As a reminder, Adam Schiff proposed confiscating Azerbaijani assets in favor of the “Karabakh Armenians.” More precisely, he suggested the creation of an “Artsakh Income Recovery Fund,” into which the confiscated Azerbaijani assets would be directed. These funds are intended to be used for compensating Armenians who allegedly became refugees as a result of Azerbaijan’s so-called “military aggression.” In addition to this, there are proposed visa restrictions for high-ranking Azerbaijani officials and their families who allegedly took part in the “military aggression” against “Artsakh.”
So far, Schiff’s proposed bill has been supported by Frank Pallone, Anna Eshoo, Gabe Amo, Joyce Beatty, Jim Costa, Josh Gottheimer, Doug LaMalfa, Seth Magaziner, James McGovern, Grace Meng, Kevin Mullin, Grace Napolitano, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Jan Schakowsky, Linda Sánchez, Brad Sherman, Dina Titus, and Lori Trahan. It is worth noting that the U.S. House of Representatives has more than 440 members.
Figures like Adam Schiff, Frank Pallone, and others are well-known in Azerbaijan. They regularly put forth various ill-conceived “initiatives” aimed against Azerbaijan and Turkey, especially in the run-up to elections. Keep in mind that members of the House of Representatives are re-elected every two years, which means campaign funds and the votes of ethnic Armenians are necessary. In short, it’s the same “déjà vu with an Armenian accent.” Over the years of observing the cheap theatrics of the “Armenian lobby,” Azerbaijan has learned to differentiate between the positions of individual congressmen and those of the U.S. executive branch—i.e., the White House, State Department, etc.
However, now there are too many indications that the Biden administration is actually behind Schiff’s scandalous initiative, the very administration that has already been dubbed “the most pro-Armenian.” Let’s not forget, it was Biden who became the first American president to call the events of 1915 a “genocide of Armenians.”
Moreover, this administration has several openly anti-Azerbaijani actions to its name. For example, the U.S. blocked a loan to Azerbaijan from the Asian Development Bank. Washington reactivated the unfair Section 907. Not to mention the scandalous meeting with Pashinyan in Brussels on April 5, 2024, in which U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken participated, as well as the activities of USAID head Samantha Power, and much more — including involvement in the remilitarization of Armenia. And now, if support, even behind the scenes, for Adam Schiff’s scandalous initiative is added to this list, it will not go without consequences. The authors of the initiative are not “concerned” about the “long-suffering Armenians” — this is yet another provocation against Azerbaijan and open political pressure.
If this is indeed the case, then it is necessary to remind them of the reality. Different countries may have conflicting positions, and some criticism may be voiced. However, territorial integrity and state sovereignty are Azerbaijan’s “red lines,” and Washington should have more than enough information about how Baku responds to attempts to cross these “red lines.” President Ilham Aliyev has always prioritized national interests in his policies. On issues such as territorial integrity and state sovereignty, there will be no compromises.
Therefore, any attempt to “pressure” Azerbaijan through Adam Schiff’s scandalous initiative will only further complicate the already tense relationship between Washington and Baku — a relationship that, let’s emphasize, became strained due to Washington’s actions.
One of the “fields” where Azerbaijan could potentially respond is logistics — more specifically, the routes from Europe to Central Asia, which pass through Azerbaijan. There are no viable alternatives or “detours” around this route. It would be unfortunate if the situation escalated to the point where Azerbaijan had to “lower the barrier” on this path for the U.S., but Washington would do well to keep in mind its experience during the Afghanistan operation, when it had to turn to Azerbaijan for logistical support.
It was during that time, by the way, that Section 907 was suspended. What scenarios will unfold this time remains to be seen in the near future. However, one thing remains constant: the key to cooperation with Baku is respect for Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and state sovereignty — not just in words, but in actions.
