SEO Header Title

By Babek Bakir

July 15, 2010

By Elmar Chakhtakhtinski

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to South Caucasus, following her meetings in Ukraine and Poland, became a subject of discussions even before it was officially announced. She issued strong statements in Poland about the importance of democracy in the US foreign policy agenda and promised to speak on this issue during her visit to Baku. Unfortunately, the statements Secretary Clinton made in Azerbaijan did not meet the expectations of those who hoped for a strong support for democracy, and her July Fourth visit was mostly interpreted as a reassurance to the local dictator Ilham Aliyev of continuous support for his government.

By Vugar Gojayev

At the beginning of 2009, the Azeri services of the BBC, Radio Liberty and Voice of America were banned from broadcasting on national frequencies in Azerbaijan. The National Television and Radio Council, a pro-government agency regulating domestic broadcasting, denied any political motives, saying the foreign radio stations were taken off air as the frequencies were government property and could not be used by foreign broadcasters. Whatever the official justification, the ban was a blatant attack on the last remnants of free speech, silencing critical voices in Azerbaijan.

Foreign broadcasters were the only media outlets offering a plurality of political views, dissenting voices and alternative information to the Azerbaijani public. The Azerbaijani media never airs any politically sensitive issues, or contradicts the government’s view for fear of official retribution, including the revocation of broadcast licenses and fabricated tax evasion charges.

By Murad Gassanly

The short answer to that question is the Armenian political elite is against the Madrid Principles because for Armenia and the Armenian Diaspora the issue is not Karabakh independence, neither it is simply about Karabakh unification with Armenia. Instead it is about the events in Ottoman Eastern Anatolia in 1915. Negative Armenian reaction to Madrid Principles and to rapprochement with Turkey begins to make sense in that context.

By Murad Gassanly

The focus of much of the debate on the current state of the Karabakh peace process is firmly centred on what is known as Madrid Principles – a set of proposals put forward by international mediators which are hoped to provide a firm basis for a final agreement in the on-going Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over the disputed territory of Nagorno Karabakh. This debate proceeds despite the fact that the Principles have not been officially disclosed or published.

By Gorkhmaz Asgarov

Since the emergence of an independent Azerbaijan in the wake of the Soviet collapse in 1991, U.S. policy toward this country has been beset by the familiar dilemma between democratization and engagement. While trying to gently nudge the country toward democratic reforms, Washington has also been willing to deal with the autocratic leaders in Baku and has given support to multibillion-dollar energy projects that have de facto strengthened the regime at home while also cementing Azerbaijan’s ties to the West. For nearly ten years, from 1993 until 2003, when Azerbaijan was governed by former Soviet apparatchik Heydar Aliyev, the United States believed it had successfully found a formula that reflected both cooperation and a gentle push for democratic reforms. The official American policy laid out cooperation, security, and democratic reforms as three key principles guiding relations with Azerbaijan.

By Elmar Chakhtakhtinski

By Murad Gassanly
The current state of US-Azeri relations is a hot topic for local and international commentators and observers. Discussion of the issue almost invariably leads to attempts to diagnose the causes of deterioration in a previously close strategic partnership. And these causes are almost invariably found in the alleged hostility in Washington towards an increasingly confident Baku.

By Karl Rahder

It was encouraging to see U.S. President Barack Obama sign on May 17 the Daniel Pearl Act, which requires the U.S. State Department to compile a public list of governments that violate the rights of journalists. There is no guarantee, however, that this measure will not be perceived as a mere PR tactic or just another tool designed to intimidate countries already blacklisted by the United States due to other foreign policy concerns...

Azerbaijan's petro-dictatorship not only qualifies as a gross violator of press freedom by any reasonable criteria, it also often uses its energy and geopolitical cooperation with the West to deflect criticism on human rights and democracy. Thus, the inclusion of this regime would send a strong .