Shift in Azerbaijan
May Create Winning Scenario for
Armenia
By Edmond Y.
Azadian
Editorial -The Armenian
Mirror-Spectator
Pundits and observers
of the Western press have noticed recently the intensification of criticism of
the Azeri government and its authoritarian ruler, Ilham Aliyev. One can surmise
a real deterioration in US-Azeri relations. But that is only the tip of the
iceberg, because powerful undercurrents — including regional realignments
and tectonic changes in world politics — are all playing their roles.
In the integrated
world today, any political action will create a domino effect, influencing
policies far away in another region.
Despite absolute
freedom of the press in the US and Europe, there is a tacit collusion between
the governments and the major news outlets. For example, any far-reaching policy
change in the last Bush administration would be heralded in the editorial and
op-ed columns of the Wall Street Journal. Similarly, recent improvement in the
US-Cuban relations was preceded by a series of editorial comments in the New
York Times encouraging the administration to abandon its 50-year-old
isolationist policy toward Cuba. Either the Times editors were extremely
prescient or they had received a nod from the administration to lay the
groundwork with the American public for the policy shift.
And when Mr. Obama’s
dramatic announcement came to change course in US-Cuban relations, some people
were led to believe in the power of the press to impact policy.
It is through this
perspective that we need to view the sudden surge of negative stories about
Azerbaijan in the US press. It is no news that Azerbaijan was run by a despot
all along.
In addition to a
scathing editorial in the January 11 edition of the New York Times
characterizing Aliyev as a “masterful political Jekyll and Hyde,” and blasting
his deplorable human rights record, a sobering analysis of US-Azerbaijan was
published by the Brookings Institute, authored by Richard D. Kauzlarich. As long
as Mr. Kauzlarich served as US ambassador in Baku, he had no other choice but to
spout the official State Department policy. But in this paper, he has taken the
freedom to express his own profound observations and views, to portray
Azerbaijan and its authorities in their true colors, which are not very
flattering, to say the least. The conclusion of the paper is in its first few
lines which says, “On December 3, 2014, the Heydar Aliyev era in Azerbaijan
ended. With it went the previously close political relationship between the
United States and Azerbaijan.”
In addition to his
own analysis, Mr. Kauzlarich has based his conclusions on a paper published by
the head of Azerbaijan’s presidential apparatus Ramiz Mehdiyev, where the latter
views US-Azeri relations within the perspective of extreme political
paranoia.
Mr. Kauzlarich
presents three conditions for the restoration of Azerbaijan’s respectability in
the West and asks the rhetorical question: “Impossible? Not if Azerbaijan truly
desires the international and US respect it seeks. Respect results from actions.
Freeing political prisoners and seriously negotiating with Armenia about ending
the dispute over Nagorno Karabagh are the only path to earning that
respect.”
The former diplomat’s
evaluation is most revealing from the US and Armenian perspectives. In the past,
when Washington was faced with the dilemma whether to adhere to US interests or
US values, it often chose the first alternative when the issue was Azerbaijan.
In this case, it looks as if the US is opting for the latter.
In an article
published in the Open Democracy website, Thomas de Waal, the senior associate
for the Caucasus at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, states:
“Over the past year and a half, the government of Azerbaijan has taken an
increasingly nasty, authoritarian and anti-Western character.”
Western media is
inundated with harsh criticism of the Aliyev regime. Since Al Gore invited Al
Jazeera to the US shores, the channel promotes US policy around the globe
dressed in Middle Eastern garb. Posted on the Al Jazeera TV’s website is an
article by Arzu Geybullayeva, a specialist in human rights, which states: “So
long as President Ilham Aliyev keeps saying there are no political prisoners and
no limitation on the freedom of speech in Azerbaijan — conjuring the illusion of
a democratic country — little is going to change in this
country.”
All criticism aside,
where is Azerbaijan headed?
Mehdiyev’s article,
echoing his master’s voice in Ankara, is stating that Azerbaijan has adopted an
independent political course.
Turkey, while still
keeping its membership in NATO, advocates the same policy. And since Turkey and
Azerbaijan claim to be one nation with two governments, Aliyev is following the
footsteps of his mentor, President Tayyip Recep Erdogan. Incidentally, the
latter visited Baku on January 16, to extend his support to Aliyev, on the
thorny issue of Karabagh. Alienated from the West, Aliyev needs that assurance
more than ever.
With the West engaged
in a colossal battle to deny Moscow a comeback as a world player, Turkey has
found a political niche to built its own power base, independent from both
camps. Azerbaijan is moving in lockstep with Ankara, in view of some other
developments in the region:
•The dramatic fall in
energy prices have deflated Aliyev’s dreams to build a country along the lines
of the Emirate states.
•The confrontation
between the West and Iran had boosted Baku’s political stake for Western powers
and Israel, as a listening post and potential launching pad against Iran. Now,
with the nuclear deal almost a reality, Azerbaijan no longer can serve as an
asset for the West nor Israel.
•Turkey’s U-turn
towards Russia, signing the energy deal has pushed Azerbaijan further towards
the EEU with Russia.
Russia in its turn is
fighting back to achieve its former status as a world power. China has expressed
solidarity with Russia, seeing the writing on the wall that if Moscow fails, the
West will not spare Beijing, which is already on its way to become a world
player.
China not only has
pledged to support Russia financially, but also has tacitly signaled that it can
use its US assets as a weapon to destabilize the US economy.
In these momentous
political changes, Baku is about to choose its policy, which may lead it within
the orbit of Russian influence, where Armenia has been comfortably
ensconced.
On the one hand, the
US-Azeri divide may offer comfort for Armenia that the US will no longer force a
pro-Azeri solution, especially when Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act is
still in place.
On the other hand, it
will be too close for comfort if Azerbaijan gives in to Moscow’s pressure and
joins the Customs Union.
In these new
developments, it is in Turkey’s interest to intensify tensions between Armenia
and Azerbaijan to shield itself from Armenian demands and to play as savior to
Baku.
Thus, Moscow will
become the final arbiter, having three choices to grapple with: 1. To continue
the status quo to keep both sides expecting a solution in their favor; 2. To
force Armenia to make concessions to buy Azerbaijan’s allegiance or 3. With a
broader perspective engage in an economic development program to create its own
markets and to force the parties to cooperate, in which case, blockades
necessarily need to be lifted and normal course of life may resume.
The last option will
mark a win-win outcome for all parties.
