Tweet
THE USA THREATENED THE ALIYEVS WITH `RICHES'
Togrul Suleymanov
Azadliq
June 23 2008
Azerbaijan
Hearings at the US Congress into the situation in the South Caucasus
went off interestingly. A number of regional problems, including
territorial conflicts, the level of corruption and several other
issues were discussed. The questions and proposals of congressmen
were evaluated by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried. He
also spoke about Washington's observations, policies and predictions
with regard to the situation in the region.
While paying attention to issues congressmen were keen on, we see
the attitude of the US elite surfacing with regard to the official
political line of Azerbaijan. Of course, it is an open secret that the
political community, in particular, the West is ultra-rational. The
USA prefers force. The criteria of force have been openly made public
in our contemporary world. The Azerbaijani authorities say they have
been leaders of the region over the last four years. The authorities,
which considers the USA its closest ally, will probably not answer
Daniel Fried through [spokesman of the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry]
Xazar Ibrahim. Anyway, while commenting on all points, we shall touch
upon the level of relations in all directions.
"High" level corruption
Azerbaijan like all partners does not credit the USA. The burning
passion of the political authorities to grow rich has led the level
of corruption to a point that all international organizations and
even "partner countries" have to acknowledge this. In other words,
to avoid speaking about the existence of corruption is an attempt to
be compared with countries like China, Russia and Cuba. US officials
also tried to say that the corruption was also against their national
interests: "The state of affairs in business and investment sectors
is complex." As high-level corruption damages the formation of a
free competition market in the country, foreign investors, except
for speculators, avoid investments in Azerbaijan. In its turn, this
hinders maintenance of secure economic environment, at the same time,
the stable security climate.
In other words, the growing economic monopolism and bureaucrat-owned
businesses in Azerbaijan disable the development of other sectors in
the public life. The reason for limiting itself to "calls" to reduce
the level of corruption is that the authorities do not show a positive
inclination towards fighting corruption. The appointment of the most
well-known official and oligarch to head the fight against corruption
has deprived the USA of cooperation to this end.
Therefore, official Washington cannot go further from "calls". Bearing
in mind that apart from the energy sector Azerbaijan has no other
incomes, and to draw parallels between Daniel Fried's remarks on
non-oil sector, we can say that the USA has chosen to cooperate
with the public in the Caucasus rather than the pro-Russian
governments. This means that the issue of a free market is certainly
amongst priorities. In a system where the free market lacks,
the authorities, which say that GDP has grown to 100 per cent with
incomes generating from a single source, count own money. Therefore,
the USA describes this "high-level" corruption.
"Calls for war are bluff"
Daniel Fried also commented on Azerbaijan's calls at the level of
the president to regain own lands through war. In his view, similar
statements "are of no significance". The statement that this is "of
no significance" also means that it is clear as noonday to the USA
that the authorities are not making preparations for war.
Fried also hurried up to voice the following opinion that "pugnacious
rhetoric of several Azerbaijani officials does not indicate that this
country is making preparations for war", said he trying to calm down
US pro-Armenians. In its turn, the Azerbaijani authorities are not
in a hurry to draw conclusions from this statement.
Our careful readers may recall that as early as 2006 when asked
Matthew Bryza said that "we hear similar statements very often, no
point for serious concern". Obviously, the USA knows that Azerbaijan
is not making thorough preparations for war.
Corruption in the army and the lack of discipline show that the
authorities have no fundamental plans for immediate action for the
near future. Nevertheless, the war rhetoric without grounds inflicts
damages to the image of Azerbaijan. Some commentators may also consider
that Azerbaijan's fight is not over its image but [lost] lands.
However, if there is no a real battle in question, the image of the
state should be preferred. Given this, war is also over the restoration
of the state's image, one may ask: why is the reputation lost while
speaking about war? There is one answer! Because the satisfaction of
the whole of the world is that these are frivolous.
A threat of "riches" for the first time
The USA finally spoke about the "loss of riches". True, this was
presented as a loss of Azerbaijan. But no doubt that it is an open
secret that Azerbaijan's energy resources are embezzled by the
authorities, to be specific, by the Ruling Family. This statement
of Daniel Fried is a reply to Ilham Aliyev's reluctance to honour a
number of commitments relying on petrodollars.
He wanted to say that obvious revenue is not reliable and it might
be lost if he deviates from the strategic course by making it known
that the attitude towards Aliyev has reached a critical point.
Start of disloyalty in the election issue
As for the reasons why US officials did not react to the overall state
of democracy and the election-related issues, there comes to light
intriguing aspects. First of all, the USA has reacted to this issue
at the highest level. However, Azerbaijan has not drawn necessary
conclusions. After the Aliyevs have changed the Electoral Code and
documented falsifications in legal terms, there emerged that there
is no way to the development theoretically and rhetorically.
So the USA "gives space" to the Aliyev family to go maximum further
for all kinds of falsifications and arbitrariness. The Aliyevs, who
are confident that "there are basis" for wide-ranging falsifications,
are set a big trap. Now the fate of the Aliyevs and the election
is dependent on the adventure of the political authorities (and
the Kremlin-applied standards). Where can be respect if there is
no democracy?
A factor showing that the foreign policy of the Azerbaijani authorities
and its Karabakh diplomacy is in a devastated state is the dual
relations towards the territorial integrity of Georgia and Azerbaijan.
On the one hand, the Aliyevs speak about the successes of "great" and
"wise" course, on the other hand, present their defeats at small and
big international organizations as malice of the opposite side.
Georgia has neither oil and gas nor "a wise policy shaking the world";
we wonder, why is Georgia's territorial integrity is recognized
unconditionally but not that of Azerbaijan?
What is obvious is that Georgia has a democracy and this is a
fundamental shortage we lack. In our opinion, a policy which is soft
and inclined to cooperation is better than that of the "wise policy"
that gives way to double standards. Where there is no democracy,
there is no point to rely on respect.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Togrul Suleymanov
Azadliq
June 23 2008
Azerbaijan
Hearings at the US Congress into the situation in the South Caucasus
went off interestingly. A number of regional problems, including
territorial conflicts, the level of corruption and several other
issues were discussed. The questions and proposals of congressmen
were evaluated by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried. He
also spoke about Washington's observations, policies and predictions
with regard to the situation in the region.
While paying attention to issues congressmen were keen on, we see
the attitude of the US elite surfacing with regard to the official
political line of Azerbaijan. Of course, it is an open secret that the
political community, in particular, the West is ultra-rational. The
USA prefers force. The criteria of force have been openly made public
in our contemporary world. The Azerbaijani authorities say they have
been leaders of the region over the last four years. The authorities,
which considers the USA its closest ally, will probably not answer
Daniel Fried through [spokesman of the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry]
Xazar Ibrahim. Anyway, while commenting on all points, we shall touch
upon the level of relations in all directions.
"High" level corruption
Azerbaijan like all partners does not credit the USA. The burning
passion of the political authorities to grow rich has led the level
of corruption to a point that all international organizations and
even "partner countries" have to acknowledge this. In other words,
to avoid speaking about the existence of corruption is an attempt to
be compared with countries like China, Russia and Cuba. US officials
also tried to say that the corruption was also against their national
interests: "The state of affairs in business and investment sectors
is complex." As high-level corruption damages the formation of a
free competition market in the country, foreign investors, except
for speculators, avoid investments in Azerbaijan. In its turn, this
hinders maintenance of secure economic environment, at the same time,
the stable security climate.
In other words, the growing economic monopolism and bureaucrat-owned
businesses in Azerbaijan disable the development of other sectors in
the public life. The reason for limiting itself to "calls" to reduce
the level of corruption is that the authorities do not show a positive
inclination towards fighting corruption. The appointment of the most
well-known official and oligarch to head the fight against corruption
has deprived the USA of cooperation to this end.
Therefore, official Washington cannot go further from "calls". Bearing
in mind that apart from the energy sector Azerbaijan has no other
incomes, and to draw parallels between Daniel Fried's remarks on
non-oil sector, we can say that the USA has chosen to cooperate
with the public in the Caucasus rather than the pro-Russian
governments. This means that the issue of a free market is certainly
amongst priorities. In a system where the free market lacks,
the authorities, which say that GDP has grown to 100 per cent with
incomes generating from a single source, count own money. Therefore,
the USA describes this "high-level" corruption.
"Calls for war are bluff"
Daniel Fried also commented on Azerbaijan's calls at the level of
the president to regain own lands through war. In his view, similar
statements "are of no significance". The statement that this is "of
no significance" also means that it is clear as noonday to the USA
that the authorities are not making preparations for war.
Fried also hurried up to voice the following opinion that "pugnacious
rhetoric of several Azerbaijani officials does not indicate that this
country is making preparations for war", said he trying to calm down
US pro-Armenians. In its turn, the Azerbaijani authorities are not
in a hurry to draw conclusions from this statement.
Our careful readers may recall that as early as 2006 when asked
Matthew Bryza said that "we hear similar statements very often, no
point for serious concern". Obviously, the USA knows that Azerbaijan
is not making thorough preparations for war.
Corruption in the army and the lack of discipline show that the
authorities have no fundamental plans for immediate action for the
near future. Nevertheless, the war rhetoric without grounds inflicts
damages to the image of Azerbaijan. Some commentators may also consider
that Azerbaijan's fight is not over its image but [lost] lands.
However, if there is no a real battle in question, the image of the
state should be preferred. Given this, war is also over the restoration
of the state's image, one may ask: why is the reputation lost while
speaking about war? There is one answer! Because the satisfaction of
the whole of the world is that these are frivolous.
A threat of "riches" for the first time
The USA finally spoke about the "loss of riches". True, this was
presented as a loss of Azerbaijan. But no doubt that it is an open
secret that Azerbaijan's energy resources are embezzled by the
authorities, to be specific, by the Ruling Family. This statement
of Daniel Fried is a reply to Ilham Aliyev's reluctance to honour a
number of commitments relying on petrodollars.
He wanted to say that obvious revenue is not reliable and it might
be lost if he deviates from the strategic course by making it known
that the attitude towards Aliyev has reached a critical point.
Start of disloyalty in the election issue
As for the reasons why US officials did not react to the overall state
of democracy and the election-related issues, there comes to light
intriguing aspects. First of all, the USA has reacted to this issue
at the highest level. However, Azerbaijan has not drawn necessary
conclusions. After the Aliyevs have changed the Electoral Code and
documented falsifications in legal terms, there emerged that there
is no way to the development theoretically and rhetorically.
So the USA "gives space" to the Aliyev family to go maximum further
for all kinds of falsifications and arbitrariness. The Aliyevs, who
are confident that "there are basis" for wide-ranging falsifications,
are set a big trap. Now the fate of the Aliyevs and the election
is dependent on the adventure of the political authorities (and
the Kremlin-applied standards). Where can be respect if there is
no democracy?
A factor showing that the foreign policy of the Azerbaijani authorities
and its Karabakh diplomacy is in a devastated state is the dual
relations towards the territorial integrity of Georgia and Azerbaijan.
On the one hand, the Aliyevs speak about the successes of "great" and
"wise" course, on the other hand, present their defeats at small and
big international organizations as malice of the opposite side.
Georgia has neither oil and gas nor "a wise policy shaking the world";
we wonder, why is Georgia's territorial integrity is recognized
unconditionally but not that of Azerbaijan?
What is obvious is that Georgia has a democracy and this is a
fundamental shortage we lack. In our opinion, a policy which is soft
and inclined to cooperation is better than that of the "wise policy"
that gives way to double standards. Where there is no democracy,
there is no point to rely on respect.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress