Baku risks US ties with harsh rhetoric against top envoy Amerikan analyst: "Ambassador Mornigstar wanted to say that..."

As the official rhetoric in Baku against US envoy escalates over Ambassador Richard Morningstar's latest interview to the RFE/RL's local branch, diplomats in Washington DC seem wary of reacting the incident in public.

With Azerbaijan recently taking over the chairmanship of the CoE, Ambassador Morningstar spoke out about the current human rights concerns in the country, as well as other pertinent issues, such as corruption, Ukraine lessons, liberal democracy, a harder line within the government, something that Baku officials see as "attempts to interfere into the country's domestic and foreign policy and control [it]".

While criticizing US policy in the country some top Azeri government officials, including President's advisers, went further accusing Washington of "financing and orchestrating Euromaidan" as well as "undermining Azerbaijan's balanced policy with its neighbors i.e. Russia, Iran."

The State Department didsn't comment on the accusations. For many analysts though, such as Michael Tkacik, an American academic focusing on democracy, international affairs, and a longtime Azerbaijan watcher, it is ironic that Ambassador Morningstar drew such ire from some Azeri officials because "he was quite circumspect in what he said." 

"He could have been far more critical," a Texas-based Professor of Government, and Director of the School of Honors at the Stephen F. Austin State University, told TURAN's Washington DC correspondent.

What did Ambassador Morningstar actually want to say, aside form the diplomatic language and the timing of the interview?

Speaking to TURAN, Mr. Tkacik underlined four major subjects from the Ambassador's statements.

"I think the most important thing that he (the Ambassador) hinted at, was that corruption at all levels is stifling Azerbaijan's economy," he said, arguing that notwithstanding the progress made against lower level corruption, there is a disincentive to becoming an entrepreneur in Azerbaijan because people feel that their hard work will simply be stolen.

"If no one innovates and no one is willing to begin new businesses, an economy will not grow. And too few people see the value in such activity because of corruption. Corruption adds costs to doing business and provides a disincentive to economic activity. If corruption is reduced, the economy grows, and the environment for liberal democracy becomes friendlier."

A second important point, Prof. Tkacik added, is the importance the Ambassador puts on liberal democracy, while at the same time acknowledging the limits on US influence. These limits are both self-imposed (the US has competing interests in the region, such as access to energy for Europe and keeping Azerbaijan independent) and systemic (there is simply a limit to how much the US can achieve with its resources).

"The Obama administration believes liberal democracy is in the long-term interests of the US and the Azerbaijani people. But it is focused on incremental change so as to create a friendlier environment for democracy. This means the US is playing a long-term game, not a short-term game. Obviously one of the keys to this long-term approach is building civil society," Prof. Tkacik emphasized.

A third important concern is Nagorno-Karabakh. So long as this issue is not resolved, it is more difficult to push for democracy.

For Tkacik, government officials "can always claim that democracy must be delayed in the interests of national security. All governments make similar arguments - one only needs to observe the Bush and Obama administrations assaults on civil liberties."

A fourth item was present in the subtext: the US has interests other than democracy.

Democracy, said Tkacik, is one interest that is sometimes (oftentimes?) trumped by other interests:  "The US, does not want to see Russia reassert control over Azerbaijan... The US does want energy to continue to flow to Europe and other markets. The US does not wish to strengthen Iran's hand. The US would prefer a liberal democracy in Baku. But the US is not willing to risk Azerbaijan's independence in a gamble on liberal democracy."

As for the Azeri officials' responses to the Ambassador's interview, Tkicik said, they were "comical and even paranoid on some level."

"The claims of "interference in one's internal affairs" usually mean that a state is abusing its population and wishes to continue that abuse. It usually means a state has something to hide. For example, China is the biggest proponent of its "sovereign internal affairs," because China denies its citizens human rights. What these objections really mean is that, for the person making the statement, personal power means more than the liberty of others," he explained.  "And power usually means more because they are in some way benefiting from that power (i.e., corruption). If these objections come from certain sectors of the government, one can surmise those making the objections see a greater threat to their ability to take from the system (through corruption)."

That said, added, Tkacik, there is something legitimate about the concerns set forth. "First, it is true that many civil society groups are financed in the West (who else would do it?). It is also true that these groups have a long-term goal of opening society up, which will eventually bring about democratic reforms. But if this is the objection, then let's be clear: the government's real objection is to liberalization and an end to their privileged positions, not to civil society NGOs."

Second, he said, Euromaidan fears "are real.""And it is plausible that a MaidanNezalezhnosti-like event could eventually lead to the end of Azerbaijan's independence. The beauty of any great lie is that it has enough truth in it to be plausible."

The analyst also ruled out the speculations that given the recent tensions Baku-Washington relations are near rock bottom, adding that if anything, "the counties need each other more than ever."

"As noted in the interviews, Ukraine made clear just how tenuous Azerbaijan's independence is: Behind the scenes the two states are probably working on shoring up Azerbaijan's independence, which explains in part the renewed emphasis on resolving Nagorno-Karabakh," he said, adding, the democratization dispute is between individuals within each government.

"Certain "democratic ideologues" in the US are clashing with certain especially onerous officials within President Aliyev's government. But as the Ambassador makes clear, democracy is only one US interest among many in Azerbaijan. It is a key long-term interest, but in the short-term there are probably more salient interests."

The US and Azerbaijan,he emphasized, still have significant common interests. "The [Ambassador's] interview was focused on liberalization and the responses to that interview by Azerbaijani officials were, naturally, also focused on liberalization (or protecting Azerbaijan's internal sovereignty, if you prefer). But just because the focus here was on liberalization, that does not mean the two states are primarily focused on liberalization or that they are not working toward shared interests."

For Tkacik, the US must balance its desire for liberalization in Azerbaijan against other goals such as maintaining Azerbaijan's independence; maintaining the flow of energy resources as well as the infrastructure that moves those resources; maintaining cooperation on security matters, including terrorism; maintaining access to Azerbaijan for American businesses; and so forth. "The US cannot place its desire for liberalization above all other interests... It must balance these interests."

On the other hand, he said, it appears from the Ambassador's comments that the US sees Aliyev as more moderate than others in the regime.

"The Ambassador implies that there is a harder line within the government... If that is the case, then the US may be wary of weakening Aliyev by criticizing too intensely. Admittedly, I am reading between the words a bit here. My interpretation may be incorrect. But there does seem to be at least an implication along these lines."

Speaking about the regional challenges in front of the Azeri government in a wake of the events in Ukraine, Prof. Tkacik said, one can imagine a situation in which Russia seeks to reassert its rule over Azerbaijan.

"When Russia seized Crimea, it also gained access to energy resources in the Black Sea. Azerbaijan has not only energy resources, but also pipeline infrastructure. Russia sees value in controlling pipeline infrastructure."

Azerbaijan also straddles a key geopolitical position allowing for easier access to the Middle East. Georgia and Ukraine both provided a model for 21st century Russian intervention. At the same time, Putin will probably think twice before engaging more deeply in the Islamic world. "He has his hands full north of Azerbaijan already. It is not clear that he wishes for deeper involvement, especially when Azerbaijan has kept its distance from the US."

"My feeling is that so long as the status quo maintains, Russia will be happy. Aliyev and his supporters are probably right in claiming that one thing that could encourage Russian intervention would be a Euromaidan-type uprising. One could also imagine Nagorno-Karabakh being Azerbaijan's Crimea. The status quo ante may be the best way to keep Russia out of Azerbaijan, but it also provides incentive for Russia to prevent resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh," he said.

The analyst believes that it seems that Russia does not wish to see resolution of the conflict.

"If the conflict were resolved, Russia would have less justification to intervene in the region and the US might well draw closer to the states of the region,"he said. "Moreover, we would likely see some Western led peacekeeping mission, which would make Russia profoundly uncomfortable. That said, if the US could offer incentives sufficient for Armenia to move away from Russia, a peace deal might be struck,"

In the meantime, he said, counter-intuitively, the most likely way for this to happen would be some unilateral concession on the part of Azerbaijan as a way of "jump starting" the final phase of a peace agreement.

"President Aliyev may or may not be strong enough to make such a concession. But if he were able to, Armenia would find itself under intense pressure to meet this gesture. The US could then step in and offer security guarantees through Western supported peacekeeping forces that would remove any justification for Russian intervention. The relatively quick deployment of peacekeeping forces with Western support could then seal the deal, effectively vaccinating the region from Russian intervention. I acknowledge that this is a rather attenuated set of events,"Tkack said, adding, though unless something drastic is attempted (like unilateral concessions), Russia will be able to maintain the crisis into the foreseeable future. "The indefinite prolonging of the crisis would serve Putin's interests in the region:"

Still, he added, Ambassador JamesWarlick is correct in that the bases for peaceful settlement have been agreed upon:"The question is whether either side can make the first move to jar loose the loggerhead."

In conclution, Tkacik emphasized that there is no denying Azerbaijan occupies a very important place in the world, both physically and virtually. "The US does not want Azerbaijan to fall under the influence of Russia or Iran. It does not want Azerbaijan to disappear. It does want Azerbaijan to become more liberal. But actions taken to ensure one of these outcomes often hinder the accomplishment of other outcomes. Azerbaijan is a puzzle for the US for these reasons. Yet it is a puzzle that the United States cannot afford to ignore."

A.Raufoglu

Washington, DC