Tweet
Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Sept 5 2014
Joshua Noonan: "The non-binding resolution on Karabakh will have no
implications"
5 September 2014 - 9:08am
At the end of August, the California State Senate passed a resolution
on recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh. Many experts said the document did
not follow the approach of U.S. authorities in the settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and was passed under great pressure from
lobbyists in the state. Joshua Noonan, an Azerbaijan and Caucasus
analyst, research assistant at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, has expressed his opinion about the developments
in an interview with Vestnik Kavkaza.
- Are you surprised that such (Californian AJR-32) resolution on
Karabakh has been adopted?
- The passage of AJR-32 is not surprising due to its non-binding and
local nature. It is representative of some constituents in California
while posing no obligation to the state government. The lobby
representing the certain constituents is strong and organized.
Moreover, the government of Azerbaijan and local opposed groups do not
show any serious interest in properly mounting an opposition.
- Can this vote have any serious political implications?
- There are no real implications for the vote. It is simply a public
relations victory which demonstrates the organized nature of a certain
portion of the constituents in California.
- What was its goal?
- Historically, interest groups seek to demonstrate their value to
their patrons by passing non-binding resolutions. This is simply
another example of such an action.
- Can it affect the relations of Azerbaijan with the United States?
- As this is a non-binding resolution at a state level, there are no
real implications for Azerbaijan-US relations.
- Can it affect somehow the process of resolving of the Karabakh crisis?
- No. The resolution of the conflict is the mainly the responsibility
of the two involved parties, Azerbaijan and Armenia.
- What or who prevents the resolution of the Karabakh crisis today?
- Unwillingness of the parties' leadership to compromise.
From: A. Papazian
Sept 5 2014
Joshua Noonan: "The non-binding resolution on Karabakh will have no
implications"
5 September 2014 - 9:08am
At the end of August, the California State Senate passed a resolution
on recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh. Many experts said the document did
not follow the approach of U.S. authorities in the settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and was passed under great pressure from
lobbyists in the state. Joshua Noonan, an Azerbaijan and Caucasus
analyst, research assistant at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, has expressed his opinion about the developments
in an interview with Vestnik Kavkaza.
- Are you surprised that such (Californian AJR-32) resolution on
Karabakh has been adopted?
- The passage of AJR-32 is not surprising due to its non-binding and
local nature. It is representative of some constituents in California
while posing no obligation to the state government. The lobby
representing the certain constituents is strong and organized.
Moreover, the government of Azerbaijan and local opposed groups do not
show any serious interest in properly mounting an opposition.
- Can this vote have any serious political implications?
- There are no real implications for the vote. It is simply a public
relations victory which demonstrates the organized nature of a certain
portion of the constituents in California.
- What was its goal?
- Historically, interest groups seek to demonstrate their value to
their patrons by passing non-binding resolutions. This is simply
another example of such an action.
- Can it affect the relations of Azerbaijan with the United States?
- As this is a non-binding resolution at a state level, there are no
real implications for Azerbaijan-US relations.
- Can it affect somehow the process of resolving of the Karabakh crisis?
- No. The resolution of the conflict is the mainly the responsibility
of the two involved parties, Azerbaijan and Armenia.
- What or who prevents the resolution of the Karabakh crisis today?
- Unwillingness of the parties' leadership to compromise.
From: A. Papazian