ARMENIAN MOTIFS IN US DIPLOMACY

If you ask the average winner of a school Olympiad how one state can win the confidence of another which is suffering from aggression, and provide two options: a) by suppressing the aggressor and b) by supporting the aggressor, the answer will always be (a) - by suppressing the aggressor.

This is elementary logic. Unfortunately, the foreign policies of certain states are not based upon commonsense.

Just look - Armenia is the only country in the South Caucasus making territorial claims against all its neighbours except Iran. Having occupied 20 per cent of Azerbaijan's territory, this country has now gone onto the offensive against Georgia, provoking yet another separatist hotbed in Javakhetia. Yerevan has not abandoned its territorial claims against Turkey, even while the USA is trying to facilitate dialogue between the two countries. Logically, in order to strengthen its presence in the Caucasus, Washington should have restrained Armenia and tried to win over the countries possessing real influence in the region. However, the Obama administration has taken a different course of action. The USA prefers to whet Yerevan's appetite further, despite the risk of losing such partners as Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia. The question is: why? Lincoln would be turning in his grave if he knew that the US administration had become so dependent on the gifts of the Armenian lobby.

In fact, Barack Obama should draw a lesson from what happened to Mikhail Gorbachev who, toeing the line of Armenian sponsors, ran into a brick wall.

The ardour with which the US president is trying to resuscitate a gasping Armenia is truly admirable. It appears from media reports that even the nuclear summit in Washington was dedicated more to the opening of the Armenian-Turkish border than to global threats.

There is the impression that the White House has eliminated its differences with Russia and Europe, resolved all its problems with Iran, North Korea and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, sorted out Iraq and Afghanistan, taken its own economy out of a profound recession and that its only objective now is to get the deadlocked Armenian-Turkish rapprochement off the ground. It could well be that this issue is the straw the Obama administration is grasping at after suffering defeats on all fronts. It must do something to at least justify the Nobel Peace Prize, mustn't it?

MP Qudrat Hasanquliyev has told APA that a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly delegation, who recently visited Baku, disclosed to him in a private conversation another reason for Obama's special attention to the Armenian-Turkish issue. It turns out that there is an arrangement between the US president and the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, who is noted for her clearly pro-Armenian views: Obama has pledged to push for the opening of the Armenian-Turkish border in exchange for Pelosi's support for the ill-fated health reform. 

One would not believe this if it hadn't been for the strange US diplomacy. It is known that there are three countries in the South Caucasus region, two of which are players of geopolitical games: Armenia (backed by Russia) and Georgia (supported by the USA). The only country pursuing an independent policy is Azerbaijan. It is also worthy of note that Moscow is not too concerned about Azerbaijan not pursuing a pro-Russian policy. And its logic is understandable: although they are not with us, they are at least not against us. Washington, however, is applying the Bolshevik "those not with us are against us" policy. 

One way or another, the latest round of Armenian-Turkish talks brokered by US President Barack Obama has failed. Obama's attempts to talk R. T. Erdogan out of linking the issue to an Armenian withdrawal from occupied Azerbaijani lands were in vain.

Developments show that Obama's initiative can never be successful without progress in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.

"How justifiable is it to leave aside Upper Karabakh and try to deal with other regional problems? It is completely wrong. This position contradicts Azerbaijan's national interests. What position can we take with regard to those who demonstrate a position contradicting our national interests?! If our national interests are violated, how can we defend and support those who do that?! Regardless of a country's size, everything in the world is mutual. We did not invent this. The world community acts on this basis. Economic potential, military power, size of population and the size of a country cannot play a role in bilateral relations. Otherwise, the UN must cease to exist," said Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev to a cabinet meeting on 14 April.

Washington should have predicted this development back when Section 907 to the Freedom Support Act was adopted, prohibiting US government annual financial assistance to Azerbaijan. And this was done when Azerbaijan, as a newly-independent state, needed political and moral support to develop the democracy that the White House "is so concerned about".

Having deprived Azerbaijan of such support and providing every support to Armenia, the USA effectively gave Armenia carte blanche for the occupation of Azerbaijani lands. This subsequently became the key obstacle to Washington's own plans for the region. 

The Turkish newspaper Hurriyet writes that Obama is seeking "ways to minimize the Azerbaijan factor" in Ankara's position to secure the signing of Armenian-Turkish protocols. The paper says that "neutralizing Azerbaijan" is one of the issues most debated behind the scenes in Washington.

It is not surprising, as The Washington Post says, that the White House did not invite Baku to the nuclear summit, because Ilham Aliyev can negate all efforts towards establishing Armenian-Turkish dialogue.

Meanwhile, the best way of "neutralizing" Azerbaijan on this issue is to end the occupation of Azerbaijani lands. Unfortunately, Washington, as a mediator in the conflict settlement, is unable or unwilling to demand that Armenia execute the UN resolutions on Karabakh. 

Instead, Armenia receives political support and everything is done to help the occupying-state out of its dire economic situation. One is tempted to ask: whose interests is Obama's administration trying to protect - those of the US or Armenia?