Why did Anthony Blinken call Ilham Aliyev?

***

-Elkhan bey, many observers note that the US Secretary of State's call to President Aliyev was related to the Minsk Group. What do you think?

-Apparently, in the first 100 days of his presidency, US President J. Biden has already formulated his policy or approach to Karabakh. After Biden came to power, the ambassador stressed the need for the Minsk Group co-chairs to intervene, and these views were more clearly reflected in the co-chairs' latest statement. Although these statements use general terms related to the Minsk Group’s work, specific issues are now being raised. US Secretary of State Blinken's phone call to President Aliyev and the statements made about it confirm that the United States has a well-formed view on the launch of the Minsk Group’s work.

On April 20, George Kent, the head of the US Department of State’s Bureau of Europe and Eurasia, spoke at an online conference entitled "US Policy in the South Caucasus", initiated by the German Marshall Fund. In a speech expressing sympathy for the Pashinyan government, as for the issue of Azerbaijan and Armenia, he focused mainly on the Minsk Group, emphasizing the importance of determining its status "so that the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh can live in security". He recalled the Madrid Principles and spoke about the determination of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh along with the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan through national self-determination. In general, Kent's speech was a rigid approach, far from the existing reality in the field. Based on his speech at the conference, USAID Representative for Europe and Eurasia, Alex Sokolovsky, and a leading expert of the Marshall Fund also shared the view that the status has not yet been resolved.

The fact that Kent's speech was not accidental was also highlighted in an April 27 interview of US Ambassador to Armenia, Lynne Tracy, with RFE / RL's Armenian service. She noted that despite the cessation of hostilities, there are unresolved issues and the status of Nagorno-Karabakh and refugees (of course, she meant Armenian refugees) remain a problem, and in this regard, she stressed the importance of the launch of the Minsk Group co-chairs’ work. I think that Anthony Blinken also approached the issue in this context and expressed his views to Ilham Aliyev.

-What do you think is the reason for such an approach of the Biden administration?

-I have no doubt that the current approach of the Biden government is based on a text prepared by the Nazi Armenian National Committee in America. In the United States, as a rule, when the co-chair or someone is appointed to a high position in the Department of State for this region, they first meet with members of the Armenian National Committee as a primary source and receive information from them. When they come to Baku to meet with our government, they also come with an opinion formed on the basis of Armenian sources. Biden himself has always worked with them, and the genocide resolutions he authored, all the anti-Azerbaijani and anti-Turkish drafts in Congress, were prepared by the lawyers of the Armenian National Committee. They simply submitted these drafts to the Senate or Congress. In the Department of State, the difference may be that the co-chair's office retains their terms and makes minor changes to the text.

The closest friends of the Armenian National Committee are represented in the US government today. Taking advantage of this opportunity, Armenian forces around the world, including Armenia, intend to use the status of co-chairs of the United States and France to change the outcome of the 44-day war in their favor through diplomatic channels and with their support to turn the issue in the desired direction. The main goal is to involve Azerbaijan in the negotiations on this project through the status plan put forward by the co-chairs. In this case, a number of military gains gained by Azerbaijan directly in the territory of the former Nagorno-Karabakh will also be the subject of negotiations, and Armenia will once again enter into a status dispute with Azerbaijan, with the political support of the co-chairs. Now that the regions are out of their hands, Armenians are trying to make the most of the current situation diplomatically. They no longer want the districts but the road from Lachin to the territory of the former NKAO, to achieve an internationally guaranteed territorial-based political status. The factor that gives them hope is the control of Russian forces in the region.

Second, the United States itself does not want Russia to play a unilateral role and dominate the region. Third, the United States and France want to reduce Turkey's role in the region.

Another aspect of the issue is the traditional, stereotyped approach of the United States in resolving conflicts. Look, you will hear after a while, “This conflict must be resolved through compromise. There were two wars for Karabakh. The first was won by Armenians, the second by you. This means that there is no military solution to this case. Let's negotiate the status of Nagorno-Karabakh and come to a political solution through compromise.” I think this approach will be their position. Because they look at all conflict issues within the framework of the Israeli-Arab conflict. They will say, “Look, Israel has fought many times with the Arabs and always won, but the dispute has not been resolved.” This is their approach.

Of course, this approach is primitive and, to put it mildly, wrong. It is an indication of the US's superficial approach to the occupation of Azerbaijani lands after all that has happened. This issue has nothing in common with the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is about the occupation of the territory of one state by another in the eyes of the world. Such comparisons are nothing more than portraying the issue as a conflict, looking at the parties as parties to the conflict, and covering up the Armenian occupation and its consequences.

If we ground on G. Kent’s approach, then the approach of the United States is completely provocative. Since the fact that Mr. Kent's talk of "the right of Armenians to national self-determination" although no talks have started yet, that is, such a precondition, is not the function of the mediator nor of any outside state. On the other hand, G. Kent's statement reflects the views of irresponsible revanchist forces, which are currently a minority in Armenia. All this really reflects the position of the Armenian National Committee.

According to the American approach, after the Second World War, the Sudetenland had to enjoy its right to self-determination. Or what was the status of Königsberg or Strasbourg? Hitler annexed the Sudetenland as a guarantor of German security, just as Armenia declared itself a guarantor of the security of Nagorno-Karabakh and approved this in its concept of national security.

-To what extent can Biden's support for Armenians be measured?

-The Biden government is perhaps the closest government to Armenians in American history today. Biden's life in the Senate was spent as the author of the Armenian genocide projects. John Kerry, now a member of his cabinet (although he is responsible for environmental issues), was also a co-author of these projects with Biden and a defender of Armenian theses. A member of his cabinet, Vice President Kamala Harris, was also in close contact with Armenian circles when she was a senator, and one of her pre-election promises was to recognize the "Armenian genocide".

The current USAID director, Samantha Power, is an influential figure in the cabinet and has always been a herald of the Armenian genocide. The first chapter of her book is dedicated to the Armenian terrorist Soghomon Tehlirian, who killed Talat Pasha in Berlin. There is no need to comment on the chairman of Congress, Nancy Pelosi. In the Armenian issue, she can be considered the speaker of the Armenian parliament. Now, some of the chairmen of the committees of the Congress and the Senate are pro-Armenian. Anti-Turkish sentiment has unequivocally dragged some of them to the Armenian side.

The situation was the same under the Obama government. Although Obama, a responsible person, supported the Armenian thesis, he did not have a deep relationship with them, such as Biden, Kerry, and Pelosi. But he also helped the Armenians for 8 years, and at that time, S. Sargsyan's government became even more depraved. His Secretary of State, John Kerry, was one of the biggest supporters of Sargsyan's imitation policy, and on the eve of his resignation, he acknowledged that "the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has not yet been fully formed". This approach was the main line of the Armenian policy at that time to prolong the occupation. Unfortunately, Kerry is still a member of the cabinet, and Biden now listens to him more than Anthony Blinken. In fact, he still plays an important role in foreign policy.

One of the main problems is that the trio of Biden, Kerry, and Pelosi have been in personal contact with members of the Armenian National Committee there for decades, and this relationship continues. The activity of the Armenian National Committee consists only of hostility against Turkey and Azerbaijan. This organization is the political wing of Dashnaktsutyun and ASALA, and in many cases, its members and leader Murad Topalyan have been arrested on terrorism charges.

I would like to note that during the Obama administration, the term "occupation of large areas of Azerbaijan by Armenian and Nagorno-Karabakh forces" was completely removed from the annual human rights reports prepared by the Department of State, and it was replaced with the term "controlled by anonymous separatist forces". Reports from 1995-1996 stated that these lands were occupied by Nagorno-Karabakh forces. Beginning in 1997, these reports included the phrase "Armenian and Nagorno-Karabakh military forces". Although far from modest, it was changed in this way by the person who wrote the report at the time, based on my direct involvement and the documents I submitted. Under the Obama administration, both were removed from the report. Probably, Elmar Mammadyarov does still not know about it.

-But what should Azerbaijan do now?

-If Azerbaijan takes a defensive position, it will lose. The Azerbaijani soldier has done and is ready to do everything for the courage of Azerbaijan. We only need to develop the advantage we have gained. If Azerbaijan is forcibly involved in such status talks, we will lose some of our gains. Therefore, Azerbaijan must take a number of steps in this area and become stronger. First of all, Azerbaijan must control its border in the area called the Lachin corridor. It all starts with controlling the state border. Azerbaijan's protection of the state border does not contradict the mission of Russian forces but rather helps them.

Second, it must take the initiative in the Russian-controlled part of Karabakh and return Azerbaijani refugees there as soon as possible to all the villages, starting with Khojaly. Third, in order to overthrow the Armenian separatist regime, it must restore its power in the regions and cities where the Armenian population lives, and war criminals must be arrested. Otherwise, the creation of the desired peace in the region will take a long time.

On the contrary, if the situation remains as it is today, then the status issue will grow and take root. Because that area is not under our full control. If we are in control, the prospects of these status games will be completely zero.

-What is the attitude of the Minsk Group to this issue? Is there a difference of opinion?

-At present, the positions of the United States and France in the Minsk Group completely coincide, so they will act together. Macron is personally involved in this. Their goal is to launch the Minsk Group co-chairs’ work and start status talks and raise the issue of the return of Hadrut Armenians directly. Russia will move very comfortably, finding a middle course here. Because the rest of Karabakh is in their hands and they think they are able to turn the situation in the direction they want. They are not against the status but they will not try to confront Azerbaijan directly on this issue. By pursuing subtle diplomacy, they may try to mediate between the other two mediators and Azerbaijan on this issue.

An interesting and open anti-Azerbaijani situation has arisen here. The lands have been under occupation for 28 years. Also, the occupation of the lands took place during the activities of the Minsk Group and under their supervision. Thousands of dead and wounded, more than 4,000 Azerbaijani citizens are missing. This group, which has been mediating since 1992, has not achieved anything. It did not try to achieve. On the contrary, it covered up the occupation and created conditions for Armenians to hold imitation talks. We have hundreds of arguments to prove it. They created an environment that allowed these lands to remain in the Armenian occupation indefinitely, forcing Azerbaijan to reconcile with the de facto occupation - the "reality". None of their peace plans was accepted by the Armenians. Their "peace process" has resulted in the destruction of our cities and villages. They have been dragging a rope around the throat of Azerbaijan for 28 years. As a result, the Azerbaijani people rose up and expelled the American-backed occupier from their lands. The enemy signed a capitulation document. Azerbaijan says the conflict is over and considers the Armenian population in Karabakh its citizens. This issue has already become a de facto and de jure internal issue. All countries, including Russia, France, and the United States, recognize this territory as Azerbaijani territory. And now those co-chairs have arrived, saying, “We had a "peace plan known to you" at that time, and in the end, there was the issue of status. Let's solve the status of this area with an international guarantee...?”

We need to tell them that was this case solved on the basis of your plan so that we can solve the last part of this plan now? Secondly, did the Armenians accept this plan so that we can act on this plan now? Or did Armenia accept it and did we violate it? Of course, such a call is hypocrisy from the point of view of morality, and it is an anti-Azerbaijani project, interference in its sovereignty and political independence from the political point of view. NKAO and its regional status were established by the Soviet government of Azerbaijan in 1923 by its own internal decision and abolished in 1991. The status of this province was given not by the international community but by the Azerbaijani government itself, and there is no international responsibility for its abolition. Why should this territory of Azerbaijan be the subject of negotiations of the international community now?

On the other hand, the Constitution of Azerbaijan does not mention the Nagorno-Karabakh as an administrative or political unit, and such calls contradict the Constitution of Azerbaijan. It is necessary to underline it.

Now, this call from the United States and France is similar to the case of the porter in the film Mashadi Ibad. He only said “what about my abbasi?”, and they say “what about my status?” Was there an agreement on the status that Azerbaijan violated? Or re-discuss it due to violation? Or was there an agreement on the Lachin corridor? Your decision, the decision of co-chairs, was that if there is no agreement on one issue during the negotiations, it means that there is no agreement on any issue. There has been no agreement for 28 years. All this was the subject of your "peace process". If the Armenians left the lands with your "peace process", all this would happen, there would be a status, there would be a corridor. On the contrary, Armenia was defeated by choosing the path of war by saying "Karabakh is Armenia" and its desired status was destroyed as its army. What would you say if the Armenians won? Let Anthony Blinken talk about the status for 28 years now, the status issue is over for Azerbaijan. The status of Karabakh Armenians will be the same as the status of Azerbaijani citizens. Or does Blinken object to such a status? If so, as President Yeltsin said in 1997, let them be given the status of the United States of America.