map
Our Affiliates
Listen In 28 LanguagesRFE/RL Radio
In 28 Languages

'Berlin Wall's Lessons For Today'

In an op-ed for "USA Today," Jeffrey Gedmin discusses RFE and the role of free media in societies living under repressive regimes. More
More Articles

Commentary

Azerbaijani-Russian Relations Hostage To Pragmatism

Ilham Aliyev (left) and Dmitry Medvedev -- all smiles on the surface

September 17, 2008
By Liz Fuller
On September 16, Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev paid a working visit to Moscow to discuss with his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev the repercussions of last month's war between Georgia and Russia. Predictably, the public statements by both men following those talks yielded little of substance, except for Medvedev's affirmation that Russia's position on Nagorno-Karabakh has not changed.

Azerbaijan is central to Russian aspirations to preserve the maximum influence over the South Caucasus. The international community's primary interest in that region is Caspian hydrocarbons, and Azerbaijan is the key to their export to international markets. In seeking over the past 14 years to diversify export options for its oil and gas, Azerbaijan's leaders have therefore been constrained to balance the unequivocal support of the international community, in the first instance the United States, for the construction of oil and gas pipelines that bypass Russian territory, with the need for concessions to Russia in other spheres, and with Russia's alliance with Armenia.

That balancing act has proven not only possible but beneficial, not least because Russia and Azerbaijan are in many respects very similar. Both have adopted an authoritarian leadership style that seeks to pass itself off as a unique variant on democracy. Neither has any qualms about blatantly rigging the outcome of elections. And thanks to their important role as producers and exporters of oil and gas, and the vast wealth they continue to accumulate in that capacity, both can afford to ignore Western criticisms not only of electoral malpractice, but also of the suppression of the political opposition and freedom of speech, as well as other human rights violations.

They pay lip service to, but routinely flout, the commitments they undertook on joining the Council of Europe; and while members of NATO's Partnership for Peace program, neither has demonstrated any real desire for NATO membership. The fact that Azerbaijan was one of the first CIS states to which Medvedev paid a formal visit following his inauguration in May only serves to underscore the importance of Azerbaijan in Russian foreign policy.

During the late 1990s, Azerbaijan tilted toward the West as negotiations edged slowly forward on putting together a consortium to build the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil-export pipeline. But after Vladimir Putin's advent to power in Russia in early 2000, and once construction of the BTC began in 2002, a new era of strategic cooperation between Azerbaijan and Russia opened up, of which the most tangible manifestation was a steady increase in bilateral economic cooperation and trade. Both Medvedev and Aliyev approvingly highlighted that aspect of bilateral relations in their public comments on September 16.

Balancing Act With Georgia

Relations between Russia and Azerbaijan are, however, inextricably linked to Azerbaijan's uneasy relationship with Georgia. As noted above, the key factor in Azerbaijani-Georgian ties is cooperation in the export of oil and gas to international markets via Turkey. But in other important respects, the two countries' priorities diverge.

Georgia under President Mikheil Saakashvili has wholeheartedly embraced democratization and sweeping reforms and affirmed its zero tolerance of corruption. It has also unequivocally signaled its desire to join both NATO and, eventually, the European Union.

Azerbaijan by contrast seemingly has little interest in either genuine democratic transformation, or effective economic reform and anticorruption measures. And its equivocal stance with regard to cooperation with NATO has exasperated senior officials within the alliance who have sought without success in recent years to obtain clarification of Baku's intentions.

A further complicating factor in relations between Baku and Tbilisi is, according to informed observers, Aliyev's personal dislike of Saakashvili. Saakashvili's ill-conceived attack on South Ossetia last month and the disproportionate Russian military response highlighted the vulnerability of the pipelines on which Azerbaijan's continued economic prosperity and tenuous political stability depend. Specifically, the August war may well have served to bury what rapidly dwindling hopes still remained for building the planned Nabucco pipeline that would transport Caspian natural gas via Azerbaijan to Turkey and thence to Europe. (Much of the infrastructure for the South Stream pipeline, Russia's intended alternative to Nabucco, is already in place.)

In that respect, Aliyev has every right to feel both anger at his Georgian counterpart's irresponsibility (and possibly also at Washington's failure to restrain Saakashvili), and acute concern over how additional gas from the second phase of development of Azerbaijan's Shah Deniz deposit will be exported. Gazprom last year offered to purchase that additional gas, which is expected to come on stream in 2012 or 2013. Azerbaijan, which has received alternative offers that are, however, contingent on the successful implementation of the Nabucco project, has neither accepted nor rejected Gazprom's overture.

Finally, Russia's intervention in South Ossetia, ostensibly to protect from indiscriminate Georgian reprisals those residents of South Ossetia who had availed themselves of the offer of Russian passports and were thus on paper Russian citizens, raised the question: would Russia provide military assistance to Armenia in the event of a comparable attempt by Azerbaijan to restore by military force its control over the breakaway republic of Nagorno-Karabakh?

The unprecedented increase, to $1 billion annually, of Azerbaijan's defense spending and repeated hawkish threats by its senior generals have led some observers to conclude that Azerbaijan is indeed contemplating a new war to win back Nagorno-Karabakh before revenues from oil exports peak and Ilham Aliyev's second presidential term expires in 2013. In what the Russian daily "Kommersant" on September 16 construed as a warning to Baku, the concluding statement adopted at the September 5 summit in Moscow of the CIS Collective Security Treaty Organization expressed concern at the ongoing "military buildup and escalation of tensions in the Caucasus" and warned against "new attempts at resolving conflicts by force."

What Can West Offer?

Those observers who anticipated that Russia's military intervention in Georgia would finally impel Azerbaijan to abandon its balancing act of recent years and align itself firmly with the West have been proven wrong, however. The West, after all, offered Georgia no military support, confining its reaction to hand wringing and verbal condemnation of Russia's flagrant violation of international law. That message was not lost on the Azerbaijani leadership, as became clear from the lukewarm reception reportedly extended to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney during his brief September 3 visit to Baku.

One further recent development has similarly weakened Azerbaijan's geopolitical position, namely, the landmark visit to Yerevan on September 6 by Turkish President Abdullah Gul. The prospect of a breakthrough in Armenian-Turkish relations is widely perceived in Baku at best as a zero-sum game in which Azerbaijan would lose out badly, and at worst as a stab in the back by Turkey, long considered Azerbaijan's partner and ally.

It was therefore Medvedev who held most of the aces when he sat down for talks with Aliyev on September 16. Predictably, in their public statements both presidents stressed the need to defuse tensions in the South Caucasus and to restore "peace and predictability" (meaning find at all costs a way to prevent Saakashvili from committing any further military aggression). But having dealt a bloody nose to Washington's Georgian protege Saakashvili, Russia may have decided to try to edge the United States out of the Karabakh mediation process under the auspices of the OSCE. Over the past several years, Aliyev has repeatedly criticized that mediation framework as incapable of producing a solution to the conflict on conditions acceptable to Azerbaijan.

Medvedev was quoted on September 17 by both Russian and Azerbaijani media as saying Moscow sees no alternative to a peaceful solution to the conflict; advocates direct talks between the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents to that end; and is prepared to mediate such talks. "Kommersant" on September 16 reported that Medvedev intends to host talks on Russian territory between Aliyev and his Armenian counterpart Serzh Sarkisian, to which Sarkisian has already given his consent.

The newspaper, which has a track record of disseminating disinformation with regard to alleged progress in resolving the Abkhaz conflict, further quoted an unnamed official within Sarkisian's administration as saying Russia has its own blueprint for resolving the Karabakh conflict. The first stage of that plan allegedly addresses modalities for allowing the use by both Armenia and Azerbaijan of the strategic Lachin Corridor that connects Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia, without placing it under Armenian jurisdiction. A secure land link between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh has long been one of Armenia's three fundamental preconditions for a settlement.

The Nagorno-Karabakh leadership, however, has made clear that it favors the continuation of negotiations within the current OSCE Minsk Group framework. RFE/RL's Armenian Service on September 17 quoted Karabakh President Bako Sahakian as telling Ambassador Bernard Fassier, the French co-chairman of the Minsk Group, the previous evening in Stepanakert that the unrecognized republic will continue to lobby for direct participation in those negotiations.
This forum has been closed.
    Next 
Comments page 1 of 2
by: Dave from: Iowa
September 23, 2008 21:04
Right-anti-armenianism. You take their land by force and when they vow to take it back you call them anti-armenian. I'm sure I would be just as anti-armenian if it were to happen to my land. Speaking of logic...What a joke!

by: Phil Coffman from: Odessa, Ukraine
September 23, 2008 20:06
This part of the world remains one of the most barbaric on the planet. It lines up right behind Islamic extremists for their disregard fro himan life and a truly democrtatic society. Over 12,000 homicides in Moscow alone, mostly political/mafia related, the unnecessarily brutal military incursion into Geogia with accompanying violation of basic human rights and, of all things, Russian soldiers having to demand foodand drink from Georgians because their commanders could not provide them with basic needs. Plus, using cellphones for communications?! If the setting wasn't so dramatic, it would be lauguable.

by: Ara
September 23, 2008 15:36
Anti-Armenianism. We've heard and seen it all many times before. Pointless ad-hoc arguments that will get you nowhere.

As far as a referendum, short of fighting a war, that's the only logical compromise that's going to let Azerbaijanis go back to their homes.

by: Emin from: Baku
September 22, 2008 20:00
Considering many Armenians have already packed up and moved to Moscow and Los Angeles over the years, I'm not seeing any major obstacles on their path in continuing to do so. Most Armenians already live outside of Armenia. There is no question that there is plenty of blame to go around for this conflict, but I have yet to understand where the Armenian side finds its justification. The Azerbaijani side considers those Armenians separatists, occupiers, and aggressors. In Armenia, those who fought the war are hailed as liberators, freedom fighter, and heroes of the Great Armenian Kingdom. Just today Sarkisyan suggested that maybe if Azerbaijan starts investing in Karabakh and flushes money into its economy, maybe its people, all of whom are Armenians, may have a change of heart and vote to become a part of Azerbaijan. How stupid could a person saying that be, and how does he truly expect Azerbaijan to accept a referendum on a status of an enclave that legally its part? When the hawkish, militaristic rhetoric of Azerbaijan increases, those in Karabakh whine and cry about the repercussions of such an act. The more Azerbaijan leans towards a peaceful solution, the more Armenins strengthen their claims for Karabakh, and now begging for money while they are living in Azerbaijani homes. There is a saying in Azerbaijan: You lend a helping hand to an Armenian, they want your whole arm. No matter how much you try to reach a reconciliation with them, the ever-so-hungry Armenian folk complains about not having enough. That's exactly what Tural means below when he asks whether we should get ready to change the name Baku to something Armenian.

by: Ara
September 22, 2008 18:33
Yes Emin, you're right, time is on Azerbaijan's side. All Armenians will pack up and move to Moscow or Los Angeles and Azerbaijan will soon be able to overwhelm Karabakh with minimal effort and enormous military superiority purchased with oil revenues. Of course the outside world won't bat an eye because of the plethora of resolutions and the inherent legality of territorial integrity which indisputably belongs to the Azerbaijani side. Yes Emin, we've heard this coffeehouse chat before. Before you attempt to criticize and demean the Armenian world view, get your own house in order. There's plenty of blame to go around for this conflict and it does not belong exclusively to Armenia.

by: Emin from: Baku
September 22, 2008 14:40
Koko, Ara , Rasto, and whoever else can pop up from around the world, who is of Armenian descent but doesn't actually live in Armenia because you or your parents left it. You talk about hating to break it to us(since you have a wealth of knowledge about your 4500 year old history and identity), I have one simple thing to say to you all. Regardless of what your view or opinion may be, no matter how proud and patriotic of an Armenian you may be, your views are yet to spread outside of Armenian circle. You want to talk facts, talk facts. There is really no need to gang up on Azeris online(like you're in the front lines here like Koko, flexing his muscles(if any) while typing on a keyboard). Go look at the economies, per capita incomes, military sizes, population sizes, un resolutions, PACE and OSCE resolutions and check with foreign ministries of any country in the world regarding their position in the Karabakh conflict. If Armenia has an upper hand in any of those, maybe your tough sounding rhetoric can be one tenth justified. Otherwise, no need to talk smack and tell tales to your united in an effort brethren. We all have heard it before. Write like adults, and at least back your claims rather than making them sound like coffeehouse chat.

by: Ara
September 20, 2008 22:42
Are you kidding me Rasto, that's your argument? One whole Armenian told you that? I'm not purposefully trying to be sarcastic, but your statement is bizarre and completely without merit.

Believe me, as an ethnic Armenian I empathize with the refugee situation that exists on both sides of the conflict zone, and I know it is more of an open wound for Azerbaijan than it is for Armenia for obvious reasons. But if Azerbaijan were to simply allow reconciliation on terms acceptable to the Armenians (i.e. earned independence or reunion with Armenia for Karabakh), this issue would be settled and most everyone would be allowed to return to their homes. As long as the Azerbaijani government believes it can win back these lands with windfall oil profits, their will never be peace, and Armenia will never compromise with a side it does not even partially trust, a side which rewrite history and is blatantly anti-Armenian in every sense.

by: Koko from: Melbourne
September 20, 2008 11:21
Oh come on Rasto, who cares what some random armenian you claim to have met has supposedly said to you? Even if it's true, what does it mean? The person who said it to you could have just been an idiot with who was smoking pot during the war.

Your comment is like me saying "an azeri man once told me that it is an azeri national custom to sleep with donkeys". It would be stupid to post it. The opinion of some random stranger counts for nothing (although I suppose that's what a forum is all about). I don't believe you for a second that an armenian said to you 'it was their land and we took it' unless he was simply trying to get you angry. And this is completely ignoring the fact that what you are saying is bordering on impossible. These events unfolded in the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR, and none of the soviet republics had a properly formed army. It was the local Karabakhis who won their freedom from Azerbaijan, not Armenia who came and saved them (like they should have, but seemed completely unprepared to do at the time).

Yes, NOW Armenia has sent reinforcements in to support the relatively small NKR army, but at the time assistance from Armenia was badly lacking.

None of your opinions (or mine) however, change reality, and that is that Azerbaijan isn't capable (and won't become capable, regardless of how much money it spends on its military) of forcing the Armenians out of Karabakh militarily, so all it can do is punish the Armenians economically in the vain hope of that they will simply give up and move to Los Angeles. Their miscalculation is that the Armenians are about the most stubborn people you will ever meet, even at their own expense. They won't give up 10 cents, let alone their homeland.

by: Koko from: Melbourne
September 20, 2008 05:52
Azerbaijan doesn't have to 'lose' anything. It never had Karabakh. Given that there has never been such a country as Azerbaijan until 1991 (and no, ADR of 1918 doesn't count as noone recognised it, including the Ottoman Empire) by which time the seperatist movement was already well underway, Karabakh has never (that's right, NEVER) been under the jurisdiction of an independant Azerbaijan. Therefore, your only claim to it is based upon Joseph Stalin giving it to you during his time as Soviet Emperor. But I have news for you, Uncle Joseph is dead, and his empire no longer exists, so that claim is meaningless.

This is quite distinct to the Armenian situation, a nation that has existed for 4500 years as of 2008, and has always included Karabakh and Nakhichevan. I hate to break it to you guys, but you're not actually a real country. You've only been around since yesterday, and were it not for Armenia being in the way, you would be just another province of Turkey. Feel free to try to use the Karabakh situation to inspire nationalism, but it will not give you your own identity. I'm not trying to insult you - really - I'm just telling it how it is. Look in ANY history book, on any historical atlas, and find Azerbaijan mentioned once (by the way, 'history' as a story made up by Aliyev does not count).

So while the Azeri's do have a point - simply constituting a majority of a regions population does not entitle you to independance - they seem to be lost on the fact that this is irrelevant. Karabakh isn't part of Armenia because it's population is Armenian, Karabakh is part of Armenia because it is part of Armenia. Azerbaijan can continue to claim it, but it couldn't even win a war against a bunch of rebels with little more than pitchforks when they they were actually IN karabakh, what hope does it stand of winning a war against a now professional Karabakh army, armed to the teeth with hardware they captured from YOUR army, proper support from Armenia (not just electricity and petrol like that idiot Levon sent them), and 15 years to train, solidify, and fortify positions? Good luck guys, it's a good thing you have a population of 7 million, because you'll need to conscript all of them (and then watch as they run away like they did last time).

by: Rasto from: London
September 19, 2008 23:04
Hi Ara
I know some local Armenians from Yerevan whom I am meeting from time to time. They are fine guys. One is about 50 years old guy whom I asked once so what happened that time in Karabakh. His answer was very simple. Look we came and we took their land that's it.Our people lived there but our army came and took it.
    Next 
Comments page 1 of 2
TEXT SIZE - +

Products and services:

RSSMail SubscriptionMobile