President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev called the resolution which was adopted at the latest session of the PACE biased. Tense relations with Europe have made some experts speak about a possible freeze of Azerbaijan’s activities in international organizations, which demonstrated a biased position toward the country. The former advisor to the US State Secretary on the South Caucasus, the former ambassador to Azerbaijan, Matthew Bryza, told Vestnik Kavkaza about the prospects of relations between Baku and Europe and the US.
- Yesterday the President of Azerbaijan stated that in the PACE resolution of June 23rd, 2015, provisions which were connected with Armenia’s occupation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Region of Azerbaijan were eliminated from the text at the last moment and replaced by words that the PACE only recognized the conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh Region. Can we say that it discredits the PACE as an objective organization? Why was the text turned at the last moment into an anti-Azerbaijani one? What are reasons for the anti-Azerbaijani attitudes in the Western media in the context of the European Games? Why did Europe politicize the Games? Why can’t it believe that Azerbaijan has held the European Games at the highest level?
- I have no direct information regarding this incident. What I can say is that PACE has been sympathetic to Azerbaijan's perspectives in the past and, as an international organization, supports -- and MUST support -- the international legal norm of supporting the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. In this particular instance, however, it is impossible for me to say why the statement regarding Armenia's occupation of Azerbaijani territory was removed from the resolution. Perhaps a group of PACE delegations objected to the specific wording of the resolution, but not to the principle of restoring Azerbaijan's territorial integrity.
Regarding the first European Games, Azerbaijan should indeed be congratulated for a fantastic job in organizing and carrying out a spectacular set of events. Minister of Youth and Sports Rahimov, and his entire team, as well as all citizens of Azerbaijan should be filled with pride in a job superbly done.
I believe there are many people in Europe and throughout the West who do not know Azerbaijan but assume nothing good can occur there. There are many causes for this misperception and underestimation of Azerbaijan's achievements, traditions of religious tolerance and diversity, and its strategic importance. At the same time, many people in the West, especially journalists, are deeply upset when their fellow journalists and political opposition figures are arrested, whatever the reason may be. This is true not only in the case of Azerbaijan, but countries all around the world – for example, in the case of Georgia, as well.
- The Defense Ministry of Azerbaijan announced that it has restored contacts with the Pentagon. What are the prospects of the statement, to your mind, and the future of military cooperation between Azerbaijan and the US in general?
- Military-to-military cooperation between the United States and Azerbaijan is of great importance to both countries, and was one of my key priorities when I served as Ambassador to Azerbaijan, in the State Department, and in the White House. In my experience, the Pentagon has often had a clearer understanding than other U.S. government agencies of Azerbaijan's strategic importance as a secular society with a Shiite-majority population and thousands of years of traditions of tolerance and diversity, and as the only country that borders both Russia and Iran.
- What do you think about the process of settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? What steps should be taken?
- I believe the best possible framework for a peaceful solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was presented by the Minsk Group Co-Chairs in the so-called Madrid Document of November 2007. The Madrid Document strikes a balance among the Helsinki Final Act's key principles of territorial integrity of states, self-determination of peoples, and non-use of force. It calls inter alia for the return to Azerbaijan of all seven territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, an interim legal status for Nagorno-Karabakh, a vote by the residents of Nagorno-Karabakh on the region's final legal status to be held at a date still to be determined, a corridor linking Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, and international peacekeepers.
Thus, the best way to proceed would be for the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia to finalize their remaining differences in this regard. To do this, Presidents Aliyev and Sargsyan will need to restore mutual trust that their counterpart is willing and able to secure agreement of these important Basic Principles within their respective political systems. The United States President can and should play a role in this confidence-building exercise between his Azerbaijani and Armenian counterparts.
- How can the agreement on the Iranian nuclear program influence the Caucasus and the US policies in the Caucasus?
- If and when the agreement reached yesterday regarding Iran's nuclear program is approved and implemented, the consequences should generally be quite good for the South Caucasus. In theory, implementation of the agreement would demonstrate that Iran is committed to following the rules of civilized international behavior and easing its support for terrorism and political destabilization in many cases. But, opponents of the agreement, especially among Republicans in the U.S. Congress, as well as political leaders in Israel and in Arab states of the Persian Gulf, worry Iran will continue its objectionable foreign policies from a position of strength once the international community lifts its sanctions against Iran. Were this pessimistic outcome to be realized, the outcome for the South Caucasus would not be positive. But I am an optimist and hope the nuclear agreement will mark the beginning of more civilized international behavior by Iran, especially with regard to Azerbaijan.
