Tweet
TIME FOR AMERICAN CONSISTENCY IN POST-SOVIET ERA
The Hill, DC
Aug 7 2014
By Alex Vatanka
At a time when the direction of America's foreign policy is generating
abundant global bewilderment, policy-makers in Congress and the
administration must be mindful not to alienate more allies and increase
doubt and distrust of America's promises. Azerbaijan, a pro-American,
secular Muslim and energy-rich nation of some 9 million people on
the shores of the Caspian Sea is one of those countries.
Authorities in Baku are increasingly speculating about Washington's
commitment to its strategic allies and its own stated values. Some
of America's latest policy maneuverings, including an inconsistent
and largely toothless response to Russia's actions in Ukraine, have
not helped alleviate Baku's fears.
Since its independence at the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the
former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan has considered the United States
as one of its principal strategic partners. This conscious, but at
times hazardous, choice to turn to Washington was from the outset
rooted in a belief in American strength and a hope in Washington's
fairness in mediating among disputing nations. It was a conviction that
drove successive Azerbaijani governments to accept American arbitration
in Baku's conflict with neighboring Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh,
an Azerbaijani region occupied by Armenian forces since the end of
a war in 1994.
For 20 years, Azerbaijan has patiently stuck to this belief in America
as the foolproof arbiter that will somehow and someday help engineer
a peaceful resolution to this frozen conflict in the South Caucasus.
Increasingly, however, the Azerbaijanis question whether the United
States prioritizes short-term goals over long-term objectives of
peace making and the upholding of key American values, including
respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of nations.
Azerbaijan's anxieties about Congress and the administration's stance
on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict recently surfaced again following
Russia's annexation of Crimea in March. Officials in Baku quickly
grasped the possible impact of Moscow's actions on the fate of other
forcefully annexed territories, including Azerbaijan's Nagorno-Karabakh
region. In a bold step that could have not failed to irk its larger
neighbor, Azerbaijan voted against Moscow in a UN vote that called the
annexation of Crimea an illegal act, while many of the post-Soviet
states abstained and Armenia, along with only 10 other questionable
nations voted against the West.
The Azerbaijanis have since also eagerly watched America's posture
toward Moscow in the hope that Washington will lead a broader push
to stop Russian intimidation of her smaller neighbors and Moscow's
disregard for the territorial integrity of other countries. At a
minimum, Baku had hoped that the United States would adhere to the
same principles when adopting policies to deal with international
territorial disputes. American policy-makers in Congress and the
Executive, however, seem more preoccupied with scoring symbolic
geopolitical points against Moscow than applying international laws
on the question of territorial integrity of states.
This was the case with a recent American measure at the OSCE's
Parliamentary Assembly in Baku. On 1 July, Sen. Benjamin Cardin
(D-Md.) introduced a resolution that condemned Russian annexation of
Crimea. Russia predictably voted against the resolution, and pro-U.S.
Azerbaijan, which hosted the event, was not enthusiastic about the
measure either. The territorial integrity of Ukraine is important,
the Azerbaijanis argued, but a selective approach by the international
community to territorial disputes will in the long run only make
mockery of international law.
Cardin's resolution was a mere knee-jerk reaction to a phenomena - the
disregard for territorial integrity of states - that impacts a number
of post-Soviet states. It is not just Ukraine and Azerbaijan, but
also an issue that Georgia and Moldova are wrestling to address. Along
with Azerbaijan, the resolution failed to mention Georgia and Moldova
as well. As the head of the Azerbaijani delegation, Bakhar Muradova,
put it, a "serious resolution, which would concern all conflicts in
the region," will have been far more fitting given American leadership.
Incidentally, such a selective approach best demonstrated by the
EU's refusal to emphasize Azerbaijan's territorial integrity in its
proposed association agreement with Azerbaijan, in stark difference
with agreements offered to Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, is one reason
why Baku is still hesitant to move forward with the EU association.
It is one thing to pursue a muddled foreign policy that leaves U.S.
allies puzzled; it is an entirely different proposition - and with
potential grave consequences for America's global leverage - when
Washington's policies foster a sense of American double standards or
its undependability as a partner.
Vatanka is a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute and at the
Jamestown Foundation in Washington D.C. He is also a senior fellow in
Middle East Studies at the U.S. Air Force Special Operations School
(USAFSOS) at Hurlburt Field and teaches as an adjunct professor at
DISAM at Wright-Patterson AFB.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/214495-time-for-american-consistency-in-post-soviet-era
The Hill, DC
Aug 7 2014
By Alex Vatanka
At a time when the direction of America's foreign policy is generating
abundant global bewilderment, policy-makers in Congress and the
administration must be mindful not to alienate more allies and increase
doubt and distrust of America's promises. Azerbaijan, a pro-American,
secular Muslim and energy-rich nation of some 9 million people on
the shores of the Caspian Sea is one of those countries.
Authorities in Baku are increasingly speculating about Washington's
commitment to its strategic allies and its own stated values. Some
of America's latest policy maneuverings, including an inconsistent
and largely toothless response to Russia's actions in Ukraine, have
not helped alleviate Baku's fears.
Since its independence at the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the
former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan has considered the United States
as one of its principal strategic partners. This conscious, but at
times hazardous, choice to turn to Washington was from the outset
rooted in a belief in American strength and a hope in Washington's
fairness in mediating among disputing nations. It was a conviction that
drove successive Azerbaijani governments to accept American arbitration
in Baku's conflict with neighboring Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh,
an Azerbaijani region occupied by Armenian forces since the end of
a war in 1994.
For 20 years, Azerbaijan has patiently stuck to this belief in America
as the foolproof arbiter that will somehow and someday help engineer
a peaceful resolution to this frozen conflict in the South Caucasus.
Increasingly, however, the Azerbaijanis question whether the United
States prioritizes short-term goals over long-term objectives of
peace making and the upholding of key American values, including
respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of nations.
Azerbaijan's anxieties about Congress and the administration's stance
on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict recently surfaced again following
Russia's annexation of Crimea in March. Officials in Baku quickly
grasped the possible impact of Moscow's actions on the fate of other
forcefully annexed territories, including Azerbaijan's Nagorno-Karabakh
region. In a bold step that could have not failed to irk its larger
neighbor, Azerbaijan voted against Moscow in a UN vote that called the
annexation of Crimea an illegal act, while many of the post-Soviet
states abstained and Armenia, along with only 10 other questionable
nations voted against the West.
The Azerbaijanis have since also eagerly watched America's posture
toward Moscow in the hope that Washington will lead a broader push
to stop Russian intimidation of her smaller neighbors and Moscow's
disregard for the territorial integrity of other countries. At a
minimum, Baku had hoped that the United States would adhere to the
same principles when adopting policies to deal with international
territorial disputes. American policy-makers in Congress and the
Executive, however, seem more preoccupied with scoring symbolic
geopolitical points against Moscow than applying international laws
on the question of territorial integrity of states.
This was the case with a recent American measure at the OSCE's
Parliamentary Assembly in Baku. On 1 July, Sen. Benjamin Cardin
(D-Md.) introduced a resolution that condemned Russian annexation of
Crimea. Russia predictably voted against the resolution, and pro-U.S.
Azerbaijan, which hosted the event, was not enthusiastic about the
measure either. The territorial integrity of Ukraine is important,
the Azerbaijanis argued, but a selective approach by the international
community to territorial disputes will in the long run only make
mockery of international law.
Cardin's resolution was a mere knee-jerk reaction to a phenomena - the
disregard for territorial integrity of states - that impacts a number
of post-Soviet states. It is not just Ukraine and Azerbaijan, but
also an issue that Georgia and Moldova are wrestling to address. Along
with Azerbaijan, the resolution failed to mention Georgia and Moldova
as well. As the head of the Azerbaijani delegation, Bakhar Muradova,
put it, a "serious resolution, which would concern all conflicts in
the region," will have been far more fitting given American leadership.
Incidentally, such a selective approach best demonstrated by the
EU's refusal to emphasize Azerbaijan's territorial integrity in its
proposed association agreement with Azerbaijan, in stark difference
with agreements offered to Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, is one reason
why Baku is still hesitant to move forward with the EU association.
It is one thing to pursue a muddled foreign policy that leaves U.S.
allies puzzled; it is an entirely different proposition - and with
potential grave consequences for America's global leverage - when
Washington's policies foster a sense of American double standards or
its undependability as a partner.
Vatanka is a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute and at the
Jamestown Foundation in Washington D.C. He is also a senior fellow in
Middle East Studies at the U.S. Air Force Special Operations School
(USAFSOS) at Hurlburt Field and teaches as an adjunct professor at
DISAM at Wright-Patterson AFB.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/214495-time-for-american-consistency-in-post-soviet-era