Tweet
'THE RESOLUTION STANDOFF' TO AVOID THE WEST
Azadliq
March 27 2008
Azerbaijan
The relationship between Baku and the OSCE Minsk Group [which
is mediating a solution to the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict] is
turning sour. The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs' move to vote down the
Azerbaijani-sponsored resolution submitted to the UN General Assembly
regarding its territorial integrity has made relations seriously
cold. Reports are already being circulated that Baku will refuse the
co-chairmanship of the USA, Russia and France and that preparations
are under way for a signature-collecting campaign.
Of course, the Azerbaijani government seems to be right in getting
offended by this treatment. The co-chairs openly opposed the document
it put forward at the UN. In addition, this document contains fair
points based on territorial integrity and the right of sovereignty
over Nagornyy Karabakh. From this standpoint, the government has
the right to ask for the Azerbaijani public support for its protest
against the co-chairing states.
But this is just the tip of the iceberg. One can conclude after
gaining more insight into the problem that the Baku government's
"resolution standoff" with the co-chairing states serves a general
course to distance itself from the West. It is no coincidence that
mainly the US co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, Matthew Bryza,
responds to criticism of the Minsk Group co-chairs over the UN vote.
His recent interview on Voce of America sheds light on secret issues
behind the "resolution standoff". Bryza said that some forces in Baku
are trying to worsen US-Azerbaijani ties and that their unclear wish
has no good prospects.
Some tension has been indeed observed in US-Azerbaijani ties
recently. This tension was openly reflected in the US State
Department's annual report about the rights situation in the world.
The Baku government responded to the accusation of the poor rights
situation in Azerbaijan with unprecedented emotion. Serious protests
were voiced against the report by the presidential administration, and
an MP from the ruling NAP [New Azerbaijan Party] went further saying:
"Why does Azerbaijan have to take into account reports drawn up by
any state?"
Moreover, the serious tone used by US ambassador to Azerbaijan Anne
Derse to comment on the stabbing of Azadliq newspaper reporter Aqil
Xalil and subsequent criticism of her by pro-government figures in
the same way as they criticize local opposition leaders added to
this tension. It is not difficult to forecast that Baku's foreign
policy may be directed mainly towards Moscow if it does not give up
the current line in the near future. The Azerbaijani government's
extremely serious reaction to Kosovo independence and its decision
to withdraw peacekeepers was in reverence for Russia. Of course,
the government fully took advantage of the existence of the Nagornyy
Karabakh problem and the thesis about the possibility of Kosovo
setting a precedent for this region in order to substantiate its
step. But Azerbaijan should have refrained from displaying such a
sharp and inconsistent position in the face of insistent statements
by the USA, Europe and the Organization of the Islamic Conference
member countries, which recognized Kosovo's independence, that it
will not set a precedent for Nagornyy Karabakh.
When looking at the subsequent developments, the withdrawal of
peacekeepers from Kosovo is seen as a point revealing Baku's problems
with Washington. In any case, this step did not serve the strengthening
of ties with NATO and subsequent integration into the Euro-Atlantic
space. NATO's bid to enlarge eastward and have the South Caucasus as
part of the Euroatlantic space is a policy openly supported by the
USA. Maybe, this is all happening because the Baku government fears
to move towards NATO and Europe. The result of this is that the USA
along with its allies in Europe did not support the resolution on
Azerbaijan's territorial integrity at the UN.
One may also assume that the Baku government wanted to justify
its tactics of distancing itself from the West by submitting this
resolution for discussion knowing beforehand how the USA would vote.
Azadliq
March 27 2008
Azerbaijan
The relationship between Baku and the OSCE Minsk Group [which
is mediating a solution to the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict] is
turning sour. The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs' move to vote down the
Azerbaijani-sponsored resolution submitted to the UN General Assembly
regarding its territorial integrity has made relations seriously
cold. Reports are already being circulated that Baku will refuse the
co-chairmanship of the USA, Russia and France and that preparations
are under way for a signature-collecting campaign.
Of course, the Azerbaijani government seems to be right in getting
offended by this treatment. The co-chairs openly opposed the document
it put forward at the UN. In addition, this document contains fair
points based on territorial integrity and the right of sovereignty
over Nagornyy Karabakh. From this standpoint, the government has
the right to ask for the Azerbaijani public support for its protest
against the co-chairing states.
But this is just the tip of the iceberg. One can conclude after
gaining more insight into the problem that the Baku government's
"resolution standoff" with the co-chairing states serves a general
course to distance itself from the West. It is no coincidence that
mainly the US co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, Matthew Bryza,
responds to criticism of the Minsk Group co-chairs over the UN vote.
His recent interview on Voce of America sheds light on secret issues
behind the "resolution standoff". Bryza said that some forces in Baku
are trying to worsen US-Azerbaijani ties and that their unclear wish
has no good prospects.
Some tension has been indeed observed in US-Azerbaijani ties
recently. This tension was openly reflected in the US State
Department's annual report about the rights situation in the world.
The Baku government responded to the accusation of the poor rights
situation in Azerbaijan with unprecedented emotion. Serious protests
were voiced against the report by the presidential administration, and
an MP from the ruling NAP [New Azerbaijan Party] went further saying:
"Why does Azerbaijan have to take into account reports drawn up by
any state?"
Moreover, the serious tone used by US ambassador to Azerbaijan Anne
Derse to comment on the stabbing of Azadliq newspaper reporter Aqil
Xalil and subsequent criticism of her by pro-government figures in
the same way as they criticize local opposition leaders added to
this tension. It is not difficult to forecast that Baku's foreign
policy may be directed mainly towards Moscow if it does not give up
the current line in the near future. The Azerbaijani government's
extremely serious reaction to Kosovo independence and its decision
to withdraw peacekeepers was in reverence for Russia. Of course,
the government fully took advantage of the existence of the Nagornyy
Karabakh problem and the thesis about the possibility of Kosovo
setting a precedent for this region in order to substantiate its
step. But Azerbaijan should have refrained from displaying such a
sharp and inconsistent position in the face of insistent statements
by the USA, Europe and the Organization of the Islamic Conference
member countries, which recognized Kosovo's independence, that it
will not set a precedent for Nagornyy Karabakh.
When looking at the subsequent developments, the withdrawal of
peacekeepers from Kosovo is seen as a point revealing Baku's problems
with Washington. In any case, this step did not serve the strengthening
of ties with NATO and subsequent integration into the Euro-Atlantic
space. NATO's bid to enlarge eastward and have the South Caucasus as
part of the Euroatlantic space is a policy openly supported by the
USA. Maybe, this is all happening because the Baku government fears
to move towards NATO and Europe. The result of this is that the USA
along with its allies in Europe did not support the resolution on
Azerbaijan's territorial integrity at the UN.
One may also assume that the Baku government wanted to justify
its tactics of distancing itself from the West by submitting this
resolution for discussion knowing beforehand how the USA would vote.