Among other things, Aliyev addressed the recent controversial initiative by 60 American congressmen, led by Adam Schiff, calling on the U.S. State Department to impose sanctions on Azerbaijan.
The president emphasized that this appalling appeal would not affect Azerbaijan’s resolve and pointed out that it reflects the ongoing hostile policies toward the country. He further expressed the opinion that the author and recipient of the appeal are likely the same—it is formally addressed to the U.S. Secretary of State, but Aliyev is convinced the letter was drafted within the State Department. He suggested that such appeals are written to threaten and accuse Azerbaijan.
Indeed, many experts believe that the current anti-Azerbaijan campaign, whether it’s the congressmen’s letter, slanderous articles in Western media, or biased assessments by international organizations, especially human rights groups, is orchestrated and directed from Washington. However, this doesn’t change the simple fact that America’s rivals and opponents are more than willing to capitalize on these games. But… what is Washington trying to achieve? The U.S. has spent decades building its position in Azerbaijan, so why is it now working so hard to turn the country into an enemy?
President Aliyev also had sharp words about the U.S.’s “consistency”: “In 1992, when we were losing territory, America imposed sanctions on us. Then in 2001, they were lifted because of the U.S.’s occupation in Afghanistan and its war of conquest. We were needed. As long as they stayed in Afghanistan, these sanctions were waived annually by the U.S. president. Once they fled from Afghanistan, in front of the whole world, sanctions were reimposed. How ungrateful can you be?!”
Suddenly, Washington is concerned about “democracy and human rights”? These clichés are pulled out whenever there’s a need to pressure a country and swiftly archived when no longer useful. Even Antony Blinken openly declared a few years ago that the U.S. had abandoned the policy of “promoting democracy.” Similarly, Washington cares little about the “small but proud, long-suffering Armenian people.” The Armenian issue is only useful for garnering votes before elections or for applying pressure on Azerbaijan, but the U.S. has little actual interest in Armenia itself.
Another issue on the U.S. agenda is the creation of an “anti-Iran front.” Plans to build, or more accurately, expand the anti-Russian coalition, drawing in post-Soviet countries and opening a “second front” against Russia, are also still in play. Pulling Azerbaijan into these risky projects would, of course, be tempting. But… both Russia and Iran are neighboring countries with which Azerbaijan has numerous economic, political, and personal ties. This is not Afghanistan, nor is it Iraq. Involving itself in dubious political adventures with an “anti-” prefix is not Baku’s style, especially when it concerns its neighbors.
Lastly, there’s another key point. The U.S. often follows a familiar pattern in its foreign policy: ignite a serious conflict in a region, then leave, essentially abandoning its allies. The evacuation of American personnel from South Vietnam, with a helicopter hovering above the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, is a textbook example, but not the only one. More recently, the world witnessed the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, where the U.S. military even evacuated service dogs, but didn’t deem it necessary to rescue the Afghans who had cooperated with the NATO coalition. Now, the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is on the agenda, and it’s not hard to guess that former “collaborators of American imperialism” there are not in for an easy life, especially given Iran’s influence.
On a state level, the cases of Georgia and Ukraine remain vivid examples of how the U.S. and its allies have failed to provide the expected, or even promised, support. Against this backdrop, it’s understandable why many capitals, including Baku, are not rushing to dive headfirst into political escapades at Washington’s first hint, especially when the outcome is all too clear. The congressmen’s letter and the “resurrection” of the 907th amendment are unlikely to be the kind of arguments that work here.
