Your trusted source

A number of targeted public relations stunts have attempted to present Azerbaijan as a model partner for the West. However, Azerbaijan’s allegiance to the Western international order is dubious, especially when it comes to democratic norms, rule of law, and respect for human rights, reads the article published in American on-line paper The Christian Science Monitor.

The authors note that with the recent developments happening in and around Ukraine, Svante E. Cornell’s June 10 op-ed “Why America must step up its role in resolving Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict” attempts to compare the Nagorno Karabakh conflict with Crimea. This attempted comparison disregards important historical, geographic, legal, and political differences that exist between the two conflicts.

The article reads that the Nagorno Karabakh conflict has deep historical and legal roots with various junctures along the way. The most recent phase of the conflict began in February of 1988, when the citizens of the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic and Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) began peaceful demonstrations to once again petition the Soviet authorities in Moscow for re-unification of NKAO with the Armenian SSR. Tensions rose rapidly after the anti-Armenian pogroms in the Azerbaijani cities. Tensions spilled eventually turned into a full-scale war that lasted until 1994.

Moscow’s role (both under the USSR and the Russian Federation) in the Artsakh conflict mediation is usually overemphasized. At the same time, the genuine desire of the people of Artsakh Republic (Nagorno Karabakh) to live in a state and society of their own choosing is often disregarded.

“During the Artsakh-Azerbaijan war, Baku recruited Afghan mujahideen and Chechen insurgents to fight on its side, many of whom would end up in Russia’s North Caucasus region in pursuit of jihad, thus presenting a direct national security threat to Russia. Given its geographic proximity and Russia’s ownproblems in its North Caucasus region, Moscow could not and cannot disregard the Artsakh peace process,” the article reads.

The US has also been active in the mediation process of the Artsakh conflict within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmanship. One notable example was the US-organized talks in Key West in the summer of 2001, which was the closest the parties had ever come to reaching a peace deal since the ceasefire agreement seven years earlier.

In recent times, experienced analysts of the South Caucasus and government officials, such as Richard Kauzlarich, Thomas De Waal, Eric Rubin, and others have criticized Azerbaijan’s faulty human rights track record, its attempt to lead on both the West and Russia, and its waning importance as a US ally.

The article also reads that recent examples of Baku’s crackdown on critics both foreign and domestic include criticism of the US ambassador to Baku, Richard Morningstar and criticism of OSCE Minsk Group US co-chairman James Warlick.

“Human Right Watch periodically reports on egregious arrests of bloggers and journalists, including the recent airport detainment of prominent human rights defender Leyla Yunus and her husband. Another example is the extradition of Rauf Mirkadirov,” The Christian Science Monitor writes.

Another factor that presents a challenge to the premise that Azerbaijan is a reliable Western ally is its recent major arms acquisitions from Russia, valued at $4 billion.

“The geopolitical significance of the country is blown out of proportion. For instance its gas supplies to Europe are negligible in the larger picture (only 2 percent of EU demand) and could not replace Russia’s volumes. And within the context of improving relations between the West and Iran, Azerbaijan’s role will likely shrink further. The US withdrawal from Afghanistan, the recent shale gas revolution, and the general pivot to Asia add additional reasons why the South Caucasus will lose its strategic significance for the US and the West in general.

According to the authors the U.S. could convince to remove the snipers from the line of contact (to which Azerbaijan do not agree) which would be a positive step forward. Reinstatement of the Artsakh Republic representation at the negotiations table is also imperative, as no durable peace is possible without the involvement of the people affected the most.

“The US needs to play an active role in the mediation process, together with the other co-chair countries. But a final agreement to end the Artsakh conflict cannot be imposed from the outside and needs to be reached by the three parties themselves exclusively through peaceful means,” the author concludes.