Tweet
US DELAY IN APPOINTING AN AMBASSADOR WAS NOT RELATED TO AZERBAIJAN PER CE
Lala B.
news.az
May 31 2010
Azerbaijan
Tabib Huseynov News.Az interviews Tabib Huseynov, analyst of the
International Crisis Group.
How do you assess Bryza's appointed as ambassador in Azerbaijan?
The obvious advantage of Matthew Bryza's candidacy as the US ambassador
is that he knows Azerbaijan and the South Caucasus region very well and
has an already well-established relations with Azerbaijan's political
leadership and to some degree, the civil society. Therefore, if his
nomination is approved by the Senate, it will take Bryza a much less
effort and a relatively shorter period of time to assume effectively
his responsibilities as an ambassador. In this sense, his nomination
reflects a pragmatic choice by the Obama administration.
Will this appointment cause the enlivening of the US-Azerbaijani ties
that have long been stalled?
Of course, almost a year-long absence of a functioning US ambassador
is one of the factors which impedes more effective communication
between the two countries. However, without underestimating the role
of ambassadors in mitigating and improving the bilateral diplomatic
relations, I doubt the relations between official Baku and Washington
would develop very differently if we had a US ambassador sitting
in Baku. There are objective factors which put some uneasiness in
the bilateral relations regardless of the presence or absence of an
ambassador. Broadly speaking, these are related to the recurrent US
criticisms of the situation with political freedoms in Azerbaijan
and Azerbaijan's grievances related to the US prioritization of the
Turkish-Armenian normalization over the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
resolution.
Do you think the long-term failure of Washington to appoint its
ambassador to Azerbaijan really had a political context?
I think the US delay in appointing an ambassador was not related
to Azerbaijan per ce. It has more to do with the workings of the US
internal bureaucracy and perhaps, with some criticisms over Bryza's
handling of the situation prior to the Georgia-Russia war of August
2008.
Can the appointment of Matthew Bryza as the ambassador have any
influence on the promotion of the Karabakh process considering his
great experience in this problem?
If approved, Bryza will be the first US Ambassador to Azerbaijan
who served as a Nagorno-Karabakh mediator. This is a good thing,
as it would imply that Bryza, as one of the few US diplomats with
first-hand experience in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, would continue
to be involved, albeit indirectly, in shaping of the US policy towards
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement.
What can you say about the negative reaction of the Armenian National
Committee of America to the possible appointment of Matthew Bryza as
the US ambassador to Azerbaijan?
The negative reaction of the ANCA to Bryza's nomination should
come as no surprise. ANCA, which is effectively a US extension
of the pan-Armenian nationalist Dashnaksutiun party, opposes the
internationally-supported compromise solution between Armenia and
Azerbaijan based on the Madrid proposals. Their opposition to a
proposed compromise solution automatically translates to their
opposition to anyone who directly or indirectly is associated with
the ongoing talks. And Bryza, who is remembered with his activism and
talkativeness when he was a Karabakh mediator, is a natural target
for them.
From: A. Papazian
Lala B.
news.az
May 31 2010
Azerbaijan
Tabib Huseynov News.Az interviews Tabib Huseynov, analyst of the
International Crisis Group.
How do you assess Bryza's appointed as ambassador in Azerbaijan?
The obvious advantage of Matthew Bryza's candidacy as the US ambassador
is that he knows Azerbaijan and the South Caucasus region very well and
has an already well-established relations with Azerbaijan's political
leadership and to some degree, the civil society. Therefore, if his
nomination is approved by the Senate, it will take Bryza a much less
effort and a relatively shorter period of time to assume effectively
his responsibilities as an ambassador. In this sense, his nomination
reflects a pragmatic choice by the Obama administration.
Will this appointment cause the enlivening of the US-Azerbaijani ties
that have long been stalled?
Of course, almost a year-long absence of a functioning US ambassador
is one of the factors which impedes more effective communication
between the two countries. However, without underestimating the role
of ambassadors in mitigating and improving the bilateral diplomatic
relations, I doubt the relations between official Baku and Washington
would develop very differently if we had a US ambassador sitting
in Baku. There are objective factors which put some uneasiness in
the bilateral relations regardless of the presence or absence of an
ambassador. Broadly speaking, these are related to the recurrent US
criticisms of the situation with political freedoms in Azerbaijan
and Azerbaijan's grievances related to the US prioritization of the
Turkish-Armenian normalization over the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
resolution.
Do you think the long-term failure of Washington to appoint its
ambassador to Azerbaijan really had a political context?
I think the US delay in appointing an ambassador was not related
to Azerbaijan per ce. It has more to do with the workings of the US
internal bureaucracy and perhaps, with some criticisms over Bryza's
handling of the situation prior to the Georgia-Russia war of August
2008.
Can the appointment of Matthew Bryza as the ambassador have any
influence on the promotion of the Karabakh process considering his
great experience in this problem?
If approved, Bryza will be the first US Ambassador to Azerbaijan
who served as a Nagorno-Karabakh mediator. This is a good thing,
as it would imply that Bryza, as one of the few US diplomats with
first-hand experience in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, would continue
to be involved, albeit indirectly, in shaping of the US policy towards
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement.
What can you say about the negative reaction of the Armenian National
Committee of America to the possible appointment of Matthew Bryza as
the US ambassador to Azerbaijan?
The negative reaction of the ANCA to Bryza's nomination should
come as no surprise. ANCA, which is effectively a US extension
of the pan-Armenian nationalist Dashnaksutiun party, opposes the
internationally-supported compromise solution between Armenia and
Azerbaijan based on the Madrid proposals. Their opposition to a
proposed compromise solution automatically translates to their
opposition to anyone who directly or indirectly is associated with
the ongoing talks. And Bryza, who is remembered with his activism and
talkativeness when he was a Karabakh mediator, is a natural target
for them.
From: A. Papazian