Tweet
BRYZA HAS DONE HIS DUTY, LET HIM GO, OR DOES AZERBAIJAN NEED SUCH 'AMERICANIZATION'?
Karin Stepanyan
Novoye Vremya
Sept 1 2009
Armenia
The US co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, Matthew Bryza, who is
touted for the post of US ambassador to Azerbaijan, has not yet got
the official agreement from the Azerbaijani authorities.
It is very likely that the Azerbaijani authorities are trying to
show to the USA that Azerbaijan is not very much enthusiastic about
the appointment.
So, the most "denied" by various media co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk
Group, Matthew Bryza, has left his position with as much fuss as when
he embarked on it. It was Bryza who at the beginning of his career as
a co-chairman raised the curtain over the negotiations, having made
public part of the Madrid principles. And it is Bryza who despite all
mediation rules has been appointed ambassador to a conflicting country.
The co-chairmanship has become kind of a springboard to expand his
knowledge of the region and gain a reputation here. This controversial
appointment gives many grounds for an analysis - what will the embassy
headed by Bryza bring into the US policy on Azerbaijan, how will it
correlate with relations with Karabakh and Armenia, what will it result
in the context of relations between the mentioned countries and Turkey?
Bryza is considered to be an expert of the US Department of State
on the Caucasus. Moreover, he belongs to the "executor" of the
USA's geopolitical blueprint on the so-called "Greater Middle East"
which involves the necessity to cut the "umbilical cord" linking the
South Caucasus countries and Russia and to transfer them to another
geopolitical dimension. In this context, Bryza's appointment to a
regional country is not a coincidence. He has got the "first hand"
knowledge of the whole region, including Karabakh - are there
many politicians or ordinary people in Azerbaijan who have seen
the contemporary NKR [self-declared Nagornyy Karabakh republic]
with their own eyes? In addition, Bryza's wife is an ethnic Turk,
which is no less important if at issue is the Caucasus mentality
and this factor's influence on the Azerbaijan-Turkey-USA triangle
(it is very likely that this factor can somehow cause the recently
soured Azerbaijan-Turkey and Turkey-USA relations to appear to have
got warmer).
Naturally, Bryza could have been appointed ambassador, for example,
to Georgia, especially as they say that it was [Georgian President
Mikheil] Saakashvili who financed the high-profile wedding of Bryza
and Turkish-born Zeyno Baran. In addition, Saakashvili was quick to
award Bryza for "services in developing friendship between the USA
and Georgia" - a strange award if we consider that Bryza was never
involved in Georgian affairs fully.
Of course, it would have been "more correct" on the part of the USA to
rather appoint Bryza as ambassador to Georgia, taking account of his
warm personal relationship with Saakashvili and in order to preserve
formal neutrality by not appointing an OSCE co-chairman as ambassador
to a country for which it acted as a mediator in the past. Bryza's
appointment as ambassador to Azerbaijan shows that in fact, the
USA "does not care" about formalities since with this unethical
appointment, Washington has probably once again made it clear for
the world that American interests are above formalities... [ellipses
as published]
At the same time, this, in fact, cynical appointment of a conflict
mediator as ambassador to a conflicting country has not provoked
appropriate reaction from the NKR or Armenian government or the
mediators, which can create an undesirable precedence for the future.
Bryza noted: "[US] President Obama considers Azerbaijan to be a very
important strategic partner of the USA." It is not worth speaking
about the importance of Azerbaijan for the USA in terms of its
energy resources, the USA considers that it is important to shift
Azerbaijan's direction towards "great" Americanization, as it was with
Georgia. But "Americanization" of Georgia has resulted in the loss of
Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Does the appointment of Bryza means such
"Americanization" for Azerbaijan as well? In addition, despite the
widespread opinions that Bryza's appointment is a confirmation of the
increased US interest in Azerbaijan there are some other opinions as
well - the USA hints to the Azerbaijani leadership: "Now 'our person
in your country' has more information than yourselves" and this is
possibly one of the unique levers of influence on Azerbaijan by the
USA. Bryza, who is aware of all the opinions in the Caucasus and as a
possessor of the present positions of all the sides in the Karabakh
conflict, including the NKR, may perfectly use his knowledge when
the USA needs it.
With regards to "Bryza's Karabakh history", then, of course, he managed
to present himself as a light-headed and pro-Azerbaijani mediator. His
ambiguous statements on Karabakh, especially on the return of either
five or seven districts to Azerbaijan, most probably paved the way for
the appointment of Bryza as an ambassador to Azerbaijan. Nevertheless,
Bryza was a mediator who more than others "threw to people" a piece
of information thus bringing into the public domain various matters
of the [Nagornyy] Karabakh settlement.
He would often say something and similarly deny, dismissing what
had been said and saying new things, but it was part of the policy
owing to which Bryza became the most quoted mediator and in essence,
one of the few initiators of public discussions in the conflicting
countries. In addition to all these, Bryza repeatedly said that the
settlement of the Karabakh conflict should consider the international
law on the self-determination of nations as well, which, of course
"handicaps" his good welcome in Azerbaijan. Besides, Bryza has seen
with his own eyes today's NKR with its state symbols and everyday
life. This is more than Kosovo's independence which "was drawn up" and
planned by American allies. Who knows, maybe Bryza, who is perfectly
and personally familiar with the political authorities of the NKR
and the Republic of Armenia, is destined to take up a new role - to
become a bridge for establishing direct dialogue between the NKR and
Azerbaijan? For Karabakh this would be a verge of breaking the rules
(because Azerbaijan may interpret this in a way that Bryza being the
US ambassador to Azerbaijan is establishing ties with Karabakh within
the framework of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity) but, as the
saying goes, "fortune favours the daring"... [ellipses as published]
Karabakh now needs to be heard and it should be underlined that the
NKR is expected to gain more dividends from Bryza's appointment than
Azerbaijan or Armenia.
Today, the person who will replace Bryza as the US co-chair of
the OSCE Minks Group is not yet known. So far, it is known that
Tina Kaidanow, head of the American mission in Kosovo (by the way,
this is a momentous appointment as well), will replace him in the
post of the [US] deputy assistant secretary of state. No-one knows
yet whether she would become a mediator in the Karabakh talks, but
Bryza noted that a US candidate for the post of the OSCE Minsk Group
[co-chair] "will satisfy both sides of the conflict". Which "both"
sides Bryza meant is difficult to say, in particular, in the context
of his new mission on establishing direct dialogue between the NKR
and the Republic of Azerbaijan.
Nevertheless, Armenian and Karabakh political elites are yet
refraining from making hasty comments. Some political forces have
said that the appointment of Bryza is an unethical move by the Obama
administration. There even were people who said that "the Armenian
authorities should declare Bryza persona non grata"... [ellipses as
published] But in general, the Armenian authorities are waiting for
the time being: the new figure who will replace him in the OSCE [Minsk
Group] is more important now than Bryza. This appointment will dot the
"i" in the new US policy in the region. The policy which has stopped
staking on Georgia, has been fed up with open confrontation with
Russia and which wants to restore the past "mutual love" with Turkey
and desires, as always, to play first fiddle in our region. In this
regard, Bryza has been quite successful in his role. But the second
part is ahead of us, where Azerbaijan can "show its horns" to the USA;
based on Georgian experience Armenia may suddenly "seek support" from
the USA, correspondingly reacting to the Turkish-Russian alliance;
Turkey may again "wag its tail" in accordance with oriental customs,
especially as no-one has cancelled the day of 24 April [anniversary of
killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915] on the calendar
and it always comes; and Russia... [ellipses as published] - as always
"one cannot understand it with reason"... [ellipses as published]
We will have to wait for better times together with possibly
"Azerbaijanized" Bryza and the new interests of regional subjects and
objects, but also with the understanding that until today there has
been no diplomat or a non-diplomat in Azerbaijan who would clearly
understand that "the status of Nagornyy Karabakh is the most important
part of the Karabakh settlement" and that the Armenian authorities
will never budge on this point.
Karin Stepanyan
Novoye Vremya
Sept 1 2009
Armenia
The US co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, Matthew Bryza, who is
touted for the post of US ambassador to Azerbaijan, has not yet got
the official agreement from the Azerbaijani authorities.
It is very likely that the Azerbaijani authorities are trying to
show to the USA that Azerbaijan is not very much enthusiastic about
the appointment.
So, the most "denied" by various media co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk
Group, Matthew Bryza, has left his position with as much fuss as when
he embarked on it. It was Bryza who at the beginning of his career as
a co-chairman raised the curtain over the negotiations, having made
public part of the Madrid principles. And it is Bryza who despite all
mediation rules has been appointed ambassador to a conflicting country.
The co-chairmanship has become kind of a springboard to expand his
knowledge of the region and gain a reputation here. This controversial
appointment gives many grounds for an analysis - what will the embassy
headed by Bryza bring into the US policy on Azerbaijan, how will it
correlate with relations with Karabakh and Armenia, what will it result
in the context of relations between the mentioned countries and Turkey?
Bryza is considered to be an expert of the US Department of State
on the Caucasus. Moreover, he belongs to the "executor" of the
USA's geopolitical blueprint on the so-called "Greater Middle East"
which involves the necessity to cut the "umbilical cord" linking the
South Caucasus countries and Russia and to transfer them to another
geopolitical dimension. In this context, Bryza's appointment to a
regional country is not a coincidence. He has got the "first hand"
knowledge of the whole region, including Karabakh - are there
many politicians or ordinary people in Azerbaijan who have seen
the contemporary NKR [self-declared Nagornyy Karabakh republic]
with their own eyes? In addition, Bryza's wife is an ethnic Turk,
which is no less important if at issue is the Caucasus mentality
and this factor's influence on the Azerbaijan-Turkey-USA triangle
(it is very likely that this factor can somehow cause the recently
soured Azerbaijan-Turkey and Turkey-USA relations to appear to have
got warmer).
Naturally, Bryza could have been appointed ambassador, for example,
to Georgia, especially as they say that it was [Georgian President
Mikheil] Saakashvili who financed the high-profile wedding of Bryza
and Turkish-born Zeyno Baran. In addition, Saakashvili was quick to
award Bryza for "services in developing friendship between the USA
and Georgia" - a strange award if we consider that Bryza was never
involved in Georgian affairs fully.
Of course, it would have been "more correct" on the part of the USA to
rather appoint Bryza as ambassador to Georgia, taking account of his
warm personal relationship with Saakashvili and in order to preserve
formal neutrality by not appointing an OSCE co-chairman as ambassador
to a country for which it acted as a mediator in the past. Bryza's
appointment as ambassador to Azerbaijan shows that in fact, the
USA "does not care" about formalities since with this unethical
appointment, Washington has probably once again made it clear for
the world that American interests are above formalities... [ellipses
as published]
At the same time, this, in fact, cynical appointment of a conflict
mediator as ambassador to a conflicting country has not provoked
appropriate reaction from the NKR or Armenian government or the
mediators, which can create an undesirable precedence for the future.
Bryza noted: "[US] President Obama considers Azerbaijan to be a very
important strategic partner of the USA." It is not worth speaking
about the importance of Azerbaijan for the USA in terms of its
energy resources, the USA considers that it is important to shift
Azerbaijan's direction towards "great" Americanization, as it was with
Georgia. But "Americanization" of Georgia has resulted in the loss of
Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Does the appointment of Bryza means such
"Americanization" for Azerbaijan as well? In addition, despite the
widespread opinions that Bryza's appointment is a confirmation of the
increased US interest in Azerbaijan there are some other opinions as
well - the USA hints to the Azerbaijani leadership: "Now 'our person
in your country' has more information than yourselves" and this is
possibly one of the unique levers of influence on Azerbaijan by the
USA. Bryza, who is aware of all the opinions in the Caucasus and as a
possessor of the present positions of all the sides in the Karabakh
conflict, including the NKR, may perfectly use his knowledge when
the USA needs it.
With regards to "Bryza's Karabakh history", then, of course, he managed
to present himself as a light-headed and pro-Azerbaijani mediator. His
ambiguous statements on Karabakh, especially on the return of either
five or seven districts to Azerbaijan, most probably paved the way for
the appointment of Bryza as an ambassador to Azerbaijan. Nevertheless,
Bryza was a mediator who more than others "threw to people" a piece
of information thus bringing into the public domain various matters
of the [Nagornyy] Karabakh settlement.
He would often say something and similarly deny, dismissing what
had been said and saying new things, but it was part of the policy
owing to which Bryza became the most quoted mediator and in essence,
one of the few initiators of public discussions in the conflicting
countries. In addition to all these, Bryza repeatedly said that the
settlement of the Karabakh conflict should consider the international
law on the self-determination of nations as well, which, of course
"handicaps" his good welcome in Azerbaijan. Besides, Bryza has seen
with his own eyes today's NKR with its state symbols and everyday
life. This is more than Kosovo's independence which "was drawn up" and
planned by American allies. Who knows, maybe Bryza, who is perfectly
and personally familiar with the political authorities of the NKR
and the Republic of Armenia, is destined to take up a new role - to
become a bridge for establishing direct dialogue between the NKR and
Azerbaijan? For Karabakh this would be a verge of breaking the rules
(because Azerbaijan may interpret this in a way that Bryza being the
US ambassador to Azerbaijan is establishing ties with Karabakh within
the framework of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity) but, as the
saying goes, "fortune favours the daring"... [ellipses as published]
Karabakh now needs to be heard and it should be underlined that the
NKR is expected to gain more dividends from Bryza's appointment than
Azerbaijan or Armenia.
Today, the person who will replace Bryza as the US co-chair of
the OSCE Minks Group is not yet known. So far, it is known that
Tina Kaidanow, head of the American mission in Kosovo (by the way,
this is a momentous appointment as well), will replace him in the
post of the [US] deputy assistant secretary of state. No-one knows
yet whether she would become a mediator in the Karabakh talks, but
Bryza noted that a US candidate for the post of the OSCE Minsk Group
[co-chair] "will satisfy both sides of the conflict". Which "both"
sides Bryza meant is difficult to say, in particular, in the context
of his new mission on establishing direct dialogue between the NKR
and the Republic of Azerbaijan.
Nevertheless, Armenian and Karabakh political elites are yet
refraining from making hasty comments. Some political forces have
said that the appointment of Bryza is an unethical move by the Obama
administration. There even were people who said that "the Armenian
authorities should declare Bryza persona non grata"... [ellipses as
published] But in general, the Armenian authorities are waiting for
the time being: the new figure who will replace him in the OSCE [Minsk
Group] is more important now than Bryza. This appointment will dot the
"i" in the new US policy in the region. The policy which has stopped
staking on Georgia, has been fed up with open confrontation with
Russia and which wants to restore the past "mutual love" with Turkey
and desires, as always, to play first fiddle in our region. In this
regard, Bryza has been quite successful in his role. But the second
part is ahead of us, where Azerbaijan can "show its horns" to the USA;
based on Georgian experience Armenia may suddenly "seek support" from
the USA, correspondingly reacting to the Turkish-Russian alliance;
Turkey may again "wag its tail" in accordance with oriental customs,
especially as no-one has cancelled the day of 24 April [anniversary of
killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915] on the calendar
and it always comes; and Russia... [ellipses as published] - as always
"one cannot understand it with reason"... [ellipses as published]
We will have to wait for better times together with possibly
"Azerbaijanized" Bryza and the new interests of regional subjects and
objects, but also with the understanding that until today there has
been no diplomat or a non-diplomat in Azerbaijan who would clearly
understand that "the status of Nagornyy Karabakh is the most important
part of the Karabakh settlement" and that the Armenian authorities
will never budge on this point.