matthew Bryza, who left Baku last
month after the Senate did not confirm his nomination, has left the
Foreign Service and has moved to Turkey. No surprise there.
In an interview with Hurriyet Daily News, Bryza effectively confirms
all the arguments that were made against him to become the US
Ambassador to Baku. In the interview he denies the Armenian Genocide,
says the Armenia-Turkey protocols process should have been tied to the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, throws the Obama Administration under the
bus and begrudgingly refers to `the organization that blocked me.’
`Matt Bryza’s angry interview confirms what we have said from the
start, which is that he is the wrong person to represent either U.S.
interests of American values in Azerbaijan,’ said ANCA Executive
Director Aram Hamparian. `His strident attacks on American civil
society voices who have criticized his public record sadly reveal that
he’s as intolerant in dealing with the diversity of American democracy
here at home, as he is uncomfortable in challenging the lack of
democracy back in Azerbaijan.’
Here’s how Hurrieyt describes the Bryza situation: `As a result of the
campaign of the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), two
democratic senators put a hold on his nomination, preventing a Senate
vote. Obama sent Bryza to Baku as a recess appointment but did not
push for him when he re-nominated him as the two senators continued
their blockage.’
`I will continue what I’ve been doing so far in private life that
involves partly academia as well as advising people, government and
private sector on major investment projects,’ Bryza tells Hurriyet.
`You can’t imagine how happy I am to be in Istanbul. It is the perfect
time to enjoy family life.’
Read the entire interview.
Turkey has strategic importance because it is a secular democracy with
a majority Muslim population, says a former member of the US
administration, adding that any regression in democracy would end
Ankara’s strategic importance. The US is also paying attention to the
plight of arrested Turkish journalists, Matt Bryza adds
Matt Bryza (R) says he anticipates going back to the US after a
certain time to get involved in diplomatic/political life. `I will
continue what I’ve been doing so far in private life that involves
partly academia as well as advising people, government and private
sector on major investment projects,’ says Bryza. `You can’t imagine
how happy I am to be in Istanbul. It is the perfect time to enjoy
family life,’ he adds. DAILY NEWS photo, Emrah GÃ`REL
Barçın Yinanç
[email protected]
The cornerstone of what makes Turkey so important to the United States
strategically is that it remains a secular democracy with a Muslim
majority population, said a former US diplomat.
The Turkish-US strategic partnership would become unsustainable if
there were no sustained progress on democracy, said Matt Bryza, a
career diplomat who was the U.S. ambassador to Baku until recently.
Following the failure of the Senate to endorse his nomination due to
pressure from the Armenian lobby, he left Baku last month to settle in
Istanbul. `Washington should focus on a breakthrough in the
Nagorno-Karabakh [NK] conflict, which will be followed by
Turkey-Armenia reconciliation as a consequence,’ he said in his first
interview since leaving the U.S. foreign service.
Q: Does the failure of the Senate to endorse your nomination to Baku
tell us that the Armenian issue will always hijack the United States’
ties with Ankara and Baku?
A: Most definitely not. Look what President [Barack] Obama did last
year; he used his constitutional powers to go around that blockage. He
understood the strategic interest of Azerbaijan and pressed ahead.
This time, his decision may be based on factors that go beyond factors
related to Baku. Obviously we are in an electoral year.
Q: What are we to expect this year in Washington on April 24 [the day
Armenians commemorate the `genocide’]?
A: I was deeply involved with this issue every single year as I was in
[President George W.] Bush’s staff. We can expect every year that
there will be a lot of tension surrounding this issue, especially as
2015 comes close and especially in an election year. The [Armenian]
organization that blocked me will keep bringing up this issue forever.
But it’s not up to governments but to people to make their own
determination on how to characterize it. The comfortable prediction
would be to say that the current trend will continue.
Q: What is Turkey to expect as 2015 approaches?
A: [Centennial] anniversaries are a milestone. But Turkey has the
ability to influence that debate in a significant way. It can have a
genuine open discussion with credible participants from all elements
of Turkish society to examine the historical records. The radicals
that blocked me hate that, they don’t want to have an open debate; an
open dialogue is their enemy.
Also, I think it’s a huge mistake to explicitly say there is no
connection at all between Turkish-Armenian normalization and a
settlement to the NK problem. I always believed that the two issues
will help each other; as there is progress on the Turkish-Armenian
front, that will help create progress on NK and progress on NK will
help normalize relations between Turkey and Armenia. But if we
artificially say that there is no such relationship, we end up dooming
the prospect for a settlement in NK because we make it impossible for
Armenian leaders to compromise because they are given a huge benefit
[opening the border with Turkey] without making any compromise. So we
need to manage the two processes together at the same time. We saw
that if Azerbaijan feels Turkey is not supporting it with regard to
Armenia, Azerbaijani politicians have a way to make normalization with
Armenia impossible.
Q: Do you believe there has been an evolution in Turkey’s approach to
the Armenian `genocide?’
A: There has been a progression. [There is more acceptance of] an open
discussion of what happened. I think the Hrant Dink murder was a huge
awakening for millions of Turks. It’s not just the government, it’s
society that has moved forward to consider that terrible killings were
committed by Ottoman troops. But what has not changed at all for
legitimate reasons is the firm Turkish view that this should not be
recognized politically as genocide; it’s not the business of any
politician in any country to characterize these events as genocide or
not as genocide. It has to be up to societies, not to others, to have
a decision taken based on a political calendar. To me that’s dishonest
[otherwise].
Q: How Turkey should tackle the Armenian lobby’s efforts?
A: Truth is on everyone side, especially on Turkey’s side. The debate
about this issue is really one-sided right now. Anybody who voices a
different view is attacked as a genocide-denier, which immediately
means you are against human rights. If you believe there was a
genocide committed, you can equally argue looking from a narrow
definition of the word that genocide was committed to many others,
against Turks or Muslims, in eastern Anatolia. Let’s have a dialogue
of the multiple atrocities that [were committed against] many groups.
Let’s talk about it all. Let’s be fair and not forget the suffering of
others.
Q: What has failed in Turkish-Armenian reconciliation? Is it because
the NK dimension was neglected in the protocols?
A: The Turkish leadership realized that by opening the border with
Armenia totally outside the context of NK, Turkey was moving in a new
direction because Turkey closed the border in the context of the NK
conflict. Azerbaijanis will never forget that. Azerbaijanis have
significant political influence in Turkey.
In Azerbaijan there is no country that is as loved as Turkey. It is
overwhelmingly the most popular country in Azerbaijan. It was always
painful for me to see [the U.S.’] approval rating in the 20s and 30s
while Turkey was well into the 90s. So if anybody takes a step that
Azerbaijan is extremely uncomfortable with, that step will never
succeed in Turkish politics. It’s impossible.
Q: What’s the way to move forward based on past experience? It seems
like it’s a case of putting the cart before the horse.
A: That’s the point. Keep the horse in front of the cart. Sequencing
matters but the sequencing was out of order. The most important issue
for both Yerevan and Baku is NK, not reconciliation. For Armenia it is
much more important to eliminate the risk of war and have a fair and
sustainable settlement in NK than have direct trading relations with
Turkey. What I advocated is to focus on getting that breakthrough on
NK. If you do that, Turkish-Armenian reconciliation comes as a
consequence.
Q: What will your advice be to Washington on the
Armenia-Azerbaijan-Turkey triangle?
A: As I said to the secretary of state, focus on getting a
breakthrough on NK, it’s achievable, the breakthrough would not be on
the final peace agreement but on the framework agreement for the peace
agreement. Once you work hard to get the framework agreement, make
clear you will do everything possible to make sure the framework
becomes a final peace agreement. And then with that process moving
forward, go back to Turkey-Armenia negotiations.
Q: As 2015 approaches, won’t it be difficult to convince Armenia?
A: I think Armenia will come to understand that if our president and
state secretary are personally involved, and if they make clear that
the drafting of the agreement will be truly trilateral ` and not only
be driven by one side, the Russian side, but by the equal
participation of the two other countries, the U.S. and France ` I
think there will be a chance for a breakthrough. What is on the table
is fair and reasonable.
There has been huge progress. The sides are extremely close to a
breakthrough. There are a couple of core, key details that can only be
agreed upon if the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan make a very
difficult and risky political decision. They would not do that until
they feel they receive political support from the U.S. and France.
Q: Will the U.S. step in?
A: Based on my conversation with Clinton, I believe the willingness is
there. But it is a busy time in foreign policy. I can’t predict
whether our top-level leaders will sustain this interest but I know
it’s there now. I just had conversations in Washington two weeks ago.
Q: Where do you think Turkey has come in fulfilling its aspirations on
energy policies?
A: Turkey has succeeded in becoming a hub. It has gas coming from
Iraq, Azerbaijan and Russia [and will] eventually [get it] from
northern Iraq. Previously, Turkey’s aspiration was to be a link for
its strategic brothers in Azerbaijan and Central Asia with Europe. It
can be both. A hub is a link. The question is for Turkey to decide how
much it wants to play a strategic role as a link or how much it wants
to be at the centerpiece. My hope is that Turkey will think first and
foremost about the importance to Europe ¦ to have a diversified flow
of gas from Central Asia and think of its partners that look to Turkey
as their strategic link to Europe ¦ If Turkey is seen as overplaying
its hand trying to extract too much revenue out of its geographic
position, then it risks losing its status with Europe and Azerbaijan
and other countries. But if it finds the right balance, it will
elevate its strategic position. Make your primary objective be that of
connecting Caspian gas to Europe even as you use the rest of your
position to [attain] the economic benefits of being a hub. Be a
statesman rather than a salesman.
Q: How do you see the evolution of Turkish-U.S. ties?
A: It was shocking to me to see in the 2000s the low approval ratings.
It was the lowest on the globe except for Palestine. It was
mind-boggling because we have such deep ties. Look at me, I am married
to a Turkish woman. [But now] something has changed. It has to do with
Turkey’s own sense of where it stands in the world. It wants to be
recognized as a global player and it is [beginning] to be recognized
as such, and I hope that is what is going to improve Turkey’s
relations with the U.S. Relations are much better now as Turkey
becomes more confident, it will be more confident in its ties with the
U.S. Turkey for years was punching under its weight. It was not
punching hard enough for its weight class. It should punch harder now.
Q: How do you see the level of relations now?
A: They’re very good, especially because of Syria. Regardless of the
political party in government, Turkey can serve as an inspiration to
all those people in all those lands where Ottoman reforms took hold
whether in Damascus or Cairo. [It can become] a modernizing state
providing the same political and economic freedoms that Turks have
achieved to those who seek them in Arab countries. Turkey’s experience
is unique but can inspire and Turkey has fully realized that potential
and is using this card extremely skillfully in the Middle East.
Turkey and the U.S. have a partnership that is equal and focused on
shared strategic interests.
We don’t have identical interests but have many common ones. The
cornerstone of what makes Turkey so important to the U.S.
strategically is that it remains a secular democracy with a Muslim
majority population and a legacy of 170 years of modernizing reforms
that helped to modernize key parts of the Middle East.
Q: The U.S. is criticized for underestimating the democratic deficit in Turkey.
A: If you are in foreign policy-making, your job is to promote
stability in the Middle East. Turkey in this case has proven to be a
great partner. That sort of partnership is unsustainable if there is
no sustained progress on democracy. Turkey’s strategic importance is
because it is a secular democracy with a majority Muslim population.
Were that no longer the case, then the strategic importance would go
away. It will still be relevant and important to the U.S. in working
on a set of issues, but Turkey itself is such a vital spot on the map
¦ Like everywhere else, democracy in Turkey is a work in progress. In
Washington great attention is paid to the plight of arrested
journalists.
Who is Matt Bryza?
DAILY NEWS PHOTO, Emrah GÃ`REL
In the early stages of his career in the United States Foreign
Service, Matt Bryza participated in U.S. diplomatic missions in Poland
and Russia. He began focusing on the Caucasus, Central Asia and the
energy issue in Eurasia in the second half of the 1990s. Throughout
the 2000s he developed U.S. policies on Turkey, Greece, Cyprus, South
Caucasus and Central Asia in the National Security Council as well as
in the State Department as deputy assistant secretary of state.
In 2010 President Barack Obama nominated Bryza as ambassador to Baku.
As a result of the campaign of the Armenian National Committee of
America (ANCA), two democratic senators put a hold on his nomination,
preventing a Senate vote. Obama sent Bryza to Baku as a recess
appointment but did not push for him when he re-nominated him as the
two senators continued their blockage.
Arguments against him have included his opposition to U.S. recognition
of genocide claims, failure to speak out forcefully against
`Azerbaijani aggression’ and supposed conflicts involving his
Turkish-born American citizen wife. He recently left the Foreign
Service.