16 May, 2010

by Amanda Paul

It is increasingly evident that the South Caucasus region is far from being a key issue of US focus these days. Since the arrival of President Barack Obama at the beginning of 2009, the region seems to have been increasingly defined principally through the prism of Russia. The previously relatively strong ties between Baku and the US have taken a battering over the last year, and this strategic drift could potentially lead to serious damage in relations if the US does not wake up and move away from its short-term policy for short-term gains attitude. This new approach from the US has come as a slap in the face to Baku because Azerbaijan has, over the years, invested a lot in its relationship with the US, proving to be a reliable partner for US strategic interests and policies in the South Caucasus-Caspian region. Azerbaijan has been at the forefront of the opening of Caspian energy resources to the West as well as playing a crucial role in the American-led “Global War on Terror” when the South Caucasus became a potential launch pad for US military forces en route to the Middle East and Afghanistan with Azerbaijani airspace opened for Operation Enduring Freedom. It is a natural transport and energy corridor along the axis of the west and east, north and south, and Baku is emerging as the capital of Eurasia, consolidating Azerbaijan’s position as a strategic hub in Eurasia.

While on the one hand the US has rolled back its involvement in the South Caucasus/Caspian region in exchange for cooperation with Russia on issues such as Iran, on the other it is progressively portraying itself as having an increasingly pro-Armenian policy which has impacted issues of key strategic importance to Azerbaijan and in particular the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, where Baku feels the US is no longer an impartial player.

Although the US started to “pull out” of the South Caucasus following the 2008 Russian-Georgian war when Russia was allowed to “move around the furniture” in the South Caucasus with relative ease, it is more recent US initiatives that have really begun to worry Baku. This is principally the US-facilitated Turkey-Armenia rapprochement, which Washington seemed to want “at any price,” including the signing of the two protocols aimed at the normalizing of relations on Oct. 10, 2009. The US’s strong pressure on Turkey to open the border before a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has not only failed but has also left a very bad taste in Baku’s mouth. These developments totally undermined the position of Azerbaijan, which wants any normalization of Turkey’s relations with Armenia to be conditional on a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, believing that opening the border in any other circumstances will simply make the Armenians more intransigent. The US used to be the only power in the region that both sides trusted; this is no longer the case as the US can no longer be viewed as an impartial actor. While international law is clearly on the side of Azerbaijan, the West remains inconsistent on its approach. While Armenia continues to occupy seven Azerbaijani regions from which almost 1 million Azerbaijanis were driven almost 20 years ago, the West is more concerned about Armenian events that took place almost a century ago. Furthermore, the US Congress has allocated direct aid to Nagorno-Karabakh, which contradicts the State Department’s policy in the region. The longer these conflicts drag on the more difficult it becomes to reinstate territorial integrity, and the separatists become more confident and difficult to deal with.

The upshot is that for Azerbaijan, the US has lost its neutrality. This development now seriously jeopardizes progress on the conflict but also the strategic alliance between the two countries, which has sought to enhance European energy security, strengthen the independence of the post-Soviet states and promote integration of Azerbaijan into the Euro-Atlantic community. This was further underlined when on April 19 Baku announced the suspension of military exercises planned with the US for May. Coming only a few days after the launch of Obama’s nuclear summit in Washington to which Azerbaijan was not invited, it was taken as yet another confirmation of Washington’s pro-Armenian bias. Azerbaijan has been very disappointed by the US’s failure to appoint a new ambassador to the country. The post has now been open for some eight months.

The US lacks a coherent and principled approach and needs to consider very seriously what the possible end consequences of this short-sighted policy could be -- not least because Washington’s short-sighted policy is pushing Azerbaijan further into the arms of Moscow, with whom Baku has increasingly intensified relations over the last few years, something the men in the Kremlin are more than happy with.

LINK: http://www.sundayszaman.com/sunday/yazarDetay.do?haberno=210289