Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BAKU: US ambassador's recall 'leaves bad taste' in Azerbaijan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BAKU: US ambassador's recall 'leaves bad taste' in Azerbaijan

    news.az, Azerbaijan
    Dec 30 2011


    US ambassador's recall 'leaves bad taste' in Azerbaijan
    Fri 30 December 2011 11:57 GMT | 13:57 Local Time


    News.Az interviews Yuri Sigov, a political expert on the South
    Caucasus and post-Soviet countries, author of "Azerbaijan: Between
    East and West".

    US officials deny that in the last few years they have become more
    passive in the post-Soviet area and, moreover, promise to show the
    fruit of their work. How do you assess 2011 in terms of American
    policy in the post-Soviet area?

    America under Barack Obama has really begun to pay less attention to
    international affairs. This is an official line and will continue as
    long as the current administration is in the White House. As for the
    post-Soviet republics, today they are not in the second or even the
    third line of importance for the US. However, declarative statements
    on the alleged importance of this region can be heard often enough.
    And if you look closely, you will see that these statements are made
    either by the heads of CIS countries themselves (in order to raise the
    bar of their own importance in US policy - allegedly) or by US
    officials who need to justify their salaries and positions working on
    post-Soviet issues.

    In the past year, the US didn't once "stick its nose" in the
    post-Soviet area and kept itself quite aloof, but at the same time it
    was always close to those CIS countries who wish to develop primarily
    with the assistance of the US. Yes, it's important for the future of
    Afghanistan that the US has close contact with the Central Asian
    countries, but there's no need to exaggerate all of this - America's
    problems today are domestic, deciding on future development, and, much
    as it might like to, the post-Soviet area cannot help in any way.

    The Armenian lobby got what it wanted: on Tuesday, President Ilham
    Aliyev received Matthew Bryza to mark the completion of his mission as
    ambassador. How can you explain the paradoxical state structure of the
    USA, in which ethnic groups can block a decision of the White House?

    It's not only in the US that the ethnic lobby works actively. Look at
    France, Canada and the Czech Republic! The question is the target of
    this hectic activity and its results. Now the election campaign in the
    US is in full swing and no one cares about anything except the
    candidates and their closest teams. Here is an example: when Obama was
    fighting for the White House three years ago, two out of three
    Americans were worried about what was going on in Iraq. And now, in
    two dozen debates of Republican candidates only one in ten Americans
    are interested in international affairs and that is only Afghanistan
    (and only because their relatives or acquaintances are serving there).

    The fact that the ethnic lobby pushes some its interests to the top
    has nothing to do with the ordinary citizens of the country. Moreover,
    not everyone even in the State Department knows that the envoy is
    leaving Baku, not to mention a wider audience. And yet, yes - this is
    the American system - congressmen are elected, not appointed by the
    authorities. And they do whatever is necessary for their voters (to be
    more precise, for their re-election). And the ethnic lobby assists
    them whenever necessary.

    In your opinion, how harmful to Azerbaijani-US relations are delays in
    the appointment of a US ambassador to Azerbaijan? How do you view the
    typical White House statement that this is a technical, not political
    issue?

    On the one hand, yes, it is somehow a technical issue and it doesn't
    matter who the ambassador is - he doesn't define policy and is only an
    official executor (he is not the first figure in government). But this
    question is quite symbolic - it's not right to say that it doesn't
    matter who will be appointed and who dismissed. For example, the
    confusion over the appointment and recall of the ambassador leaves a
    bad taste in the Azerbaijani leadership. If for the White House, it's
    just a bureaucratic game which has no importance within the US, for
    small countries, such "technical aspects" provide food for thought,
    quite possibly not the most joyful.

    Is there any premise to expect progress on a Karabakh settlement in
    2012 when we didn't see any in the past year?

    I think that concerning Karabakh, no concrete decisions - no
    breakthroughs or even decisions that give the slightest forward shift
    to resolution of the problem will be made in the coming year, if, of
    course, no military activities start again for any reason, which
    cannot be ruled out. Don't forget that the question of Iran is still
    "up in the air" for the US and 2012 is an election year in America.
    It's difficult to predict what and will happen here and how, but it
    seems to me that a Karabakh denouement can happen when it is least
    expected because I don't see any logically explicable options for the
    peaceful and diplomatic settlement of the conflict.




    F.H.
    News.Az

Working...
X