THE CYNICAL PRAGMATISM OF AMERICAN POLICY

Within some five days, the USA, to put it mildly, surprised both the international community and Azerbaijanis and Armenians twice by its behaviour that resembled chaotic flouncing. The State Department made two changes to the text of its human rights report on the Nagorny Karabakh problem between Armenia and Azerbaijan. However, when you take a more careful look at this process, it becomes clear that it is something more than the "momentary weakness" of a person who wants to hold two watermelons in one hand.

We should remind you that the first changes made by the US State Department to its 2006 human rights report caused a great outcry in Azerbaijan. As is known, the initial version of the report said that "Armenia continues to occupy Nagorny Karabakh and seven neighbouring territories", whereas after the changes, Karabakh was taken out of the context of the occupied territories and only the seven districts neighbouring on Karabakh were indicated.

As s result, things reached such a point that an Azerbaijani delegation postponed its visit to Washington, while the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry issued a special statement in this regard. It said that taking account of the changes that were made to the provisions of the initial version of the US State Department's 2006 human rights report regarding the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorny Karabakh conflict, the government of Azerbaijan postponed the 23-24 April visit of the Azerbaijani delegation to Washington for bilateral security consultations. It was planned that top officials from the Foreign Ministry, Defence Ministry, Emergencies Ministry, National Security Ministry, Interior Ministry, the State Border Service, the State Customs Committee and the Special State Security Service would represent Azerbaijan in the consultations. "The settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict on the basis of the territorial integrity of the Azerbaijan Republic (Nagorny Karabakh is an integral part of it) is an element of paramount importance to our country and to comprehensive cooperation between Azerbaijan and the USA in the security sphere. Making changes to the text of the already published report, which distort the essence of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, is unacceptable and questions the position of the United States as "a neutral mediator" in the settlement of the conflict. Such a step might bring about serious consequences for further cooperation between the two countries in the sphere of security," the Foreign Ministry said in its statement.

Moreover, various politicians, experts, members of parliament and journalists started making angry statements and condemning this American action, accusing them at least of inconsistency.

The reaction of the American embassy did not keep us waiting either. Embassy officials expressed the opinion that they do not understand the reason for such actions by Baku officials and said that the United States' position on the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, which they support, remains unchangeable. Then the American diplomats emphasized that the visit of the official delegation has not been cancelled, but has only been postponed, and that negotiations on the new date for the visit are under way with the republic's leadership.

Such an angry reaction from the Azerbaijani public was predictable, which is why there is nothing to be surprised at here, especially as the State Department report was first published in its initial version. Baku saw this (in principle, rightly) as another victory of Azerbaijani diplomacy. It is another matter that there were two other important questions that had to be answered. The main question was that the change made above concerned only the Armenia section, whereas the Azerbaijan section retained its initial version: It called Karabakh an Azerbaijani territory which was under Armenian occupation together with the seven neighbouring districts. It mentioned Armenia, not Armenian forces, as was the case in all the previous State Department reports. How can we explain this? Was it a miscalculation by the Americans who hurried to change the Armenia section of the report under pressure from the Armenian lobby and Yerevan officials, forgetting to do the same in the Azerbaijan section? Or maybe this was some form of expressing the "complementarity" of American diplomacy. Or maybe it was a deliberate step to avoid aggravating the situation and relations with Armenia in the run-up to the parliamentary elections in Armenia. In this case, such behaviour was illogical, for it looked at least inconsistent. It is quite difficult to assume that such a great power as America is trying to play so primitively with countries like Armenia and Azerbaijan. The discrepancy in the position of the US State Department on the same issue was so audacious that it became clear that they will return to it later and make certain corrections to any report in favour of this or the other side.

As soon as Yerevan officials made victorious statements and declared these changes a victory of their diplomacy and a product of the influence of the Armenian lobby, another "thunder" came. It is not enough that President George Bush did not use the word "genocide" in his annual statement on the well-known events that occurred in the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century and limited himself to quite a vague term like "tragedy", the initial version of the US State Department human rights report was restored. The phrase "Armenian forces occupy most of the Azerbaijani territory neighboring on Nagorny Karabakh was replaced by the State Department with the phrase "Armenia continues to occupy Nagorny Karabakh and seven neighbouring districts of Azerbaijan". "Check and mate?"… It is not in vain that the author of this article has put the question mark because such moves from one side to another give rise to doubts about the further consistency of the actions of the US administration.

Nevertheless, we have to point out that, as many local experts said, even in the new version of the US State Department report, the position of the United States has changed in terms of its attitude towards Azerbaijan compared to previous annual documents.

Of course, even after the status quo has been restored, it would be unpleasant to encounter such inconsistency on the part of the US administration, which "lost face" under pressure from the Armenian lobby and looked (and continues to look) at least not really serious. The main conclusion in the long series of conclusions that we can draw from this is that such a development of events proves that US policy is changeable and has no clearcut position on important issues. In our case, this clearly shows that Washington is still somewhat hesitating on the issue of defining its attitude and role in the cause of settling the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.

But there is also another conclusion: US policy, no matter how firm it seems at fight sight, is quite erratic. In this sence, it can be influenced, and under certain pressure, it can be changed. In our case, Washington first danced to the tune of the Armenian lobby which, in some way, can form public opinion in the USA. As is known, public opinion is formed not by the wisest ones, but by the most talkative ones. Hence such an unseemly role that the US administration chose, almost putting itself in a ridiculous position for the sake of domestic political interests rather than real foreign policy interests and priorities. It only remains to rejoice that pragmatism prevailed...

However, we can also make the following logical conclusion. It is quite possible that the seemingly preposterous actions of the State Department dictated by the White House had a clear purpose in order not to drive the Yerevan government and Armenian society away from changing its orientation from the North to the West, which is becoming more and more noticeable in Armenia of late. Perhaps, American politicians thought that Armenia is the only "white stain" in promoting pro-Western orientation in the South Caucasus, whereas Georgia and Azerbaijan are already "under control" due to political and economic circumstances. The quick reaction of the Azerbaijani leadership showed that the USA was very mistaken in its belief that the Baku government is completely "under its thumb".

In this regard, we would like to urge you to read carefully the assessments made by Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov as soon as it became known that the US State Department restored the initial version of its report. We are pleased that the US State Department restored the initial version of its 2006 human rights report, acknowledging that Armenia has occupied part of Azerbaijan - Nagorny Karabakh and seven neighbouring districts, he told journalists. "This change is very important news for me. This is really very important because if you proceed from logic, you cannot change a report that has already been published," the minister said. Mammadyarov said that making changes to a report that has already been published could set an undesirable precedent. He said that the new date for the visit of the Azerbaijani delegation to the USA for security talks will be agreed through diplomatic channels… It is not in vain that Mammadyarov spoke about logic and then linked this issue to the official delegation's visit to the USA for talks on such important issues.

We have to admit that Azerbaijan's demarche was quite sensational. If we make a more detailed analysis of the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry statement given above, we can even draw the conclusion that the Baku government vaguely hinted that it might drastically review its role in deploying its peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, which would have even more serious and absolutely undesirable consequences for Washington. Maybe this is why the USA reviewed its position in favour of Azerbaijan. However, all this is only a theory and momentary conclusion, just like the conclusions drawn by some Azerbaijani experts and journalists about Azerbaijan making another "turn" towards Russia. Although the Americans probably clearly realize that in some way, such actions by Azerbaijan play into the hands of Moscow and especially Tehran around which the noose has been tightening recently.

Another matter is whether it was worth being surprised at the actions of the State Department. In my opinion, this surprise is worth being surprised at. It is very na?ve to think that the American politicians who have been using only force in their policy over the last two decades can have what we call a principled position with regard to third countries and in their relations with their partner states. Quite often, cynical pragmatism and clear allegiance to the position "there are no eternal allies, there are eternal interests" characterize the actions of the White House. It is enough to remember modern history and it becomes clear that the USA is capable of taking any step that meets their own often domestic political and foreign economic interests rather than the interests of the countries they call allies and partners.

Hence the cold relationship with many European powers, negligence of international norms, conventions and agreements, another upsurge in the political confrontation with Russia, which might turn into a new "Cold War" (incidentally, in his address to the Federal Assembly on 26 April, Vladimir Putin spoke about a moratorium and probably, total withdrawal from the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty), and the military-political tensions in the Middle East and Asia, which we have witnessed in recent years. History has repeatedly shown that today's partner of Americans can turn into their rival tomorrow. Especially as we ourselves have repeatedly encountered such inconsistency on the part of the Americans, which is obvious even in this specific example. Take, for example, the recent statements by American diplomats who said that all conflicts on the territory of the former Soviet Union should be solved on the basis of the principle of territorial integrity, but the Karabakh conflict is a separate story. It is worth remembering that quite recently, during a UN vote on Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, the United States simply abstained, although their diplomats in Baku spoke about their firm recognition of this principle.

We can say with full confidence that Armenia will make a fuss about the new changes again, which will reach the American public and officialdom through the Armenian lobby. It is also clear that this is a strong blow to the reputation of the Yerevan administration which was simply framed by Washington in the run-up to the parliamentary elections. If we take into consideration here that a fresh attack will start on pro-Western politicians and a new wave of pro-Russian hysteria will sweep through Armenia, we can assume that Washington will have to do its best to please the Armenians. It is very difficult to say how it will happen. For this reason, I put the question mark after the words "check and mate" above. Will the Americans want to put themselves in a ridiculous position again, by "turning on the reverse gear"? Especially against the background of the latest statements by their diplomats who said that they see the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict within the framework of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and regard Karabakh as an Azerbaijani territory. But it is difficult to answer this question, though it seems simple. Remember that by changing the text of its human rights report, Washington really framed Deputy State Secretary Matthew Bryza who said after the pro-Armenian changes to the report literally a few days ago that there will be no more changes. It is high time for him to resign after this and for us to learn this lesson called "American policy".

All this should teach a lesson to those who still regard Azerbaijan as a raw material appendage to the world, which dances to the tune of superpowers. The early 1990s when the Azerbaijani leadership called itself "a pawn in a big game" are a thing of the distant past. Now Azerbaijan has its own game in which it dictates conditions itself.

And the main conclusion is the following: If we do not learn to make timely conclusions from "lessons of history" and take relevant and often preventive action, without expecting eternal friendship, we will often be punished "for not knowing the lesson". So we do not have to be surprised, we have to take action. Luckily, this is what happened in this case. For, as the well-known American satirist Will Rogers said, "even if you are on the right track, you will be run over if you just sit on the road".