Tweet
US ANALYST THOMAS AMBROSIO: "THE NAGORNO-KARABAKH SITUATION ALWAYS HAS THE POTENTIAL FOR BECOMING "UNFROZEN"" - INTERVIEW
APA
July 21 2010
Azerbaijan
"The Obama administration has returned America to the Russia-centric
policy of the Clinton era"
APA's Washington DC correspondent's interview with Thomas Ambrosio, US
analyst on South Caucasus issues, an Associate Professor of political
science at North Dakota State University
- The South Caucasus is full of ethnic conflicts, the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict in particular. Also, it has been almost two years after the
Georgia war, how would you estimate the security situation in the
Caucasus region now?
- The security situation in the Caucasus is actually quite stable. The
2008 Russia-Georgia War made it clear that Russia was interested in
securing a sphere of influence in the region and that the United States
had, in effect, acceded to it. This tendency by the United States
became stronger with the inauguration of the Obama administration,
whose 'reset' with Moscow has returned America to the Russia-centric
policy of the Clinton era.
As a consequence, a more stable security environment has been created
because of the removal of any real ambiguity about Russian and American
policies: Moscow is assertive, strong (at least within the region),
and an immediate security concern for those states in the Caucasus;
by contrast, Washington appears interested in retrenching, not
willing to assert its power within the region, and is geographically
far away. Thus, it has become less likely that states in the region
believe that the Americans will actively help them if another war
were to erupt.
In terms of new risks of tensions, the Nagorno-Karabakh situation
always has the potential for becoming 'unfrozen', the recent shooting
incidents would seem to point to such a conclusion. However, I do
not see this occurring.
- What do you think about the current stage of relations between
Azerbaijan and the United States?
- The US policy toward Azerbaijan is going through an adjustment
period. The Bush administration was very positively disposed toward
Azerbaijan for several reasons like its support for the U.S. war
against terrorism and its oil production. There was a significant
change when the Obama administration came to office -- it seemed as if
the new president's desire to distance himself from his predecessor
meant an almost blind reversal of Bush-era priorities. The Obama
administration realizes that some Bush-era policies were built upon
America's strategic interests, not just the personal preferences of
a handful of individuals.
However, this correction will only go so far. Azerbaijan -- although
strategically located, possessing important natural resources, and
pro-Western -- is overshadowed by larger U.S. interests in the greater
Middle East, such as Iran, Turkey, Israel, and, of course, Afghanistan.
- Azerbaijan tries to develop good relations with Russia and at the
same time cooperates actively with US. Anyway could there be any
circumstance for Azerbaijan to make clear choice between the West
and Russia?
- I would not suggest that Azerbaijan even try. Again, the US is far
away, and Russia is on the border and assertive of its interests. For
its part, the European Union has no interest in projecting power
into the region. This does not mean simply accede to all of Russia's
demands; instead, it means accommodating a greater power and not
adopting policies which could be seen as openly threatening. It
is important to remember that the Caucasus has long been an area of
special security concern for Russia, dating back to the tsars in which
Ottoman, Persian, British empires have challenged Russian hegemony
there. If Azerbaijan 'chooses', that will force Russia to make its
own choice: either accede to substantive Western influence along its
southern border or aggressively assert its interests. Tbilisi sought
something similar, and we saw the consequences of that policy.
From: A. Papazian
APA
July 21 2010
Azerbaijan
"The Obama administration has returned America to the Russia-centric
policy of the Clinton era"
APA's Washington DC correspondent's interview with Thomas Ambrosio, US
analyst on South Caucasus issues, an Associate Professor of political
science at North Dakota State University
- The South Caucasus is full of ethnic conflicts, the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict in particular. Also, it has been almost two years after the
Georgia war, how would you estimate the security situation in the
Caucasus region now?
- The security situation in the Caucasus is actually quite stable. The
2008 Russia-Georgia War made it clear that Russia was interested in
securing a sphere of influence in the region and that the United States
had, in effect, acceded to it. This tendency by the United States
became stronger with the inauguration of the Obama administration,
whose 'reset' with Moscow has returned America to the Russia-centric
policy of the Clinton era.
As a consequence, a more stable security environment has been created
because of the removal of any real ambiguity about Russian and American
policies: Moscow is assertive, strong (at least within the region),
and an immediate security concern for those states in the Caucasus;
by contrast, Washington appears interested in retrenching, not
willing to assert its power within the region, and is geographically
far away. Thus, it has become less likely that states in the region
believe that the Americans will actively help them if another war
were to erupt.
In terms of new risks of tensions, the Nagorno-Karabakh situation
always has the potential for becoming 'unfrozen', the recent shooting
incidents would seem to point to such a conclusion. However, I do
not see this occurring.
- What do you think about the current stage of relations between
Azerbaijan and the United States?
- The US policy toward Azerbaijan is going through an adjustment
period. The Bush administration was very positively disposed toward
Azerbaijan for several reasons like its support for the U.S. war
against terrorism and its oil production. There was a significant
change when the Obama administration came to office -- it seemed as if
the new president's desire to distance himself from his predecessor
meant an almost blind reversal of Bush-era priorities. The Obama
administration realizes that some Bush-era policies were built upon
America's strategic interests, not just the personal preferences of
a handful of individuals.
However, this correction will only go so far. Azerbaijan -- although
strategically located, possessing important natural resources, and
pro-Western -- is overshadowed by larger U.S. interests in the greater
Middle East, such as Iran, Turkey, Israel, and, of course, Afghanistan.
- Azerbaijan tries to develop good relations with Russia and at the
same time cooperates actively with US. Anyway could there be any
circumstance for Azerbaijan to make clear choice between the West
and Russia?
- I would not suggest that Azerbaijan even try. Again, the US is far
away, and Russia is on the border and assertive of its interests. For
its part, the European Union has no interest in projecting power
into the region. This does not mean simply accede to all of Russia's
demands; instead, it means accommodating a greater power and not
adopting policies which could be seen as openly threatening. It
is important to remember that the Caucasus has long been an area of
special security concern for Russia, dating back to the tsars in which
Ottoman, Persian, British empires have challenged Russian hegemony
there. If Azerbaijan 'chooses', that will force Russia to make its
own choice: either accede to substantive Western influence along its
southern border or aggressively assert its interests. Tbilisi sought
something similar, and we saw the consequences of that policy.
From: A. Papazian