SEO Header Title

By Elmar Chakhtakhtinski

The news about the upcoming visit by Secretary Clinton to Azerbaijan, following the Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ trip to Baku on June 15, have already been interpreted as a change in Obama administration’s attitude towards that country’s authoritarian regime. If Azerbaijan was a democracy or at least the government there took some visible steps in that direction, a re-engagement with this strategically important nation could be a move in the right direction. But under the present conditions such visit might have undesirable consequences for the future of democracy in Azerbaijan and for the US interests in the region.
 
When President Obama named Azerbaijan along with Zimbabwe among the world’s worst violators of press freedom last April, the US-Azerbaijani relations seemed to plunge into a downward spiral. The United States has not had an ambassador in Azerbaijan since July 2009. The Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev was also conspicuously absent from the list of world leaders invited to Obama’s high-profile nuclear summit in DC this April, although the presidents of Armenia and Georgia, both of Azerbaijan’s neighbors in South Caucasus, attended the event.
 
Apart from diplomatic troubles, in March this year the Washington Post published a report about the corruption within the Azerbaijani leadership, including a reference to a $45 million luxury mansion in Dubai apparently belonging to the President Aliyev’s 11-years old son. It was followed by an Azeri opposition leader’s article in the same newspaper.
 
These developments led to speculations in Baku about the Aliyev regime’s falling out of favor with Washington. They also fuelled the hopes of Azerbaijani opposition that under President Obama the US might show a more principled stance in support of democracy than the previous US administration.
 
In its turn, the government in Baku accused Washington in supporting Armenia in its conflict with Azerbaijan over Nagorno Karabakh, cancelled the scheduled joint military exercises with the US, and directed the state-controlled media to ratchet up anti-American rhetoric to unprecedented levels. The Azerbaijani officials issued statements about further “adequate retaliation”, including threats to evict Western oil companies and pull out of the Nabucco project, deemed important as an alternative to Europe’s dependence on Russian natural gas.
 
Azerbaijan’s Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov also hinted on ending Baku’s cooperation with the coalition efforts in Afghanistan, for which Azerbaijan presents a vital transit route. During his speech at Columbia University in New York in November 2009, he even went as far as predicting the failure of the US troop surge, thus stepping right into the heat of America’s internal policy debate on Afghan policy.
 
Meanwhile, the regime in Baku gradually accelerated its attacks on the opposition and independent media.
 
Under such circumstances, the expected visit by a US Secretary of State can easily be perceived by the officials in Azerbaijan as a sign of the United States finally succumbing to their pressure and agreeing to turn a blind eye to the continuing suppression of dissent in Azerbaijan. Still, some added ingredients may help to make the best out of Secretary Clinton’s planned trip and maintain a degree of consistency in the US foreign policy towards that country.
 
For starters, she can meet with the leaders of major opposition parties and the representatives of remaining free press and truly independent NGOs, in addition to government officials. This would serve as an indication that America’s intentions are not limited to the temporal benefits from befriending the ruling regime, but rather include a long-term alliance with the Azerbaijani people and support in their aspirations to join the community of free nations.
 
Mrs. Clinton can recall the two pro-democracy bloggers, Adnan Hajizada and Emin Milli, imprisoned under bogus “hooliganism” charges, whose case has drawn numerous official protests from the US and European governments. She might also draw attention to the fate of journalist Eynulla Fatullayev, whom the Azerbaijani authorities are keeping behind bars in a blatant violation of a verdict by the European Court of Human Rights, which is mandatory for Azerbaijan as a member of Council of Europe.
 
Ideally, the US would insist on the release of these dissidents before Secretary Clinton departs for Baku. As a minimum, these issues should be raised openly and publicly before the Azerbaijani leadership during the trip.
 
Short of a strong emphasis on human rights and democracy, Secretary Clinton’s visit will only embolden the authorities in Azerbaijan to adopt even more brutal tactics against the opponents of the regime.
 
The inconsistency of a sudden “warm-up” in Washington’s approach towards the Azerbaijani dictatorship might also signal a weakness of US positions in the greater area around that country, which includes Russia, Iran and Afghanistan. Coming in the midst of the Iranian nuclear dilemma, this apparent pullback from the proclaimed support for democracy in Azerbaijan would not only damage the US reputation in the region, but also reinforce the already entrenched belief in America’s susceptibility to energy and security blackmail.

About the author: Elmar Chakhtakhtinski is the chairman of Azerbaijani-Americans for Democracy (AZAD), a US organization that advocates support for democracy in Azerbaijan and other countries.