Tweet
MICHAEL RUBIN: ONLY TWO TOP FORMER OBAMA ADVISERS AND A DOZEN OR SO U.S. CONGRESSMEN VISITED BAKU
Azeri Report
June 13 2013
WASHINGTON, DC. June 13, 2013: TURAN's Washington correspondent
Alakbar Raufoglu interviewed Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at
the American Enterprise Institute, whose major research area is the
Middle East, with a special focus on Iran, Turkey, Arab politics,
Afghanistan and diplomacy.
Being a former Pentagon official, Mr. Rubin regularly instructs senior
military officers deploying to the Middle East on regional politics,
and teaches classes regarding Iran, terrorism, and Arab politics
on U.S. aircraft carriers. He has lived in Iran, Yemen, both pre-
and post-war Iraq, and spent time with the Taliban before 9/11.
His newest book, Dancing with the Devil, a history of US diplomacy with
rogue regimes and terrorist groups, will be published in early 2014.
Q. What is happening in Turkey right now and how could these protests
affect the regional dimension ahead? What caused the protests and
how adequate is the US reaction to them?
A. The spark for the protests, of course, was the government's
decision to destroy Gezi Park, one of the few green spaces in central
Istanbul. The violent response by the Turkish police disgusted ordinary
Turks and created the spark for Turks to express their growing unease
at Recep Tayyip Erdogan's increasing authoritarianism.
Erdogan won elections, but confused democracy with majoritarianism.
Just because a leader wins elections does not mean that they no longer
need to subordinate themselves to the rule-of-law.
Q. What lessons would you highlight for the Middle East and the
Caucasus, where people suffer from the oil-reach authoritarian
governments and have problems similar to Turkey's...
A. Oil has nothing to do with it, as many of the so-called Arab Spring
countries--Libya being the exception--have little if any oil. The
basic root of the protests is the desire by people for governments
to be accountable.
The situation is more complex in the Caucasus because neighboring
states might seek to take advantage of instability and may have
goals other than democracy. The situation is worst in Armenia right
now: While the Armenian lobby in America focuses on issues relating
to recognition of the 1915 genocide or undercutting Azerbaijan in
Washington and elsewhere, Armenians suffer under what has become a
mafia state in which foreign investment has dried up. The situation
has gotten so bad that no young person wants to remain in Armenia.
Since independence, one-third of Armenians have left the country.
There is growing anxiety about the future of Georgia as well. While
President Saakashvili should be commended for recognizing his party's
defeat at the polls, it is unclear if his opponent will share the
same democratic spirit the next time around. Should Tbilisi fall more
under Moscow's influence, then Russia will increase its efforts to
increase its influence over Azerbaijan.
Q. What are your expectations from next year's election in Turkey?
I'm a historian by training, and so I get paid to predict the past,
not the future. The current protests in Turkey make AKP dominance
uncertain. That said, the opposition in Turkey has long been weak.
There is no real opposition to the AKP among the center-right, and
neither the CHP nor the MHP have been able to expand their base. The
question is whether the "Occupy Gezi" movement can lead to a new
generation of leaders.
More likely, however, is that the protests will exacerbate divisions
within the AKP. Beyond its facade of unity, there are persistent
divisions among followers of Erdogan, followers of Abdullah Gul,
and those more loyal to cult leader Fethullah Gulen. Perhaps the best
hope for democracy in Turkey lies with defections from within the AKP.
Q. Your recent piece on Islamic cleric Fethullah Gulen's criticism
of Erdogan's handling of the Gezi Park protests was interesting. As
you also mentioned, Gulen has an active influence among the security
forces, and the police behavior probably reflects more upon the
real Gulen than all of those shadow organizations who continue to
sing his praises as a man of peace. How would you describe the main
differences between Gulenists' and Erdogan's overviews of Turkey and
the entire region's future? Are they on the same page or do they have
different views?
A. Both seek a more religiously-oriented state, and much of the
difference between the two boils down into a dispute about which of
the two will wield personal power. That said, Erdogan focuses only
on Turkey while Gulen's ambitions appear to be wider.
Q. For many, Islam is increasingly becoming a factor in the politics
of the wider Caucasus/Black Sea regions. Many in the country are
afraid that the religion is replacing the regular opposition...
A. Across the Middle East, many opposition groups have sought to
bolster both recruitment and legitimacy in religion. Nowhere has it
worked, however, which is why protests against Islamist governments
have erupted not only in Turkey, but also in Egypt. The stronger the
middle class becomes in Azerbaijan, the stronger it will be and the
more resistant to cynical religious populism. That said, visiting
Nardaran was certainly a wake-up call for me.
Q. Recently, Baku hosted four top Obama advisers and more than
100 Congress/Senate members, a move that many here and in Baku see
as one that "smells of oil." You also were among the moderators,
according to media reports. How successful do you think the Azeri
government's efforts of hiring "friends" among top US politicians are
and do they affect the real US diplomacy and Washington's attitude
towards Azerbaijan?
A. The reports may have been a bit exaggerated: I counted two top
former Obama advisers and only a dozen or so U.S. congressmen. There
were state senators and state representatives from 41 different states
and so the total reported includes them, but it would be wrong to
conflate representatives in state legislatures with those in the U.S.
congress.
While I understand opposition concerns about the conference, I believe
them to be a bit misplaced: It's important for Americans to learn
about Azerbaijan regardless of the government in Azerbaijan.
Washington and Baku share a number of strategic interests and
partnership serves both countries regardless of who is in the White
House or who leads Azerbaijan. Having friends in Washington - and
educating congressmen about the challenges Azerbaijan faces, for
example, the occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh - benefits Azerbaijan.
Given the strength of the Armenian lobby in Washington, it is long
past time Azerbaijan become more active in cultivating friends among
congressmen in the United States in much the same way that Armenia,
Greece, Georgia, and Turkey have.
The organizers of the conference were smart to invite not only
Democrats but also Republicans, because Azerbaijan's interests should
not be a partisan issue in Washington. As to your last question:
Yes, cultivating friends can impact American diplomacy. Remember:
the State Department carries out policy, but it is Congress which
often creates it.
Q. By the way, the organizers of the Baku event -- Turkish-American
Chamber was financed by the Turquoise Council of Americans and
Eurasians -- both groups are apparently known to have ties to Fethullah
Gulen... What are the direct links between the Azeri government and
a moderate Muslim imam who has founded a network of charter schools
in the US as well as Caucasus/Central Asia?
A. SOCAR was the main sponsor and several Azerbaijani and American
companies contributed to a lesser extent. The Turquoise Council
of Americans and Eurasians did not contribute any funding to the
conference. They were hired by the sponsors to organize the conference,
however, and take care of the work of inviting those the conference
wanted to invite, organizing their travel and hotels, and doing other
logistics. That said, the sponsors' decision to hire the Turquoise
Council rather than, for example, the AmCham (The American Chamber
of Commerce in Azerbaijan) raises some questions.
Q. Secretary Kerry delivered remarks on Azerbaijan last week, during
his meeting with Azeri FM Elmar Mammadyarov, only briefly mentioned
the issue of human rights and democracy in Azerbaijan. What should
be the Azeri democrats' take from this? Does that mean that the US
has less interest/or concerns on what is happening in Azerbaijan,
despite the fact that country is a few months ahead of the election?
A. To be perfectly honest, with civil war in Syria, intermittent
crisis in North Korea, instability in Egypt and Jordan, and fear of
a rising China, there is not a lot of attention paid in Washington
toward Azerbaijan and its elections. After the victory of Hamas in
the 2006 Palestinian elections, and then the consolidation of Muslim
Brotherhood dictatorship in Egypt after that country's elections, the
emphasis on democracy that the Bush administration embraced during
its first term, and the Obama administration embraced through the
first year of the Arab Spring seems to have passed. This may not be
what Azeri democrats want to hear.
The fact that human rights and democracy are mentioned at all is
positive, however, since dozens of diplomats contribute to Secretary
Kerry's remarks. Some diplomats do not care at all about democracy
and believe that by downplaying concerns about democracy and human
rights, they can best foster good relations. I personally disagree
with this approach.
I do not see Kerry ever taking a firm stand, alas. He has always
dreamed of being secretary of state, but he has never been a man of
principles: instead, he just likes being called "Mr. Secretary." That
said, the U.S. government will continue to seek reform inside
Azerbaijan so long as reform does not destabilize the country in a
way that Iran or Russia might take advantage of to subvert democracy
entirely.
Q. Right after Mammadyarov's trip, the ruling party YAP in Baku
officially nominated Ilham Aliyev as a candidate for the upcoming
election, third time running for presidency... Doesn't Washington
anymore have any concern about current president's nomination?
A. Washington will continue to push for reforms regardless of who is
president, but I cannot imagine that given the scandals currently
swirling around President Obama and the White House, too much
attention is going to be paid to Azerbaijan. And while the government
of Azerbaijan clearly wants to imply endorsement from Washington for
President Aliyev's candidacy, the view in U.S. government circles will
always be that there should always be partnership between Washington
and Baku, regardless of who is president in either the US or Azerbaijan
(Turan).
http://azerireport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4021&Ite mid=53
Azeri Report
June 13 2013
WASHINGTON, DC. June 13, 2013: TURAN's Washington correspondent
Alakbar Raufoglu interviewed Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at
the American Enterprise Institute, whose major research area is the
Middle East, with a special focus on Iran, Turkey, Arab politics,
Afghanistan and diplomacy.
Being a former Pentagon official, Mr. Rubin regularly instructs senior
military officers deploying to the Middle East on regional politics,
and teaches classes regarding Iran, terrorism, and Arab politics
on U.S. aircraft carriers. He has lived in Iran, Yemen, both pre-
and post-war Iraq, and spent time with the Taliban before 9/11.
His newest book, Dancing with the Devil, a history of US diplomacy with
rogue regimes and terrorist groups, will be published in early 2014.
Q. What is happening in Turkey right now and how could these protests
affect the regional dimension ahead? What caused the protests and
how adequate is the US reaction to them?
A. The spark for the protests, of course, was the government's
decision to destroy Gezi Park, one of the few green spaces in central
Istanbul. The violent response by the Turkish police disgusted ordinary
Turks and created the spark for Turks to express their growing unease
at Recep Tayyip Erdogan's increasing authoritarianism.
Erdogan won elections, but confused democracy with majoritarianism.
Just because a leader wins elections does not mean that they no longer
need to subordinate themselves to the rule-of-law.
Q. What lessons would you highlight for the Middle East and the
Caucasus, where people suffer from the oil-reach authoritarian
governments and have problems similar to Turkey's...
A. Oil has nothing to do with it, as many of the so-called Arab Spring
countries--Libya being the exception--have little if any oil. The
basic root of the protests is the desire by people for governments
to be accountable.
The situation is more complex in the Caucasus because neighboring
states might seek to take advantage of instability and may have
goals other than democracy. The situation is worst in Armenia right
now: While the Armenian lobby in America focuses on issues relating
to recognition of the 1915 genocide or undercutting Azerbaijan in
Washington and elsewhere, Armenians suffer under what has become a
mafia state in which foreign investment has dried up. The situation
has gotten so bad that no young person wants to remain in Armenia.
Since independence, one-third of Armenians have left the country.
There is growing anxiety about the future of Georgia as well. While
President Saakashvili should be commended for recognizing his party's
defeat at the polls, it is unclear if his opponent will share the
same democratic spirit the next time around. Should Tbilisi fall more
under Moscow's influence, then Russia will increase its efforts to
increase its influence over Azerbaijan.
Q. What are your expectations from next year's election in Turkey?
I'm a historian by training, and so I get paid to predict the past,
not the future. The current protests in Turkey make AKP dominance
uncertain. That said, the opposition in Turkey has long been weak.
There is no real opposition to the AKP among the center-right, and
neither the CHP nor the MHP have been able to expand their base. The
question is whether the "Occupy Gezi" movement can lead to a new
generation of leaders.
More likely, however, is that the protests will exacerbate divisions
within the AKP. Beyond its facade of unity, there are persistent
divisions among followers of Erdogan, followers of Abdullah Gul,
and those more loyal to cult leader Fethullah Gulen. Perhaps the best
hope for democracy in Turkey lies with defections from within the AKP.
Q. Your recent piece on Islamic cleric Fethullah Gulen's criticism
of Erdogan's handling of the Gezi Park protests was interesting. As
you also mentioned, Gulen has an active influence among the security
forces, and the police behavior probably reflects more upon the
real Gulen than all of those shadow organizations who continue to
sing his praises as a man of peace. How would you describe the main
differences between Gulenists' and Erdogan's overviews of Turkey and
the entire region's future? Are they on the same page or do they have
different views?
A. Both seek a more religiously-oriented state, and much of the
difference between the two boils down into a dispute about which of
the two will wield personal power. That said, Erdogan focuses only
on Turkey while Gulen's ambitions appear to be wider.
Q. For many, Islam is increasingly becoming a factor in the politics
of the wider Caucasus/Black Sea regions. Many in the country are
afraid that the religion is replacing the regular opposition...
A. Across the Middle East, many opposition groups have sought to
bolster both recruitment and legitimacy in religion. Nowhere has it
worked, however, which is why protests against Islamist governments
have erupted not only in Turkey, but also in Egypt. The stronger the
middle class becomes in Azerbaijan, the stronger it will be and the
more resistant to cynical religious populism. That said, visiting
Nardaran was certainly a wake-up call for me.
Q. Recently, Baku hosted four top Obama advisers and more than
100 Congress/Senate members, a move that many here and in Baku see
as one that "smells of oil." You also were among the moderators,
according to media reports. How successful do you think the Azeri
government's efforts of hiring "friends" among top US politicians are
and do they affect the real US diplomacy and Washington's attitude
towards Azerbaijan?
A. The reports may have been a bit exaggerated: I counted two top
former Obama advisers and only a dozen or so U.S. congressmen. There
were state senators and state representatives from 41 different states
and so the total reported includes them, but it would be wrong to
conflate representatives in state legislatures with those in the U.S.
congress.
While I understand opposition concerns about the conference, I believe
them to be a bit misplaced: It's important for Americans to learn
about Azerbaijan regardless of the government in Azerbaijan.
Washington and Baku share a number of strategic interests and
partnership serves both countries regardless of who is in the White
House or who leads Azerbaijan. Having friends in Washington - and
educating congressmen about the challenges Azerbaijan faces, for
example, the occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh - benefits Azerbaijan.
Given the strength of the Armenian lobby in Washington, it is long
past time Azerbaijan become more active in cultivating friends among
congressmen in the United States in much the same way that Armenia,
Greece, Georgia, and Turkey have.
The organizers of the conference were smart to invite not only
Democrats but also Republicans, because Azerbaijan's interests should
not be a partisan issue in Washington. As to your last question:
Yes, cultivating friends can impact American diplomacy. Remember:
the State Department carries out policy, but it is Congress which
often creates it.
Q. By the way, the organizers of the Baku event -- Turkish-American
Chamber was financed by the Turquoise Council of Americans and
Eurasians -- both groups are apparently known to have ties to Fethullah
Gulen... What are the direct links between the Azeri government and
a moderate Muslim imam who has founded a network of charter schools
in the US as well as Caucasus/Central Asia?
A. SOCAR was the main sponsor and several Azerbaijani and American
companies contributed to a lesser extent. The Turquoise Council
of Americans and Eurasians did not contribute any funding to the
conference. They were hired by the sponsors to organize the conference,
however, and take care of the work of inviting those the conference
wanted to invite, organizing their travel and hotels, and doing other
logistics. That said, the sponsors' decision to hire the Turquoise
Council rather than, for example, the AmCham (The American Chamber
of Commerce in Azerbaijan) raises some questions.
Q. Secretary Kerry delivered remarks on Azerbaijan last week, during
his meeting with Azeri FM Elmar Mammadyarov, only briefly mentioned
the issue of human rights and democracy in Azerbaijan. What should
be the Azeri democrats' take from this? Does that mean that the US
has less interest/or concerns on what is happening in Azerbaijan,
despite the fact that country is a few months ahead of the election?
A. To be perfectly honest, with civil war in Syria, intermittent
crisis in North Korea, instability in Egypt and Jordan, and fear of
a rising China, there is not a lot of attention paid in Washington
toward Azerbaijan and its elections. After the victory of Hamas in
the 2006 Palestinian elections, and then the consolidation of Muslim
Brotherhood dictatorship in Egypt after that country's elections, the
emphasis on democracy that the Bush administration embraced during
its first term, and the Obama administration embraced through the
first year of the Arab Spring seems to have passed. This may not be
what Azeri democrats want to hear.
The fact that human rights and democracy are mentioned at all is
positive, however, since dozens of diplomats contribute to Secretary
Kerry's remarks. Some diplomats do not care at all about democracy
and believe that by downplaying concerns about democracy and human
rights, they can best foster good relations. I personally disagree
with this approach.
I do not see Kerry ever taking a firm stand, alas. He has always
dreamed of being secretary of state, but he has never been a man of
principles: instead, he just likes being called "Mr. Secretary." That
said, the U.S. government will continue to seek reform inside
Azerbaijan so long as reform does not destabilize the country in a
way that Iran or Russia might take advantage of to subvert democracy
entirely.
Q. Right after Mammadyarov's trip, the ruling party YAP in Baku
officially nominated Ilham Aliyev as a candidate for the upcoming
election, third time running for presidency... Doesn't Washington
anymore have any concern about current president's nomination?
A. Washington will continue to push for reforms regardless of who is
president, but I cannot imagine that given the scandals currently
swirling around President Obama and the White House, too much
attention is going to be paid to Azerbaijan. And while the government
of Azerbaijan clearly wants to imply endorsement from Washington for
President Aliyev's candidacy, the view in U.S. government circles will
always be that there should always be partnership between Washington
and Baku, regardless of who is president in either the US or Azerbaijan
(Turan).
http://azerireport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4021&Ite mid=53