Tweet
Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
July 5 2013
U.S. policy on the eve of the start of the election campaign in Azerbaijan
5 July 2013 - 3:06pm
Alexei Vlasov, exclusively to VK
Washington's activity in the direction of the South Caucasus in recent
months has increased markedly. While in 2011-2012 the main efforts of
the State Department were concentrated on support for the Saakashvili
regime, now, with the new geopolitical realities, the U.S. is trying
to diversify its regional policy, distributing more evenly the forms
of cooperation between Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia.
Naturally, this activity worries Russia, given that, according to many
politicians and experts, this activity is not only anti-Iranian, but
also explicitly anti-Russian.
However, if, in the case of Armenia, Washington is willing to give
priority in the dialogue with Yerevan to official Brussels, when it
comes to Azerbaijan, U.S. diplomacy prefers to act directly in the
field of energy dialogue and the Karabakh issue. However, for the
Azerbaijani elite, despite the importance of the Karabakh issue,
currently the number one issue is the presidential elections to be
held in autumn 2013.
The position the U.S. will take in respect of Ilham Aliyev's
candidacy, of course, concerns the local authorities, especially as
the U.S. officials, as usual, are trying to stick to a multi-vector
line. This means that high-ranking officials almost simultaneously
hold meetings with representatives of the ruling elite and the most
prominent members of the opposition. For example, members of the
delegation of the U.S. Helsinki Commission in the framework of a
three-day visit met with representatives of the National Council of
Democratic Forces. Meanwhile, U.S. senators on that day met with
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. It is interesting that the head of
the Helsinki Commission of the U.S. Congress Mr. Smith also
participated in the meetings with the representatives of the
authorities and their political opponents. Note that Russian MPs and
politicians cannot afford such a "broad multi-vector policy" for
Azerbaijan or Armenia. In this case, there are completely different
rules.
If we put aside evidence of increased diplomatic activity in
Washington and wonder about the ultimate goal of these actions, the
answer is actually very simple: supporting anti-Iranian sentiment,
erecting barriers in relations between Russia and Azerbaijan, Russia
and Armenia, keeping the slow state of the Karabakh conflict, since it
is one of Washington's leverages over regional politicians. Perhaps
these circumstances have caused a pause in the determination of the
candidacy of OSCE Minsk Group by the United States.
The main operator of U.S. projects in Azerbaijan is Richard
Morningstar, who is talking about fair and transparent elections in
Azerbaijan in each of his speeches, for which, he said, he hopes
personally. And, in addition, Morningstar has fully mastered the art
of talking about a lot, avoiding specific answers to tough questions.
By the way, this was the case at his last briefing, when Morningstar,
answering questions about the trip of Ibragimbekov to the U.S., only
confused the journalists about with whom the new-found opposition
leader met in Washington.
Of course, politics is an extremely cynical business, and U.S. policy
is double cynical. This is not a reproach to Washington, but merely a
statement of fact, to which politics in the former Soviet space, not
only in the countries of the South Caucasus, are accustomed.
That is why the Azerbaijani elite seem to be striving to separate
rhetoric from genuine aspirations, both against Washington and against
the European Union. And if in the energy sector Baku is largely in the
wake of the interests of the West, from the point of view of the
internal stability of the current political system, the U.S. can
hardly serve as a close ally of President Ilham Aliyev. At the very
least, there are no such examples in world politics over the last few
years, when Washington's promises were fulfilled until the end for
both objective and subjective reasons.
In other words, at least until the autumn of this year, the region
will have a great game, in the center of which Azerbaijan will stand -
a key point for the current scenario in the South Caucasus. And it is
on the Azerbaijani leadership, who should bear in mind the adage about
Greeks bearing gifts, that a comprehensive solution to the problems to
face country and society in the next two to three months depends.
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/analysis/politics/42301.html
July 5 2013
U.S. policy on the eve of the start of the election campaign in Azerbaijan
5 July 2013 - 3:06pm
Alexei Vlasov, exclusively to VK
Washington's activity in the direction of the South Caucasus in recent
months has increased markedly. While in 2011-2012 the main efforts of
the State Department were concentrated on support for the Saakashvili
regime, now, with the new geopolitical realities, the U.S. is trying
to diversify its regional policy, distributing more evenly the forms
of cooperation between Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia.
Naturally, this activity worries Russia, given that, according to many
politicians and experts, this activity is not only anti-Iranian, but
also explicitly anti-Russian.
However, if, in the case of Armenia, Washington is willing to give
priority in the dialogue with Yerevan to official Brussels, when it
comes to Azerbaijan, U.S. diplomacy prefers to act directly in the
field of energy dialogue and the Karabakh issue. However, for the
Azerbaijani elite, despite the importance of the Karabakh issue,
currently the number one issue is the presidential elections to be
held in autumn 2013.
The position the U.S. will take in respect of Ilham Aliyev's
candidacy, of course, concerns the local authorities, especially as
the U.S. officials, as usual, are trying to stick to a multi-vector
line. This means that high-ranking officials almost simultaneously
hold meetings with representatives of the ruling elite and the most
prominent members of the opposition. For example, members of the
delegation of the U.S. Helsinki Commission in the framework of a
three-day visit met with representatives of the National Council of
Democratic Forces. Meanwhile, U.S. senators on that day met with
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. It is interesting that the head of
the Helsinki Commission of the U.S. Congress Mr. Smith also
participated in the meetings with the representatives of the
authorities and their political opponents. Note that Russian MPs and
politicians cannot afford such a "broad multi-vector policy" for
Azerbaijan or Armenia. In this case, there are completely different
rules.
If we put aside evidence of increased diplomatic activity in
Washington and wonder about the ultimate goal of these actions, the
answer is actually very simple: supporting anti-Iranian sentiment,
erecting barriers in relations between Russia and Azerbaijan, Russia
and Armenia, keeping the slow state of the Karabakh conflict, since it
is one of Washington's leverages over regional politicians. Perhaps
these circumstances have caused a pause in the determination of the
candidacy of OSCE Minsk Group by the United States.
The main operator of U.S. projects in Azerbaijan is Richard
Morningstar, who is talking about fair and transparent elections in
Azerbaijan in each of his speeches, for which, he said, he hopes
personally. And, in addition, Morningstar has fully mastered the art
of talking about a lot, avoiding specific answers to tough questions.
By the way, this was the case at his last briefing, when Morningstar,
answering questions about the trip of Ibragimbekov to the U.S., only
confused the journalists about with whom the new-found opposition
leader met in Washington.
Of course, politics is an extremely cynical business, and U.S. policy
is double cynical. This is not a reproach to Washington, but merely a
statement of fact, to which politics in the former Soviet space, not
only in the countries of the South Caucasus, are accustomed.
That is why the Azerbaijani elite seem to be striving to separate
rhetoric from genuine aspirations, both against Washington and against
the European Union. And if in the energy sector Baku is largely in the
wake of the interests of the West, from the point of view of the
internal stability of the current political system, the U.S. can
hardly serve as a close ally of President Ilham Aliyev. At the very
least, there are no such examples in world politics over the last few
years, when Washington's promises were fulfilled until the end for
both objective and subjective reasons.
In other words, at least until the autumn of this year, the region
will have a great game, in the center of which Azerbaijan will stand -
a key point for the current scenario in the South Caucasus. And it is
on the Azerbaijani leadership, who should bear in mind the adage about
Greeks bearing gifts, that a comprehensive solution to the problems to
face country and society in the next two to three months depends.
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/analysis/politics/42301.html