Is Caucasus a priority for Obama in the next four years?

(TURAN's interview with US analyst David Satter)

As the White House is preparing for another inauguration on January 20th, the questions about most pressing challenges and most promising opportunities awaiting President Obama's foreign policy in his second term are being harshly discussed in Washington circles.

For many analysts, three major forces will be looming behind the global headlines, driving events in 2013: the crisis of the Western democratic model, rising sectarian strive in the Middle East, and worries about American withdrawal from the world.

For Caucasus, Obama's second turn must be "good news", according to some Washington watchers who observe US regional policy very closely.

By the end of his first term, President Obama was able to set the "right tone" for US policy in the region: this ton is being based on several major lines, according to the observers; the independence of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia and peaceful resolution of the conflicts in the region; support for the process of political and economic reform in the region, including through freedom of speech, the right of assembly and free and fair elections; co-operation with regional powers, such as EU, Turkey and Russia.

Now, the question is will these priorities continue to be featured in Obama's second term?

"Absoletely", - the diplomats, who are aware of the nature of the US Caucasus policy, insist.

Many analysts, however, urge that "bolder action will be required in the future".

TURAN's Washington DC correspondent discussed this topic with David Satter, a long-time observer of Russia and the former Soviet Union.

Based in Washington, DC, Mr. Satter is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a fellow of the Foreign Policy Institute of Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS).

Question: A few days before President Barack Obama's second inauguration what should the people in the Caucasus expect from the US foreign policy during the next four years? Is any change expected in the US-Azerbaijan relationship, for example?

Answer: The situation regarding Azerbaijan is not going so much to be effected by the re-election of Obama to his next term, but rather the situation with Iran. This is a big question that is hanging over the world situation, what to do about Iran. And of course if the situation there becomes critical as it could, either because of American actions, or because of Israeli actions, then Azerbaijan's importance to the US as a strategic ally also increases.

And under those circumstances the issue of human rights in Azerbaijan, which has not been pursued very vigorously anyway, is likely to be pursued even less vigorously.

I think that the concern about Iran and concern about cooperation with Russia over Afghanistan is the one that has let the Obama administration to downplay concern for human rights in Russia, so barring any major changes in foreign policy orientation as results of a new Secretary of State, for example, we can pretty much expect that this will be the approach in other countries of former Soviet Union as well.

Question: On Iran, what does Washington expect from Azerbaijan, as the clock is still ticking on Iran's movement toward becoming a nuclear power?

Answer: It is very hard to predict what will happen, because the Middle East is now in turmoil. Iran is in danger of losing its principal ally which is Syria, and under these circumstances if there is a conflict, if the US attacks Iran, or Israel attacks Iran, and there is a war situation, then of course the military planners in both of those countries will be looking at Azerbaijan for assistance in one way or another.

I'm not a military specialist, so it's hard for me to say exactly what form that would take, but with Iran' position in the world, its geographical location, it's absolutely popular and strategic. Especially under the conditions in which there might be some form of armed confrontation.

So I think that under these circumstances whatever they plan to do, whatever the results of an attack on Iran or the consequences of a rising tension that American military planners will have to very carefully explore the possibilities of getting strategic assistance from Azerbaijan.

Question: For many Washington officials, democracy promotion is still central to US foreign policy. In the meantime, there are always some questions in the region whether Washington cares more about energy, security, economy, or democracy in these regions? On one side it's understandable that the US is trying to defend its own interests and negotiate with the authoritarian regimes, while on the other side its interests and values are being stepped on. For example, there were attempts of shutting down western NGOs, broadcasts in many of those countries -- such as Azerbaijan, Russia governments' control of social movements and media, even arrests of the journalists. Turkey has become a record country where more journalists than ever are languishing in prisons across the world, even more than Iran...

So, how to deal with these challenges while promoting the US interests in these particular regions?

Answer: Speaking about Azerbaijan, I think that a certain extend it will depend to the civil society in Azerbaijan itself, because as long as official Washington is not aware of a problem or a serious problem in Azerbaijan, as long as events are not calling it to their attention, they will find it the easiest to downplay or overlook this aspect of the relation.

Because Azerbaijan is a small country, it's not part of the Soviet Union, and its importance as an ally for the US is unfortunately mostly because of its strategic location.

Nonetheless, because there is American society that remains committed to the ideals and the principals of human rights, and so when violations of human rights occur in Azerbaijan, it will definitely be up to Azerbaijani civil society to call that to that to the world's attention in affect to force it on the agenda of the US.

Question: As you know, the relations between Baku and Washington cooled at the beginning of Obama's first term, though later -- as of last year, we’ve seen that the Obama administration was trying to repair them. How do you think the dimension will continue during Obama's second term?

Answer: Hard to say, because right now the real issue for the administration will be the nuclear aspirations of Iran on the one hand, and the position of the US in Afghanistan and of the anti-Taliban forces and government forces.

If we follow the example of Russia and Russia policy, we can see that the priority for the administration is going to be to guarantee the success of the Afghan policy and to prevent Iran from getting the nuclear weapons. So I think there will not be a separate and a distinctive policy towards Azerbaijan in this context.

Azerbaijan is in the situation being a country that is being viewed by larger countries in terms of the overall geopolitical situation rather than in terms of its specific concerns. It's rather unfortunate, but this is the way it is in that part of the world. Azerbaijan is in the part of the world in which the US has what it considers being a vital interest.

And even the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, although it's important, is not considered in the vital interest of the US.

Question: In the meantime, President Obama has taken several steps to bring peace to Caucasus during his first term of presidency, although it didn't work out: the Azeri-Armenian conflict, Russia-Georgia tension, Turkish-Armenian rapprochement still remain unsolved. All the sides are as far from each other as they were four years ago. Is there anything that Washington can do to change the status-quo in the region?

Answer: I think there is a chance… Of course, the American side is well aware of the war and the importance of resolving the issues around Nagorno-Karabakh, so therefore there is nothing to prevent it.

But the reality is that it's not at the moment the highest priority and it is unlikely to become so, unless of course the events in the region threaten the overall strategic interests.

Question: The US-Russia relations are rather likely deteriorating since President Putin returned back to the Kremlin last year. The latest Magnistsky bill clearly wasn't understood properly in Moscow. Do you think the latest developments might be a sign of a possible cold war return? Do the US and Russia need to reset the reset?

Answer: The only people, who can reset the reset, are the people who started the reset, which is the US. In fact the US administration shows no desire to do that. The problem is that Congress and the American people have reacted to the behavior of the Russian authorities on their own, independently from the administration. I think that the relations have deteriorated and they will continue to deteriorate for a number of reasons.

One reason is that the Russian regime is very authoritarian and very corrupt, and committing crimes like these that were committed against Sergei Magnitski is just part of its nature. And it was almost inevitable that sooner or later there will be a reaction from someone in the West over this kind of behavior. At the same time Putin's political position is not as strong as it was.

There are demonstrations against him, and very large demonstrations. And he is going to be more and more tempted to mobilize the population against the foreign enemy to distract attention from himself. And the best candidate for the foreign enemy is the US. Under these circumstances we can pretty much be sure that no matter how much resetting is done, that the relationship is going to deteriorate.

Question: What are the main differences between US and Russia's priorities in Azerbaijan?

Answer: I think that in the case of the US there is a desire to diversify the oil pipeline routes with the help of Azerbaijan and also prevent Russia from stranglehold over the transport of the Caspian Sea oil.

But America has other interests in Azerbaijan as well which are to make sure than Azerbaijan is a stronger ally in case of a conflict in Iran. Because Azerbaijan, as a neighbor of Iran, could be a very important staging area and it could provide very important logistic help in case it's needed.

I'm sure the Israelis look at it the same way.

Question: How would you describe Azerbaijan's real image in Washington, DC? Seems like, the oil-reach government spends millions of dollars to change its image in Washington circles.

Answer: I think that people understand that Azerbaijan is very rich because of the Caspian Sea oil, and the wealth is not very well distributed.

And that there is a lot of corruption there, and there have been killings of dissidents. So, in other words, Azerbaijan has the image of many other post-soviet republics.

Question: There are some calls among Washington analysts that while promoting democracy in the Middle East, the Obama administration should also focus on institutions and engage with all nonviolent groups, including Islamists. Many in Azerbaijan are afraid that the religion is replacing the regular opposition. How danger is it for the country's future?

Answer: This is a danger because this is a problem not just in Azerbaijan, but everywhere that the opposition to the secular rulers is being monopolized now by fanatical so called religious groups who are actually in the long run possibly even more dangerous than the people they oppose.

This is why these undemocratic regimes are a real source of vulnerability in the world, because they foster radical opposition just the way corrupt tsarism fostered radical communism.

Alakbar Raufoglu

Washington, DC

01/03/2012