Interview with Yusif Babanli, board member of Azerbaijani American Council (AAC) and co-founder of US Azeris Network (USAN).
Q: What can be expected from H.Clinton’s visit to Azerbaijan?
A: Secretary Clinton is visiting Azerbaijan as a part of her tour to Poland, Ukraine and Caucasus. In part, the tour is most likely intended to both reassure Russia that it’s not going to make any controversial overtures in its immediate neighborhood and reassure these states that President Obama’s “Resetting relations” (with Russia) policy will not undermine its relationship with them.
As, you know even the current Russian spy scandal was downplayed by the administration so as not to break the momentum of seemingly improving relations with Russia. Clinton’s visit to Ukraine on July 2 running short of criticing pro-Russian politics in the light of decreased will of Ukraine to join NATO, enhanced Russia-Ukraine energy cooperation, extension of Russia’s Black Sea fleet presence on Ukrainian territory is a valid proof of the intent. Clinton’s visit to Azerbaijan is planned to refresh the somewhat uneasy relationship between Baku and Washington.
Clinton will be meeting the Azerbaijani President, Ilham Aliyev, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Elmar Mammadyarov and a number of officials. In the past few weeks, the White House extended new good faith gestures by sending Robert Gates to Azerbaijan, personally delivering letter from President Obama admitting awkward relationship and hope for revitalization of years old alliance. US also issued an official statement Nagorno-Karabakh conflict along with leaders of Russia and France on reiterating the administration’s stance vis-à-vis the Karabakh conflict. Clinton, as the Secretary of State will be in Azerbaijan to cement that commitment.
Q: Azerbaijani side has already declared intention to raise the issue of the Karabakh conflict settlement at the meetings with Clinton. Can it raise US role in settling the conflict?
A: Apparently, Azerbaijani government is going to demand explanations on concurrent high alert issues. Case in point, the intended allocation of funds to Nagorno-Karabakh. Not only is the allocation wrong by itself because it sidesteps the de-jure Azerbaijani government and provides funds to a separatist regime militarily occupying 16% of Azerbaijani territory recognized by the internationally community, including the United States, but it is also increased by Congress compared to last year by as much as $2 million, as a sign of complete neglect to the strategic US-Azerbaijani relations.
Other than that, Azerbaijan has repeatedly required a more active role of OSCE Minsk group and is likely to make another call personally to Secretary Clinton. I don’t expect the visit of Madam Clinton will overly intensify the role of US in conflict resolution. It will just clarify Azerbaijan’s stance once again vis-à-vis Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, its commitment to restore it, and its position on rapproachment and opening of border between Turkey and Armenia which can only be done when Armenia takes a constructive stance and makes compromises in the Karabakh conflict.
Q: Can Clinton’s visit to Baku show that the stage of some cooling in bilateral relations has already passed (or at least the United States wants to consider so)?
A: Yes, that’s the main intent. Secretary Clinton’s visit to Azerbaijan is an indicator of US resetting its bilateral relationship to its default mode of strategic alliance it has had throughout the past 2 decades. Whatever the long-term intent, Azerbaijan expects closer cooperation and increased role of the US government in resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Azerbaijan has remained committed to the strategic alliance and continues to expand its cooperation with US in many sectors of economy and in its assistance in the War on Terror by allowing use of Azerbaijani airports and airspace and contribution of Azerbaijani troops in the war zones.
Q: How would you comment on the decision of US lawmarkers to allocate $10m to the separatist regime of Nagorno Karabakh?
A: The approval of direct financial aid to the separatist regime Nagorno-Karabakh by the US House Appropriations Committee on Foreign Relations sidestepping Azerbaijan is unjust and an insult to Azerbaijani people and specifically to hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijani refugees. Azerbaijani diaspora organizations have repeatedly condemned these bills as they run counter to US official stance and damage US-Azerbaijani relations.
Azerbaijan is still in the state of war with Armenia which stations its troops in the occupied Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan and allocation of any direct aid at the expense of US taxpayers is and will be used to prolong the occupation and hampers the just and timely resolution of the conflict. This also runs counter to concept of alliance.
For instance, it would be similar to the National Diet of Japan, passing a bill to allocate direct aid to insurgency groups in Iraq and Afghanistan while the US troops are still fighting them. That’s why neglecting Azerbaijani interests through extending financial means to a puppet regime in Nagorno-Karabakh hijacks the very notion of alliance. The Obama Administration should take proactive steps to stop allocation of direct aid to Nagorno-Karabakh by Congress or approve it only if it goes through Azerbaijan. To put it in simple terms, anything that goes in and out of Karabakh should be directed through the de-jure Azerbaijani government, not Armenia and its installation in Khankendi.
Q: Do you think the delay in the appointment of the US ambassador in Azerbaijan is politically motivated?
A: Delays in appointment of the US Ambassador to Azerbaijan have brought more tension to already uneasy relationship between the two countries but I doubt they were politically motivated. The appointmennt of Matthew Bryza is a positive step in the long delay and will serve as a good milestone in resetting the relationship with Azerbaijan.
Mr. Bryza is a good asset to US-Azerbaijani relationship due to his extensive experience in Caucasian affairs and specifically his previous assignment in the role of OSCE Minsk group mediator and familiarity with the Karabakh problem. Understandably, the Armenian lobbying groups have been opposing the nomination for quite some time due to the fact that Matthew Bryza has been a proponent of US official stance – territorial integrity of states. Hopefully, all recent developments will open a new page in US-Azerbaijani relations and will lead to timely resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
W.W
News.Az
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
