Interview with Dr. Fariz Huseynov, Assistant Professor of Finance at North Dakota State University.
Q: Do you think the Congress and, further, the president will approve the initiative of a number of pro-Armenian lawmakers to allocate funds to the separatists of Nagorno Karabakh?
A: Of course, the approval of such a bill at key House Panel is disappointing, but the bill needs to pass three more instances in order to be fully implemented. This should force us to work harder to deliver the truth about the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh and make sure that American lawmakers and their electorate realize the fact that American taxpayers’ millions are abused in this case.
Especially, during the financial crisis when every single dollar spent by government is expected to be closely monitored such calls against mismanaged monetary resources are noteworthy. American citizens need to know where their dollars are spent in Nagorno-Karabakh and how it improves the living standards of ordinary people residing there.
We, Azerbaijani-Americans should also reach American public through all media sources to deliver our message directly to ordinary Americans. They deserve to know that their representatives allocate millions of dollars every year to Nagorno-Karabakh separatists who threaten US national interests in the region. They should be aware that this financial aid is completely against the unbiased negotiator role US assumed in Minsk group.
Q: Armenian congressmen continue taking steps to balance financial assistance to Azerbaijan and Armenia. When can the situation change making the US lawmakers in these issues to base on the interests of cooperation with a definite state rather that the pressure of the Armenian diaspora?
A: As national interests is one of the main driving factors determining the allocation of financial aid, American lawmakers need to fully comprehend the importance of every country for US national interests. Due to its geographic, economic and demographic importance, it is not difficult to realize that Azerbaijan has more value than Armenia in all aspects of possible cooperation. Interestingly, the panel’s chairwoman Rep. Nita Lowey calls Government Accountability Office to audit dollars of past US aid to Afghanistan. However, she does not mind to allocate funds to Nagorno-Karabakh separatists who have put regional security in danger for more than 20 years.
But we are facing the decades-old reality of DC politics: lobbies determine lawmakers’ decisions. Instead of trying to change this practice, we should play the game by its rules and turn them in our favor. Our main duty is to deliver the right message about Nagorno-Karabakh separatists and their danger to the region. The remarks from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the letters she received about young activist' case show that top US officials pay attention to the letters or petitions about various issues written by ordinary citizens or foreign community members. We need to use these tools more effectively to disseminate the right information about the situation in our region and draw the attention to the fact that continuous aid to separatists extend and strengthen threats to the regional security.
Q: Does this biased approach of the United States to assessment of the situation in the South Caucasus prove the shortcomings in the mechanism of distribution of funds of the American budget when ordinary US taxpayers suffer from the political interests of separate congressmen?
A: Academic studies show that it is really hard to conclude that U.S. foreign aid will save the world, but they still find that it causes economic growth and civil society establishment to some extent. Strictly economically speaking, foreign aid donors usually indirectly benefit from these aids; mostly through opening new markets for their goods or for foreign investments in the future. These programs also create new jobs in both public and private sectors.
From this perspective, there is no doubt that Azerbaijan, with its economic and demographic potential is definitely more valuable recipient than Armenia. One thing is clear: every American should ask why they have to pay dollars to any country and how effectively they are spent. Apparently they are now more concerned about billions wasted in Afghanistan.
There is no perfect way of allocating these resources. And no matter how wrong this mechanism may seem to us, we have no authority to change it. The only thing we can do is to turn it into our favor as I mentioned above.
Q: After Azerbaijan dissatisfied with the US police on Karabakh declared possible review of strategic relations with Washington including in the energy sphere, there started the visits of senior officials of the United States. Does the United States attach so much importance to Azerbaijan as its economic/energy partner in the region?
A: US was aware of Azerbaijan’s discontent towards Obama’s South Caucasus policy since the beginning of Turkey-Armenia rapprochement campaign. Occasional signals of this discontent sent by Azerbaijan officials had definitely reached to related instances. However, US changed its approach only after it realized that without Azerbaijan no major improvements can be obtained in frozen conflicts of South Caucasus. In my opinion, this is the main factor driving US administration to undertake new approach toward Azerbaijan.
Moreover, in line with unsteadiness in Kyrgyzstan, US still needs reliable routes to transfer its troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Although Azerbaijan’s attractiveness diminished after the latest agreements with Russia to use its lands as transit routes, Azerbaijan can serve as a viable alternative. The remaining issues with Iran also increase Azerbaijan’s importance. Besides, being the second largest foreign investor in Azerbaijan US needs to be closer to Azerbaijani administration to ensure its business interests in the region. Obama administration does not undermine US corporate interests in Azerbaijan as this country is a large enough market not to be left to Russia’s reign. Meanwhile, instead of assuming an 'offended player' role, Azerbaijan should follow more proactive strategies by emphasizing its importance in the region and willingness to cooperate with all major powers.
Q: Some observers regard Clinton’s visit to Baku and a number of other capital cities of the South Caucasus as a refutation of the supposition that the United States is giving away it positions having no big economic interests in the post-Soviet area. What do you think about it?
A: It is a fallacy to believe that U.S. is giving away its interests in Former Soviet countries in favor of Russia. Obama’s 'reset' policy with Russia does not require that U.S. completely abandon its positions, but temporarily soften its policies not to irritate Russia. Actually, US believes that with new reset policy it obtains more tools to penetrate into Russia, especially from economic perspectives. President Medvedev’s recent visit to US also showed Russia’s willingness to attract American firms in high-tech, electronics and machinery industries to invest in Russia.
Even the 'spy crisis' had no negative impact on this 'honeymoon' period. One should not expect US to make decisions that will damage this rapprochement with Russia. Besides a softer and cooperative approach may have positive externalities and force the current regimes in FSU countries to carry out some democratic reforms.
Although South Caucasus countries are obliged to continuously adjust their foreign policy in line with changing regional dynamics, both economically and politically a balanced foreign policy is the best strategy for the current administrations. Therefore, 'over-intimacy' or 'over-pugnacity' with one of two major powers is transitory and the reversal back to equalizing strategy is inevitable.
Q: Which role does the US support play in process of Azerbaijan’s WTO accession?
A: As the world’s largest economy, U.S. has a huge impact on the WTO decisions and it always stimulated not only Azerbaijan’s but also other FSU countries entrance to the WTO. Russia’s latest decision to enter the WTO alone (changed from previous strategy when Russia wished joint-entrance with Kazakhstan and Belarus) is also the result of US support.
In Azerbaijan, USAID cooperates with the Ministry of Economic Development by holding joint-workshops about Azerbaijan’s accession to the WTO. Various organizations host round-table discussions where the technical issues, such as a developed vs. developing country status of entrance and bilateral negotiations procedures are discussed. However, the key determinant is the country’s own willingness and readiness to join the WTO.
Several studies show that the WTO membership is more beneficial, such as lowering the corruption, increasing the transparency and reducing monopoly etc. Eventually, we need to put the country’s interests first and carefully measure the socio-economic benefits of joining the WTO, and then strive for the membership.
W.W.
News.Az
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
