US-Azerbaijan relations: Is winter coming?

Question: Alakbar bey, the House of Representatives of the US Congress has adopted a bill that affects the implementation of the main directions of foreign policy, including the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The bill requires a report from the Pentagon on the allocation of funds to foreign national security agencies that "grossly violated internationally recognized human rights". The bill also requires President Biden's administration to provide information on all humanitarian programs in Nagorno-Karabakh, including project descriptions, budgets, lists of partner organizations, and final results. The bill must be approved by the Senate. Why does the US Congress want to have such an anti-Azerbaijani bill passed? Why is Azerbaijan targeted?

Answer: First of all, it should be noted that the legislative amendments you are talking about have been incorporated into the draft National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In general, I would not call this bill specifically "anti-Azerbaijani" although our country is mentioned 23 times in a row in the version of the document passed by the House of Representatives. By comparison, the document mentions Russia 48 times and China 120 times. I mean, Azerbaijan is not the most controversial country in the discourse on US foreign policy operations, as presented from the outside.

But what really happened? Several members of the pro-Armenian coalition in the House of Representatives, during the discussion of the law, decided to respond to the calls of their Armenian voters and use their mandates to make legislative amendments, it is just that simple. To present this as targeting of Azerbaijan at the level of state policy in the United States is, at best, to exaggerate the scale of the work.

Only one of the proposed amendments to the law - Amendment 21, authored by Congressman from California, Tony Cardenas - is addressed directly to Azerbaijan such that it calls for the return of Armenian captives, as the current administration has repeatedly stated its position on this issue. Moreover, we are probably right in saying that the specific political strategy of the Azerbaijani government regarding the captives is not completely clear to Azerbaijan itself. In the other amendments you mentioned, Azerbaijan is not directly mentioned although Congressman Frank Pallone hinted at the fate of military aid to this country in his speeches...

Amendment 449, written by another Democratic Congressman from California, David Valadao, requires President Biden's administration to provide an analytical explanation of all humanitarian programs in Nagorno-Karabakh, including project descriptions, budget information, list of partner organizations, and final results, as well as future assistance. This amendment, compiled in a fairly diplomatic language, does not present Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent country, nor as a territory of Azerbaijan, nor as a separate territorial unit. I repeat, if we look at the document through diplomatic glasses, leaving aside the speculations and speeches about the "true intention" of the author, I would not be in a hurry to evaluate this amendment as an initiative that would endanger the de facto situation in the region at the moment or will definitely go against the common cause.

The independent experts I spoke to also believe that all parties interested in the development of life and peace in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, both Baku politicians and Karabakh Armenians, should consider the possibility of benefiting from this initiative for the common good. In any case, in the recent past, Azerbaijani officials have repeatedly stressed the need to attract funding from the United States for construction work and the improvement of the humanitarian situation in post-war Nagorno-Karabakh.

As for the legislative amendments to the dispute over military aid to countries recognized as human rights violators, regardless of the authors' intentions, in fact, these initiatives can be seen as an additional tool to improve the domestic political situation in countries such as Azerbaijan.

In fact, the question should be: Why and for how long should Azerbaijan seek to represent a dark picture of negative trends in the annual human rights reports of the US Department of State, as well as in other indisputable factual collections of other authoritative sources, so that the Armenian Diaspora and other biased forces intend to use it to their advantage? ? In other words, I am in favor of looking for the problem and solution in Baku rather than in Washington.

Question: Can this bill pass the Senate?

Answer: Yes, this act was passed into law in the House of Representatives on September 24 and sent to the Senate for adoption. At the next stage, the Senate must adopt its own version. The Senate Armed Services Committee has already included the bill in its agenda since September 22. After the Senate adopts its version, both drafts will be compared by representatives and senators, and the differences will be worked out in a joint committee.

This means that amendments regarding Azerbaijan can be either retained or changed at that stage. The final version of the updated law will then be approved and sent to President Biden for signature. The process can last until the end of autumn or winter.

Question: US Deputy Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, thanked Azerbaijan for its support in the US evacuation efforts from Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the US House of Representatives adopted a statement on Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The statement called for the "immediate release of Armenian captives and hostages". At the same time, the bill we just talked about. How do we understand this now? Warm attitude on the one hand, statement and bill on the other.

Answer: It is a fair question although politicians in Washington do not see a serious contradiction in this chronology. Azerbaijan's participation in anti-terrorist operations in Afghanistan, as well as its support for the evacuation, is undeniable, and it was Baku's voluntary choice at the urging of the United States. At the same time, the US government's impartial mediation in the Karabakh issue was a voluntary choice by Washington at the request of both Azerbaijan and Armenia, under a UN mandate and under the umbrella of the OSCE Minsk Group. In this sense, expecting one side to do more than the other is understandable to Washington officials, but unacceptable. It is important to unequivocally separate the initiatives of Congress from the policy of the US government.

It is a fact that the Armenian Diaspora, which has lived in the United States for decades, has a problem with Azerbaijan - whether biased or impartial - they, like all US citizens, enjoy the opportunity to express their concerns in elected bodies, through their elected officials. Is Azerbaijan able to influence this process or respond adequately? Yes! But how?

The only tried-and-tested way to do this in US democracy is to find a way into the hearts of the growing number of American-Azerbaijanis living in that country, in the example of Azerbaijan. But, unfortunately, the isolationist policy pursued by Baku officials towards the diaspora, as well as the harsh policy pursued within the country in the field of human rights, have rightly alienated it in the eyes of the diaspora representatives in terms of democratic values. Of course, when it comes to national issues, the diaspora will already express its position, regardless of who is in power in Azerbaijan, but, unfortunately, instead of letting the situation flow naturally and achieve a radical solution to domestic problems, the Azerbaijani government has announced a wrong "alternative" course for years: the course of gaining influence in Washington with money.

Officials in Baku should realize once and for all that the activities of professional lobbying organizations in Washington are successful only if they are directed against third countries and institutions (for example, Israel against Iran, or India against Pakistan, etc.); but Azerbaijan's problem, as mentioned above, is with the Armenian-American voters in the United States. Therefore, the use of lobbying services against the will of US voters, whether of Armenian descent or not, has the opposite effect. While this is not [yet] a crime under current American law, it is, above all, a waste of time and money and a cause for justified criticism.

Question: Washington is trying to take an active part in the search for a peaceful settlement in the Caucasus. The statement came after a meeting between Jeyhun Bayramov and Victoria Nuland. On the other hand, in a congratulatory letter to Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of Armenia's independence, US President Joe Biden promised support for the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the release of Armenian captives, writing that the Armenian people faced threats, including military operations in Nagorno-Karabakh, which led to tragic losses. “We will share the grief of the Armenian people and work hand in hand with the Armenian government to ensure regional stability and resolve the conflict in the format of the OSCE Minsk Group and other regional formats.” Again, keeping a foot in both camps. To be honest, I have difficulty understanding the position of the United States. What does the United States want to do with a foot in both camps? What are its interests in the region?

Answer: If we talk about the policy of the administration, first of all, the officials believe that mutual talks will bring lasting peace to the region. You can say that this has always been the case; however, from my observations, the current appetite for dialogue in the corridors of Washington is higher than ever, and there are reasons for that...

What happened in Nagorno-Karabakh last year proved once again that even the longest-running status quo is not a lasting solution. In this sense, whenever possible, US officials convey their expectations of mediation to both Baku and Yerevan. In fact, the offer to work hand in hand was made on both sides - in Baku and Yerevan, it can be seen as a foot in both camps; however, in the eyes of Washington, it is a sign of neutrality.

Peace must begin with the recognition of reality. Washington already understands that the biggest tragedy in Karabakh diplomacy in recent years has been to ignore the realities of the conflict, so to speak. Last year's war was expected but the factors that made it necessary have been ignored for many years. Negotiations were almost deadlocked. Even a few years before the war - in August 2017 - the United States lowered its representative in the Minsk Group from the status of ambassador (the current co-chair is simply a career diplomat), and this situation has not changed.

The contacts of the Minsk Group trio over the past 10 days have once again highlighted the need to breathe new life into the talks. Moreover, Russia, one of the mediating countries, has violated one of the basic principles of the Minsk Group by deploying a peacekeeping force in the region, and mutual contacts would be necessary to eliminate these and other problems.

The United States believes that only lasting peace can be achieved through dialogue between Baku and Yerevan, and in order to achieve results in this direction, the mediating countries must refrain from statements and steps that would undermine neutrality. They can influence the parties on only one issue - bringing leaders to the table. Although resolving a war through dialogue is more difficult than fighting it, it remains the only way out.

Question: Finally, where is the US relationship with Azerbaijan now? Could it be that the relationship policy is not yet fully transparent because of some disagreements? And in what issue can these disagreements be?

Answer: Although there seems to be silence, it is felt that "winter is coming" in US-Azerbaijani relations, as it is said in a famous TV show, and surprisingly, the most active forces in this work are in Baku...

It was no coincidence that a recent pro-government media outlet reported from the United States that there would be a "wave of attacks" against the Azerbaijani government. By the way, the style of these articles reminded those who closely watched the outside world of Ramiz Mehdiyev's anti-US manifestos a few years ago. It seems that some people are still interested in the "Mehdiyev style" of the country's relations with the West.

In turn, it was incomprehensible that President Aliyev, in a recent interview with the Russian newspaper Nasionalnaya Oborona, opened the old wounds and once again blamed the United States and its media for the information war. Not only unofficial but also openly official source of disinformation against Azerbaijan has been, in some cases, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia. The United States has been particularly distinguished in maintaining its neutrality.

The Biden administration has described its foreign policy goals as a struggle between authoritarianism and democracy. China is still the second extreme in this struggle, so Azerbaijani officials are simply in a hurry to describe themselves as a "pitch" between Russia and the United States on this "front"...

Based on my personal observations, I can say that the criticism of the United States' calls for democracy and human rights violations in Azerbaijan has long been replaced by frustration. For several years, the congressional committees have not held any hearings on this issue. President Biden's team, even at the level of virtual briefings of the Department of State, demonstratively avoids hearing questions about Azerbaijan during its 10 months of activity...

Against this background, allegations that Washington is preparing a "wave of attacks" against Baku do not fit into the spirit of US-Azerbaijani relations, especially given that in just five months, the two countries are preparing to celebrate the 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations.

As for Baku's wishes, Ilham Aliyev's representatives have always demanded that Washington recognize the Aliyev government as a strategic partner, given that the country is an energy producer; however, bilateral presidential meetings aimed at promoting Azerbaijan's international "image" have not yet taken place: Photos of Aliyev's meeting with the US president in the Oval Office were last published 15 years ago, in April 2006.

In a few months, the current US ambassador to Baku will return to Washington to complete his mission; I do not think that the appointment of a new ambassador will be an easy process in today's conditions. Therefore, I would recommend that officials think seriously about the proper use of available resources. Instead of making statements and steps that will further chill the relationship, it is useful to start supplies now to prevent the harshness of the expected "winter".

Kamran Mahmudov