Azerbaijani-American relations: longing for diplomatic creativeness

***

- US President Donald Trump proposed a candidacy for a post of a new Ambassador to Azerbaijan. At present, Earle Litzenberger, a principal advisor to the US State Department Bureau for political and military matters, has been promoted to this post. How far is this diplomat known in the political circles of the country?

-There are two answers to the question. The short answer is: he is known as "a diplomat appeasing a crisis". Relatively longer answer: it is no secret that the praising of politicians and diplomats are contrary to the ethics of journalists. That"s why I"m seeking "to quench passions", and quoting a State Department source, I can say that there are hardly competent diplomats in the current administration but Ambassador Litzenberger who is known in political corridors of Washington for his diplomatic abilities and fortitude.

When the Trump administration "took the helm" in 2017, there was shortage of professional diplomatic personnel in the country. Account has to be taken of the fact that some of the career diplomats voluntarily or involuntarily left the Department of State and those passed the "smell test" were due to meet the strategy of the new administration. What was this strategy called? The strategy of "strategylessness"... Unlike during the previous administrations, diplomats are now not expected to be mere executives of the strategy drafted by the Department of State; they are also in charge of creative diplomatic work in accordance with dictates of the time.

That being said, although Ambassador Litzenberger officially serves, as you noted before, as a principal advisor to the State Department Bureau for political and military matters, in reality though, the diplomatic circles present him as a principal advisor to the Secretary of State and an unofficial spokesman for military-political affairs. Thus, he is responsible not only for the strategy of the bureau he serves, but also for the formation of diplomatic staff. Besides, he is busy with coordinating the "production" with other agencies, for instance, with the Pentagon. This is the unique case of this sort in the US diplomacy.

Those familiar with Washington politics are well aware that Pentagon and the State Department constantly bump into each other when defining friends and allies. However, touching upon U.S. foreign security assistance program Ambassador Litzenberger in one of his speeches at a Washington think-tank early this year put an end to historical differences between the two agencies. This was happening at a time when the Trump administration was not only interested in significantly reducing the foreign aid budget, but, practically, had attained this goal: previously the State Department was managing and overseeing as large as 80% of foreign security aid, and now this figure stands at 50%, the rest was transferred to the Defense Department's balance. This notwithstanding, Ambassador Litzenberger and his team figured a way out of the situation through setting up a special coordination group between the two agencies called Security Sector Assistance Steering Committee and making diplomacy more effective. Current administration"s approach to the matter is that the US military aid, arms sale, etc. if coordinated better, can be more effective and of course, it can be also linked with international security and other pressing issues, including of course, human rights.

As for the crisis diplomacy stated above, a closer look at new Ambassador"s political career reveals that he has ordinarily been drawn in the US peace-making policy in the Near East and Central Asia. His highest senior management position in the foreign service was leading the US mission to NATO which fell on the period of "cold winds" between Washington and Brussels - President Trump leveled his criticism against the Northern Alliance. As one of American journalist colleagues who was working in Brussels at that time puts it, Litzenberger's views of portraying his country's image to the NATO partners as a "significant state" highlighting mutual respect and responsibilities was quite impressive. To my thinking, politicians and public figures in Baku should take a note on this.

- Until the last year Earle Litzenberger was a US permanent representative to NATO. Note that his nomination fell on serious debates around Azerbaijan"s jpoining the CSTO headed by Russia. In case where Litzenberger" candidacy is approved, will he be able to make Azerbaijan aim to NATO?

- That"s a good question. It is worth emphasizing that in his latest position at the US mission to the NATO Litzenberger was the top career diplomat in charge of Washington"s policy towards the Alliance: neither then-Secretary of State Tillerson, nor President Trump, who was actively engaging in belittling NATO allies on Twitter, had any diplomatic experience in the past. In this picture, imagine a diplomat who succeeded to get his country out of NATO crisis, will be serving in Baku and that fact is quite telling

No doubt that Litzenberger will be able to explain firsthand to the Azeri authorities and the people of Azerbaijan the importance of relations with NATO, as well as possible negative aspects of affiliating with Russia, and its military block. Unfortunately, some other regional members of NATO, particularly Turkey, which could make a good guardian for Azerbaijan, is way too far from perfection. Officials from Baku being caught in the Moscow's toils are seeking to draw the country and the nation away from the Western Alliance while preventing them from public debates on the issue.

As far as I know, the official propaganda machine in Baku is campaigning hard to prove that Azerbaijan"s joining to CSTO will help us to return Karabakh, which is, according to many credible observers, too far from reality. In this situation, Litzenberger"s nomination as an Ambassador will allow Washington to have a word on this issue and to voice its position at the highest possible level without waiting until NATO and CSTO discussions are over. For this to happen, there is no need in Ambassador"s arrival in Baku: these issues will most likely, be raised by US lawmakers during Senat Foreign Affairs Committee hearings to be held in the forthcoming weeks - if not months - when the Committee will consider the nomination of Litzenberger" candidacy.

Of interest is the fact that Ambassador Litzenberger in the course of his previous activity had publicly unmasked the Russian policy of carrot and stick in respect of its neighbors. The fact that such a diplomat may find himself in the center of CSTO debates in Baku, is rather interesting.

- Some experts believe that the appointment of a principal advisor to the US State Department Bureau for political and military matters as an Ambassador to Baku means none other than US intention to declare war on Iran. What can you say about this version?

- Beyond any doubt, the current administration is interested in significant revision of policy in respect of Iran. However, this does not necessarily mean a war. There are talks about maximum use of pressure rhetoric to achieve dialogue, just as was the case with North Korea...

Besides, as I"ve mentioned above that in the corridors of policy-making institutions, Lee Litzenberger is portrayed as a crisis solver, not as warring diplomat. It should be remembered that he is not a military man, and he was in charge of civilian, peace-making missions in his recent past. Given that, it's frankly hard to associate his appointment to Baku with a war, or with an Iranian factor. It is no secret that there are a number of experienced diplomats serving in the US Embassy to Azerbaijan as "Iran watchers". The lessons of history dictate that if the United States was eying war, they would recall its diplomats instead of sending their chief to the region.

-What do you think, are authorities of Azerbaijan interested in having such an Ambassador as Litzenberger? And have the authorities of Azerbaihan had any contacts with Litzenbergerом?

- In considering that we have scanty information to confirm direct contacts between Ambassador Litzenberger and the Azerbaijani leadership other than possible collaboration within the framework of US and NATO military security programs, let"s make one thing clear: the new Ambassador has not soiled his hands in oil diplomacy. This is a good now for the Azerbaijani people. Some observers compare political career of Litzenberger to that of the former Ambassador, Richard Morningstar. Both used to worked at Brussels, though unlike Morningstar, Litzenberger and today"s US administration in general have no faith in "oil diplomacy".

Moreover, official numbers suggest that the United States is now the word's biggest oil-exporter. It is also true that Europe still is in need of the Azerrbaijani oil. This continent importing 15% of world gas reserves, has just 2% of gas at stock. In the meanwhile, the southern gas corridor, which Azerbaijan involved, can only meet a part of required volumes. In other words, in the years to come Europe will be in greater need of American rather than Azerbaijani energy resources.
Just recently, on September 13, I attended a congressional hearings in Washington where the country"s top energy policymakers announced that in the nearest future the United States would be not only the world"s greatest gas exporter, but will also meet Europe's gas need, which is expected to increase 20% till 2040.

Now, returning back to your question about Ambassador Litzenberger. Unlike him, his current boss at the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Tina Kaidanow, is pretty much familiar to Baku audience. During 2008-2009 she often visited the region; there even were some rumors that she would take a position of Ambassador or substitute Matthew Bryza as co-chairman of the Minsk Group of OSCE. However, it's no secret that the Azeri officials have long relied on energy diplomacy rather than having a career American diplomat engaged in security and military sphere serving as the US Ambassador to Baku. At any rate, it"d be more expedient for them to put the human rights protection concept on the back foot by means of energy diplomacy than through the use of security diplomacy which would constantly remind the Azeri government of its NATO commitments, including political reforms. One might ask: but why, isn't the military aspect also important for Azerbaijan? The answer is: yes, it is indeed the case. However, there is no getting away from the fact that for many years Washington has followed the policy of neutrality in respect of promoting Azerbaijan"s military security. It is Amendment 907 that impeded the expansion of collaboration. In this case, from the Azeri officials' viewpoint, there was no need to diplomacy creativeness in the sphere. It"d be more attractive for them to establish energy and military collaboration hrough countries like Israel and in exchange, get some support of the Jewish lobby in America. Until recently, this policy has been pretty effective, though it is not attractive for the present US administration. When maintaining relations with Baku, Washington is eager to detach from "oil diplomacy" and is rather interested in the transition to the policy of security and integration into western institutions. It is good news for the people of Azerbaijan: Litzenberger"s appointment is not a political appointment. For the first time over the past few years, the United States has finally decided to send a career diplomat to Azerbaijan.

-What can you say about Litzenberger"s attitude to the Azerbaijani authorities and ongoing developments? Is he knowledgeable about Azerbaijan?

- We have no information about direct contacts between the new Ambassador and the Azerbaijani authorities. On the other hand, he noticeably appeared to maintain relations with several think tanks in Washington - such as German Marshall Fund where he used to work for, with whom Baku collaborates as well.

As for his awareness of Azerbaijan, let's not forget that career diplomats are made, not born professional. Sometimes we hear rumors that the personality of Ambassador is not in the picture at all, for he has to execute orders from Washington. Perhaps, it is true with hindsight. Experienced diplomats that have so far worked in (and on) Azerbaijan could be a good example to this: most of them started out their careers, and in this respect Baku was chosen to gain experience and prepare for work in other significant regional countries, such as in Turkey or in Baltics. Some of them have gained experience in Washington, albeit in the corridors of energy policy. That's why when we, journalists and political analysts, meet with them, we usually are interested in the matter of Washington"s strategy, if any, on Azerbaijan. Today, the situation tends to change. Azerbaijani-American relations: longing for diplomatic creativeness. Hopefully, activity of the new US Ambassador to Baku will create favorable conditions for developing a comprehensive strategy on Azerbaijan in the White House..

- American officials note that the United State is collaborating with Azerbaijan along three directions: security, energy and democracy. This policy does not change for many years. However, no evidence of US diplomats" serious activity around human rights and democracy is observed. As a consequence, radio Azadly has been closed; most American organizations have frozen theior activity in Azerbaijan and had to leave the country. In your view, will the new Ambassador focus on energy and security matters or make a principled stand on human rights and democracy issues?

- With all due respect to what US officials declare, the fact is that the topic of human rights has for a number of years been ignored in the agenda of high-level Azerbaijani-American meetings. To be exact, no direct dialogue on this issue has been held between Baku and Washington since 2013, though there is a dialogue on energy and security. For the last time, it was a deputy Secretary of State for human rights of the Obama administration, Tom Malinovsky, who tried to arrive in Baku in 2015, but that tip got cancelled. The same was true with his deputy Thomas Melia, whose visa was liquidated in 2013. Thus, the Azerbaijani-American dialogue on democracy has long been frozen.

As for the Trump administration, at present, the US diplomacy is not particularly interested in presenting human rights as a separate direction in the dialogue between the countries. It depends on the Azerbaijani people to raise this issue over and over until it's actually picked by foreign diplomats and their governments, given that it is in the interests of regional security, and of Azerbaijan's own national security. In the meantime, this topic can also be raised as part of Azerbaijan's own international obligations, within the framework of integration into western institutions, and in exchange, the US security guarantee of Azerbaijan, arm selling etc. The new Ambassador can, most likely, assist in advocating for repealing Amendment 907: his diplomatic career and reputation in Washington could provide some opportunity for that. However, it also depends on how the Azerbaijani government cares about the country's international image. They should stop lobbying for influence abroad while engaging in human rights abuses at home. These issues go hand in hand.

The latest developments, including the appointment of a career diplomat to Azerbaijan, give grounds to argue that the United States is interested in diplomatic engagement in a long term. In other words, the choice is of Azerbaijan: either bending under Russian sword and turning into servants in its own home, or reaffirming its choice in favor of the western values and institutions by revising itself and its policy. By all appearance, the Ambassador will most likely act in line with the above, i.e. under a principle of just as a famous Azeri idiom says: "I"m a servant of those reckoning with me, and I"m a master of those disrespecting me".