'Armenian Diaspora Seeks To Harm Azerbaijani-American Relations'

Interview with MP and political scientist Sahib Aliyev.

A: As is known, in the United States ambassadors are appointed for terms of from 2 to 5 years. However, just a year ago Bryza was appointed the US ambassador in Baku. In other words, it can be said that Bryza has just started to execute the direct functions of an ambassador and his replacement will not respond to the interests of the US administration. Additionally, considering the fact that Bryza is well familiar with the region, I think there is nothing extraordinary in that the US administration again nominates him for the ambassador position.

Q: Representatives of the Armenian diaspora in the United States often admitted that Bryza is not a pro-Azerbaijani diplomat though hampering its appointment as the ambassador in Baku. What has prompted such a principal position of the Armenian diaspora?

A: In reality, the campaign Armenian diaspora holds against Bryza damages not him but the United States. The real cause of such an activity of the Armenian diaspora is to damage the US-Azerbaijani relations.

As is known, the position of the US envoy in Azerbaijan has been vacant for long. Armenian diaspora did not want Bryza to be appointed the ambassador and sought to maximally protract this process so that to affect the Azerbaijani-American relations.

Matthew Bryza’s activity as assistant Deputy Secretary of State of the United States and co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group showed that he is neither pro-Armenian nor pro-Azerbaijani. His work at the indicated positions demonstrated that he is just protecting the US interests in the region.

Q: Does the reaffirmation of Bryza as the US ambassador in Azerbaijan have any importance for official Baku?

A: Bryza’s appointment as the ambassador represents a specific interest for Baku. This interest is related to the fact that Bryza is well familiar with the problems of the region and geopolitical games. In addition, Bryza is aware of the importance Azerbaijan represents to the United States. In this respect, it is possible to say that Baku must be interested in Bryza’s reappointment as the ambassador since he mainly brings objective and true information about events in the region to the government. I have to note that the loyalty official Baku demonstrates to Bryza’s candidacy is based on the factor of his being well-familiar with the problems in the region.

Q: What major changes have occurred in US-Azerbaijani relations during Bryza’s activity as the US ambassador in Baku?

A: Definite changes occurred in the US-Azerbaijani relations within a year. If we compare the level of relations between Azerbaijan and the United States a year ago and the current period, we will see that Bryza has attained positive changes. In other words, significant warming has occurred in the relations between the United States and Azerbaijan occurred in the year of Bryza’s activity as an ambassador.

All the time, the West’s attempt to intensify in Karabakh conflict were seen during his stay. The United States and Europe also demonstrated efforts to unite in process of Karabakh settlement. Additionally, the attempts to intensify the Southern stream project were also seen during the year. Naturally, I won’t say that all the positive facts I have listed are directly tied to Bryza. It is not like that. But I certainly believe that Bryza anyway played a definite role in achieving positive changes in the region.

Q: Do you believe that in case of reappointment as the US ambassador in Azerbaijan Bryza will continue playing the same positive role in development of US-Azerbaijani relation which he demonstrated up to this?

A: The US foreign policy is defined by the president and the State Department rather than ambassadors. But I have to note that the activity of Bryza, who is well aware of problems in the region and has a right view on Azerbaijan for the United States will remain positive.

News.Az

Interview with MP and political scientist Sahib Aliyev.

Q: US President Barack Obama has renominated Matthew Bryza for the post of the ambassador in Azerbaijan. What has caused the principal position of the US presidential administration related to Bryza’s candidacy?

A: As is known, in the United States ambassadors are appointed for terms of from 2 to 5 years. However, just a year ago Bryza was appointed the US ambassador in Baku. In other words, it can be said that Bryza has just started to execute the direct functions of an ambassador and his replacement will not respond to the interests of the US administration. Additionally, considering the fact that Bryza is well familiar with the region, I think there is nothing extraordinary in that the US administration again nominates him for the ambassador position.

Q: Representatives of the Armenian diaspora in the United States often admitted that Bryza is not a pro-Azerbaijani diplomat though hampering its appointment as the ambassador in Baku. What has prompted such a principal position of the Armenian diaspora?

A: In reality, the campaign Armenian diaspora holds against Bryza damages not him but the United States. The real cause of such an activity of the Armenian diaspora is to damage the US-Azerbaijani relations.

As is known, the position of the US envoy in Azerbaijan has been vacant for long. Armenian diaspora did not want Bryza to be appointed the ambassador and sought to maximally protract this process so that to affect the Azerbaijani-American relations.

Matthew Bryza’s activity as assistant Deputy Secretary of State of the United States and co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group showed that he is neither pro-Armenian nor pro-Azerbaijani. His work at the indicated positions demonstrated that he is just protecting the US interests in the region.

Q: Does the reaffirmation of Bryza as the US ambassador in Azerbaijan have any importance for official Baku?

A: Bryza’s appointment as the ambassador represents a specific interest for Baku. This interest is related to the fact that Bryza is well familiar with the problems of the region and geopolitical games. In addition, Bryza is aware of the importance Azerbaijan represents to the United States. In this respect, it is possible to say that Baku must be interested in Bryza’s reappointment as the ambassador since he mainly brings objective and true information about events in the region to the government. I have to note that the loyalty official Baku demonstrates to Bryza’s candidacy is based on the factor of his being well-familiar with the problems in the region.

Q: What major changes have occurred in US-Azerbaijani relations during Bryza’s activity as the US ambassador in Baku?

A: Definite changes occurred in the US-Azerbaijani relations within a year. If we compare the level of relations between Azerbaijan and the United States a year ago and the current period, we will see that Bryza has attained positive changes. In other words, significant warming has occurred in the relations between the United States and Azerbaijan occurred in the year of Bryza’s activity as an ambassador.

All the time, the West’s attempt to intensify in Karabakh conflict were seen during his stay. The United States and Europe also demonstrated efforts to unite in process of Karabakh settlement. Additionally, the attempts to intensify the Southern stream project were also seen during the year. Naturally, I won’t say that all the positive facts I have listed are directly tied to Bryza. It is not like that. But I certainly believe that Bryza anyway played a definite role in achieving positive changes in the region.

Q: Do you believe that in case of reappointment as the US ambassador in Azerbaijan Bryza will continue playing the same positive role in development of US-Azerbaijani relation which he demonstrated up to this?

A: The US foreign policy is defined by the president and the State Department rather than ambassadors. But I have to note that the activity of Bryza, who is well aware of problems in the region and has a right view on Azerbaijan for the United States will remain positive.

News.Az