Analyst: Countries that attack western human rights organizations will have more difficulty making friends in the US Congress

According to some analysts, relations between Baku and Washington cooled at the beginning of President Obama's first term. While the administration has tried to repair and rebuild relations with the oil-rich Caucasus country; in a sense, overdue compensation that Azerbaijan was not, unlike both Armenia and Georgia, invited to the nuclear summit in Washington earlier in 2010.

What does Obama's re-election mean for the US foreign policy towards Azerbaijan?

TURAN’s Washington correspondent interviewed Jeff Sahadeo, a director of the Institute of European, Russian and Eurasian Studies at Carleton University

Question: Will Obama’s re-election change the US policy towards South Caucasus, especially, Azerbaijan?

Answer: The re-election of President Obama means that we will see no dramatic, short-term shifts in US policy towards the South Caucasus. The events in the Middle East, with the current flare-up in Gaza and the Syrian and Libyan issues, will preoccupy the administration's foreign policy, and of course the Afghanistan withdrawal will play a large role.

The administration will continue efforts to find a solution to Nagorno-Karabakh, but it is unlikely they will bring anything new to the table, perhaps at best pressing the interested parties to do so.

Growth in domestic production of gas and oil means that the US might be slightly less interested in Azerbaijan (and pipeline networks, especially for natural gas) for these reasons, but it remains critical in terms of logistical support to Afghanistan, and, in my mind, could become extremely important as the United States tries to deal with Iran. 

Azerbaijan might be used as an example of a relatively secular Muslim country across the region. But I think that much will depend on who is named the next Secretary of State to follow Hillary Clinton, and how her or his team views the South Caucasus.

Question: What should we expect from the Secretary’s replacement?

Answer: This is a great mystery, and the issue has already become politicized, with the Republican Party saying they will not accept US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice as a replacement. I think given events now Obama will want someone who will focus on the Middle East first, so we may not know how they see the South Caucasus until after they are appointed.

Question: What is the place of democracy and human rights in Washington's regional priorities?

Answer: Human Rights is always a fungible issue in US politics, one that guides visions but often gets lost when it comes down to complicated geostrategic negotiations. I think in terms of the region the US government believes that lecturing about human rights can be counterproductive, but it does affect their overall views of a country.

Rightly or wrongly, Azerbaijan is seen as the country that has the worst record on human rights and democracy. Countries that, for example, attack western human rights organizations will also have more difficulty making friends in the US Congress, where members tend to be more idealistic. So it can hurt lobbying there if countries are perceived to be committing human rights violations or making it more difficult for non-governmental organizations, local or western, to work.

To the extent that the US public knows anything about Azerbaijan, it is generally lumped in with former Soviet states that have followed authoritarian patrimonial regimes. Many western scholars who have tried to work in the country have found access to documents and long-term visas difficult.

If the Azerbaijani government wants to improve its image, in order for example to improve tourism and relationships with the West, concrete, specific steps towards greater pluralism will be helpful.

Question: What do you expect from Obama's re-election in the solutions of regional conflicts, such as Nagorno-Karabakh, Turkey-Armenian rapprochement? Will Washington retake the initiative?

Answer: I don’t think Washington has ever really taken the initiative, beyond encouraging dialogue through the Minsk process and other avenues, and I am not sure that there is that much more that it can do at this point. In terms of Nagorno-Karabakh, neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan has indicated a significant will to take discussions in a new direction. For the Turkey-Armenian rapprochement, I am sure the last thing Washington wants to do is get entangled in a delicate situation when there are clear political risks at stake. Any change that will come in these issues will come from the states themselves; if any bold initiatives are produced, then that will increase the pressure on the US administration to get involved.

Question: What should we expect from the Moscow-Washington relations in the coming years?

Answer: I think the Obama administration is aware of Putin’s efforts to assert his authority in the south, but I would argue they believe (and not unjustifiably) that Russia lacks the capacity to impose itself in a way that would directly affect US interests. It will be interesting to see how the incoming leader of Georgia, Bidzina Ivanishvili, balances Georgia’s regional and international interests, and if any changes might catch the attention of the US. Already NATO has expressed concern over arrests of former government ministers. The US might get involved if it felt like it was “losing” Georgia to the Russians. -25В-