Tweet
COULD BAKU GET A 'MAIDAN' OF ITS OWN?
The Voice of Russia
June 2 2014
A recent statement by Richard Morningstar, the US Ambassador in
Azerbaijan, has resulted in what could be described as a full-blown
crisis in the relations between Baku and the US. Why would a top
American diplomat act so undiplomatically and why has his statement
caused such bitter response from the government? Is there any chance
that he could be right, and Azerbaijan could have a 'Maidan' of its
own? Voice of Russia is exploring the issues with Rasim Musabekov, an
independent political analyst based in Baku, Sabit Bagirov, Chairman of
the Azerbaijan Business Development Foundation, Richard Giragosian,
Director of the Regional Studies Center (RSC), based in Yerevan,
and Professor Alexander Markarov, Head of the Armenia program at the
CIS Institute.
June, 2 the Swiss President and Head the OSCE Didier Burhalter
arrived to Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan - the first stop in his
tour of three Caucasus states. His visit came at a particularly
sensitive moment. Baku is recovering from shock and awe caused by
a recent statement made by Richard Morningstar, the US Ambassador
to Azerbaijan interviewed by Radio Azadliq. Here's what he said:
"I think one of the unfortunate things from Azerbaijan maybe, is
that the government does not want to see anything happen here like
what happened in Maidan Square, and that that might be giving them
an excuse to crack down even harder with respect to human rights and
democracy issues....If you take too hard a line and don't give enough
breathing space to civil society, arguably, it's more likely that,
at some point, there could be a real issue".
Azerbaijan's Foreign Ministry dismissed the US envoy's remarks as
"the US' interference in Azerbaijan's internal affairs and attempts
to direct it."
"This statement is groundless, says Rasim Musabekov, an independent
political analyst based in Baku. - An ambassador should refrain from
any hypothetical statements. One could come up with all kinds of
ideas. One can suppose that such a Maidan will appear in front of the
White House in a year's time, or that the Occupy Wall Street movement
would eventually result in the fall of the US government. Well,
in any case, his abilities to work in Azerbaijan in that sense are
very limited. The government itself supports youth organizations,
public organizations, may be even three times more than the US does
it through their funds"....
One of the reasons why Baku could remain so confident, could be
the country's role in the global energy market. Says Sabit Bagirov,
Chairman of the Azerbaijan Business Development Foundation: "Azerbaijan
is the biggest economy of the three Caucasian republics, with its
GDP bigger than GDP of Georgia and Armenia combined, mostly due to
its rich oil and gas resources. Oil and gas sector has been dominated
by two large consortiums formed by some of the leading international
investors led by BP, as well as Statoil, Chevron and others. Azerbaijan
is exporting oil mostly to the West and the Mediterranean. And the
overall trade balance is mostly West-oriented"...
However, a closer look reveals a more complicated reality. Richard
Giragosian, Director of the Regional Studies Center (RSC), based
in Yerevan:
"First of all, in the broader context we see two pronounced trends
underway in Azerbaijan. The first was a rather careful and cautious
reaction to developments in Ukraine and Crimea where Azerbaijan was
trying to establish a more delicate position regarding Russia in the
near abroad. But at the same time the second trend was a creeping
crackdown on Azerbaijani civil society groups, especially targeting
those engaged in contacts or negotiations with Armenian counterparts.
What this represents in many ways is an attempt to strengthen the
Aliev government domestically and to prevent any type of at least in
their perception western interference in domestic issues. This is
especially the case when we see a recent interview and statements
by the US Ambassador to Azerbaijan Richard Morningstar. But what
is most significant is that the US Ambassador is on his way out. He
will be replaced by a new US ambassador in the coming months and in
the broader context we do see an Azerbaijani government attempt to
silence civil society and actually to push back on any Western agenda
or Western attempt to inspire change within Azerbaijan.
... Theoretically, if the situation in Azerbaijan gets worse, if it
eventually destabilizes, how is that going to affect the oil and gas
supplies to Europe?
What we have is two essential factors: the first is, this is even more
dangerous than the theoretical discussion because the instability,
potentially within Azerbaijan, is made much worse by the lack of
an effective avenue for expressing discontent. In other words, any
sign of defender opposition is immediately rewarded by an arrest or
imprisonment. Therefore, that only radicalizes the society. Secondly,
in terms of energy, any potential domestic turmoil or instability
within Azerbaijan will directly challenge oil export routs in pipelines
that largely serve the West and Turkey. This, therefore, makes Turkey
much more a vested actor or an interested party in preventing any
instability. At the same time, this is the 20th anniversary this
year of the ceasefire in effect between Armenia, Azerbaijan and
Nagorno-Karabakh, which may actually only increase the stakes, and
also for Russia pose a new risk of potential instability along the
Russian southern periphery, especially regarding let's say conflict
spillover or instability in Dagestan for example.
And if we proceed discussing potential instability in Azerbaijan,
how is that going to affect Iran?
Unfortunately, Iran lately seems to be greatly distressed by the
trend going on in Azerbaijan. In other words, Azerbaijan and Iran
suffered through unresolved conflict and tension regarding territorial
claims to identity to the Caspian Sea, for example. This may make
Iran actually become more assertive in its view or perception of the
Caspian reserves or the division of Caspian Sea. But at the same time
I think Western engagement with Iran over its nuclear program makes
Iran more predictable and less of a threat especially in terms of
regions stability"...
Professor Alexander Markarov, Head of the Armenia program at the CIS
Institute, believes the US Ambassador has overplayed the risk of a
'Maidan' in Baku:
"There is probably some exaggeration between the statements that were
sounded by representatives of the diplomatic corps in Azerbaijan and
the real situation inside the country, - he says. - based on the type
of regime we have in Azerbaijan, we might assume that power holders are
really able to use their military or paramilitary forces to oversee the
situation in Azerbaijan. And second, comparing Azerbaijan to Ukraine -
if we really can compare the two countries - we can see there is a huge
difference between the opposition potential in these countries. ...
In Azerbaijan the opposition is rather weak, for it has been
marginalized all the time... So the statements could be considered as
some sort of a threat ... and a possibility of the destabilization
of the situation in Azerbaijan. But it's hard to see who are the
potential forces who might come up as potential 'destabilizers'
of the situation in the country....
In fact the authoritarian stability which we can see now in Azerbaijan
is the most useful status quo for foreign investors. In case of an
instability it would be really hard to say who is who to deal with
in Azerbaijan. Stable though authoritarian Azerbaijan might be more
predictable for international stakeholders....
But then why would the US representative make this kind of statement?
... Such statements might not always and not necessarily sound very
rational, but that might be a sign that the US is trying to get a
little more involved in the affaires in Southern Caucasus.... On
the other hand it could have been done to bring Azerbaijan to a
more interested position in the negotiation process regarding the
exports of energy resources and its position of the country that
could potentially come a transit country for other energy resources...
Could the US' closer involvement in the region also pursue some goals
in Iran?
... Azerbaijani card could be used somehow to influence Iranian
politics, but that could not really be foreseen in the nearest
future...
". (You can listen to the full interview in the MP3 file of the
program).
http://voiceofrussia.com/radio_broadcast/25298789/273094945/
The Voice of Russia
June 2 2014
A recent statement by Richard Morningstar, the US Ambassador in
Azerbaijan, has resulted in what could be described as a full-blown
crisis in the relations between Baku and the US. Why would a top
American diplomat act so undiplomatically and why has his statement
caused such bitter response from the government? Is there any chance
that he could be right, and Azerbaijan could have a 'Maidan' of its
own? Voice of Russia is exploring the issues with Rasim Musabekov, an
independent political analyst based in Baku, Sabit Bagirov, Chairman of
the Azerbaijan Business Development Foundation, Richard Giragosian,
Director of the Regional Studies Center (RSC), based in Yerevan,
and Professor Alexander Markarov, Head of the Armenia program at the
CIS Institute.
June, 2 the Swiss President and Head the OSCE Didier Burhalter
arrived to Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan - the first stop in his
tour of three Caucasus states. His visit came at a particularly
sensitive moment. Baku is recovering from shock and awe caused by
a recent statement made by Richard Morningstar, the US Ambassador
to Azerbaijan interviewed by Radio Azadliq. Here's what he said:
"I think one of the unfortunate things from Azerbaijan maybe, is
that the government does not want to see anything happen here like
what happened in Maidan Square, and that that might be giving them
an excuse to crack down even harder with respect to human rights and
democracy issues....If you take too hard a line and don't give enough
breathing space to civil society, arguably, it's more likely that,
at some point, there could be a real issue".
Azerbaijan's Foreign Ministry dismissed the US envoy's remarks as
"the US' interference in Azerbaijan's internal affairs and attempts
to direct it."
"This statement is groundless, says Rasim Musabekov, an independent
political analyst based in Baku. - An ambassador should refrain from
any hypothetical statements. One could come up with all kinds of
ideas. One can suppose that such a Maidan will appear in front of the
White House in a year's time, or that the Occupy Wall Street movement
would eventually result in the fall of the US government. Well,
in any case, his abilities to work in Azerbaijan in that sense are
very limited. The government itself supports youth organizations,
public organizations, may be even three times more than the US does
it through their funds"....
One of the reasons why Baku could remain so confident, could be
the country's role in the global energy market. Says Sabit Bagirov,
Chairman of the Azerbaijan Business Development Foundation: "Azerbaijan
is the biggest economy of the three Caucasian republics, with its
GDP bigger than GDP of Georgia and Armenia combined, mostly due to
its rich oil and gas resources. Oil and gas sector has been dominated
by two large consortiums formed by some of the leading international
investors led by BP, as well as Statoil, Chevron and others. Azerbaijan
is exporting oil mostly to the West and the Mediterranean. And the
overall trade balance is mostly West-oriented"...
However, a closer look reveals a more complicated reality. Richard
Giragosian, Director of the Regional Studies Center (RSC), based
in Yerevan:
"First of all, in the broader context we see two pronounced trends
underway in Azerbaijan. The first was a rather careful and cautious
reaction to developments in Ukraine and Crimea where Azerbaijan was
trying to establish a more delicate position regarding Russia in the
near abroad. But at the same time the second trend was a creeping
crackdown on Azerbaijani civil society groups, especially targeting
those engaged in contacts or negotiations with Armenian counterparts.
What this represents in many ways is an attempt to strengthen the
Aliev government domestically and to prevent any type of at least in
their perception western interference in domestic issues. This is
especially the case when we see a recent interview and statements
by the US Ambassador to Azerbaijan Richard Morningstar. But what
is most significant is that the US Ambassador is on his way out. He
will be replaced by a new US ambassador in the coming months and in
the broader context we do see an Azerbaijani government attempt to
silence civil society and actually to push back on any Western agenda
or Western attempt to inspire change within Azerbaijan.
... Theoretically, if the situation in Azerbaijan gets worse, if it
eventually destabilizes, how is that going to affect the oil and gas
supplies to Europe?
What we have is two essential factors: the first is, this is even more
dangerous than the theoretical discussion because the instability,
potentially within Azerbaijan, is made much worse by the lack of
an effective avenue for expressing discontent. In other words, any
sign of defender opposition is immediately rewarded by an arrest or
imprisonment. Therefore, that only radicalizes the society. Secondly,
in terms of energy, any potential domestic turmoil or instability
within Azerbaijan will directly challenge oil export routs in pipelines
that largely serve the West and Turkey. This, therefore, makes Turkey
much more a vested actor or an interested party in preventing any
instability. At the same time, this is the 20th anniversary this
year of the ceasefire in effect between Armenia, Azerbaijan and
Nagorno-Karabakh, which may actually only increase the stakes, and
also for Russia pose a new risk of potential instability along the
Russian southern periphery, especially regarding let's say conflict
spillover or instability in Dagestan for example.
And if we proceed discussing potential instability in Azerbaijan,
how is that going to affect Iran?
Unfortunately, Iran lately seems to be greatly distressed by the
trend going on in Azerbaijan. In other words, Azerbaijan and Iran
suffered through unresolved conflict and tension regarding territorial
claims to identity to the Caspian Sea, for example. This may make
Iran actually become more assertive in its view or perception of the
Caspian reserves or the division of Caspian Sea. But at the same time
I think Western engagement with Iran over its nuclear program makes
Iran more predictable and less of a threat especially in terms of
regions stability"...
Professor Alexander Markarov, Head of the Armenia program at the CIS
Institute, believes the US Ambassador has overplayed the risk of a
'Maidan' in Baku:
"There is probably some exaggeration between the statements that were
sounded by representatives of the diplomatic corps in Azerbaijan and
the real situation inside the country, - he says. - based on the type
of regime we have in Azerbaijan, we might assume that power holders are
really able to use their military or paramilitary forces to oversee the
situation in Azerbaijan. And second, comparing Azerbaijan to Ukraine -
if we really can compare the two countries - we can see there is a huge
difference between the opposition potential in these countries. ...
In Azerbaijan the opposition is rather weak, for it has been
marginalized all the time... So the statements could be considered as
some sort of a threat ... and a possibility of the destabilization
of the situation in Azerbaijan. But it's hard to see who are the
potential forces who might come up as potential 'destabilizers'
of the situation in the country....
In fact the authoritarian stability which we can see now in Azerbaijan
is the most useful status quo for foreign investors. In case of an
instability it would be really hard to say who is who to deal with
in Azerbaijan. Stable though authoritarian Azerbaijan might be more
predictable for international stakeholders....
But then why would the US representative make this kind of statement?
... Such statements might not always and not necessarily sound very
rational, but that might be a sign that the US is trying to get a
little more involved in the affaires in Southern Caucasus.... On
the other hand it could have been done to bring Azerbaijan to a
more interested position in the negotiation process regarding the
exports of energy resources and its position of the country that
could potentially come a transit country for other energy resources...
Could the US' closer involvement in the region also pursue some goals
in Iran?
... Azerbaijani card could be used somehow to influence Iranian
politics, but that could not really be foreseen in the nearest
future...
". (You can listen to the full interview in the MP3 file of the
program).
http://voiceofrussia.com/radio_broadcast/25298789/273094945/