"The restoration of Azerbaijan's sovereignty has violated the plans of all global players"

On Wednesday, November 15, a senior official of the US State Department responsible for Europe and Eurasia assured US lawmakers, that the US will not conduct "business as usual" with Azerbaijan until a peace agreement is concluded between Baku and Yerevan.

The head of the Office for the Coordination of Sanctions with the rank of Ambassador James O'Brien  stated at a hearing in the Congressional Foreign Relations Committee on the future of Nagorno-Karabakh, the Washington correspondent of Turan reported.

Then he informed about the concrete steps that will be taken by the State Department: firstly, it will not suspend the 907 amendment, which will make it impossible to provide military assistance to Azerbaijan. In addition, the United States considers the construction of a transit corridor possible after the conclusion of a peace agreement and the consent of Armenia.

O'Brien also stated that Washington has "repeatedly" openly stated at every high-level contact that the use of force against Armenia is completely unacceptable.

"The authorities in Baku have assured us that they have no such intention, and we are very closely monitoring the movement of troops and any signs that they may have other plans," he added.

Speaking about the September war, O'Brien said that the State Department, on the instructions of Secretary of State Blinken, is preparing an exhaustive and transparent report on what happened not only in those days, but also in the months preceding these events.

Washington is also working to support Armenia. "We are working closely with the European Union to support Armenia. As for the peace talks, O'Brien said the next few weeks will be critical in terms of testing the willingness to take action in good intentions.

Responding to a question from lawmakers, O'Brien once again stated that after the events of September 19 (Azerbaijan's local military operations in Karabakh), relations with Azerbaijan will not be the same until progress is made in peace negotiations.

"That's why we canceled a number of high-level visits, condemned (Baku's) actions and renewed the 907th Amendment," O'Brien said.

What's the matter? Why is the US trying to spoil relations with Azerbaijan?

Political commentator Arastun Orujlu answers these and other questions of ASTNA.

* * *

Question: At a hearing in the US Congressional Foreign Relations Committee on the future of "Nagorno-Karabakh" (quotes from Turan news Agency), he said that after what happened in September, they canceled a number of high-level visits, condemned Baku's actions and renewed the 907th Amendment. What does it mean? What is the reason for this US position?

Answer:  The achievement of such a level of bilateral relations was expected. In particular, this was indicated by reports received on the eve and after the anti-terrorist operation carried out by Azerbaijan. It was clear that serious concern had arisen in Western countries about this operation. And this attitude is understandable, because the complete restoration of Azerbaijan's control over its lands has disrupted the plans of almost all global players. The fact is that the great powers, almost all conflicts, are considered as an important tool in terms of the realization of their geopolitical interests. The Azerbaijani-Armenian Karabakh conflict was no exception in this sense. Especially at the current crucial stage of geopolitical processes, when geopolitical plans related to the region were based on this reality.  However, Azerbaijan's full restoration of sovereignty on its territory has seriously disrupted the plans of those who have great interests in the region. Now the attitude of all sides towards Azerbaijan is one of the manifestations of this. Plans have been disrupted, and now we need to make new plans, but that's not the only problem. The problem is also that a new geopolitical reality has emerged as a result of what is happening. Therefore, the attitude of all sides towards Azerbaijan is the same in content, they just differ outwardly: if Russia has so far chosen a relatively "soft" method of influence, then the West has more openly followed the path of pressure. Another reason for exerting pressure is to force Azerbaijan to take their side and coordinate long-term plans with them. One of the reasons for the attempts to exert pressure from the United States and Europe specifically is that the West thinks that Azerbaijan is next to Russia. The reason for this is that Russia has not recently shown obvious resistance to the steps taken by Azerbaijan.  Whether Russia is doing this consciously or it no longer has enough strength, apparently, it is not interesting.

Question: Is this US position acceptable? Why is the United States so concerned about conducting a military operation on the territory of Azerbaijan in order to restore sovereignty? Maybe they were far away or far from reality? Or were they informed unilaterally?

Answer: No, such an attitude can in no way be considered acceptable either from the point of view of international law, from the point of view of interstate relations, or from the point of view of the interests of the Azerbaijani state. Especially against the background of the attitude shown towards Israel, which is currently waging a destructive war in Gaza, this cannot be understood and accepted in any way. I don't think that the United States is unfamiliar with the realities in our region and in our country. Of course they knew and know, and thoroughly. In my opinion, the problem lies in the desire of the great powers to consider events around the world within the framework of their interests and see them exactly like that. And when this does not happen, it is this approach that manifests itself. If this were not the case, the Catholicos of the Cilician Catholicosate of the Armenian Apostolic Church would not have been invited from Lebanon at the opening of the session of the US House of Representatives, and he would not have been allowed to speak from the rostrum of the supreme legislative body of the United States about Azerbaijan's "ethnic cleansing" of Armenians in Karabakh.  All these and other steps taken are separate elements of the policy of exerting pressure on Azerbaijan. 

Question: A senior US State Department official responsible for Europe and Eurasia assured US lawmakers that the US will not conduct "business as usual" with Azerbaijan until a peace agreement is concluded between Baku and Yerevan. For years, civil society in Azerbaijan has stated that the United States turns a blind eye to the state of democracy and human rights in Azerbaijan because of its business and energy interests. Are they threatening Azerbaijan with this now?

Answer: First of all, in connection with the peace agreement to be concluded between Azerbaijan and Armenia, I must say that the signing of this agreement is an important step that must be taken both in the interests of the two states and in the name of ensuring sustainable peace in the region and eliminating threats to global security. For these reasons, both Azerbaijan and Armenia make positive reports on the agreement.  This position has not changed even after the last anti-terrorist operation. At the same time, Moscow, Brussels, and Washington demonstrate a positive attitude to the issue. Then the question arises, why have we recently seen changes in the attitude of international mediators towards Azerbaijan? This can be explained by the fact that since the first days of the peace talks, there has been a rivalry between Brussels and Moscow on the issue of mediation. Nothing has changed in this rivalry today. The only change is that the parties to the conflict, freed from the Karabakh burden, no longer need the services of intermediaries as much as before. And this is evident from their statements, the steps of the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia. Azerbaijan has actually refused to participate in the negotiations mediated by the European Union, and the likelihood that Armenia, in the current state of relations with Russia, will agree to Moscow's mediation looks unconvincing.

In this scenario, the countries can conduct peace negotiations directly in a bilateral format, or with the mediation of Georgia. I think that signs of this are already showing, and this would be the most ideal option, which also meets the interests of the parties. However, in this case, the interests of the global powers may not be satisfied, which at the same time means that both countries can be more independent in their decisions. The question arises, does this situation meet the interests of Moscow, Brussels and Washington?  Of course, it does not meet the interests of any of them, which is why both Russia and the West have begun to take openly destructive steps. And not only against Azerbaijan and Armenia, but also against the possible mediation mission of Georgia. Paris' military assistance to Armenia and the implementation of this assistance through Georgia is a step aimed at weakening the role of Tbilisi, reducing Baku's confidence in it. In fact, the weapons that France has provided to Armenia are not capable of changing anything, nor of creating military parity, nor are they aimed at it.  The main purpose of this "benevolence" is destruction. Similar steps in their essence were followed by Washington, but Moscow's goal was always Yerevan. It is as if the attempts of rapprochement between Azerbaijan and Armenia "bring together" the relations of Washington, Moscow and Brussels. From this we can conclude that now everything will depend on the political will of the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia. In other words, at least a framework agreement will be signed, but even in this case, the pressure will not stop. As for sticking out the issue of human rights, freedoms and other values, at this stage they already look more like an instrument of political pressure than universal values. Today, it will be difficult to convince Azerbaijanis that from now on democratic values will not be measured in barrels or dollars, as it has been for decades. If at all it will be possible.

Question: What does the United States hope or expect from Azerbaijan, speaking from such a position? What motivates this position? What interests do they pursue by exerting pressure on Azerbaijan?

Answer: Today, both the United States and other participants in regional and global politics are waiting, hoping that Azerbaijan will take a position corresponding to their geopolitical interests. And this is practically impossible, since there are so many parties, and their interests are so opposite, that theoretically the only way out of this situation is to choose one of the parties. And here the question arises, will Azerbaijan be protected from threats from the opposite side in this case? Let's be frank, of course not. Because they are indifferent to the fate of both Azerbaijan and Armenia, they care about their own interests. Baku and Yerevan are well aware of this reality, so they have directed all their efforts to protect themselves from threats.

I have before my eyes the examples of Syria, Ukraine and other countries from which conclusions should be drawn. If the United States hopes to block Russia's path from Azerbaijan to the Middle East, then the question arises, what will Azerbaijan gain by doing this? Even talking about winning, at this stage we are talking about protection from threats. And there can be any number of promises here. But the reality is that even if there are not only promises, but also desires, the possibilities for their implementation are limited. Therefore, Azerbaijan is forced to move synchronously with its only real ally - Turkey. And also because there is simply no other choice.

Question: Mark Libby has been appointed the new US Ambassador to Azerbaijan. For a long time, this post was vacant. Can Libby's appointment calm the situation down? Who is Libby anyway? What to expect from him?

Answer: Mark Libby is an experienced diplomat, but the change in the situation does not depend much on the behavior, position of ambassadors or other politicians. The main thing is how and in what directions decisions are made at the state level. So it will be in this case. It is difficult to imagine anything else. Even if bilateral relations are damaged, their streamlining will require considerable time, energy and effort. In the meantime, everything will depend on how deep the crack in the relationship turns out to be.