Tuesday, December 11, 2007

U.S.-Turkey-Azerbaijan: a Strategic Partnership

December 10, 2007
US Department of State, DC

Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary European and Eurasian Affairs

Remarks to the Center for Eurasian Policy conference on "The Azerbaijan-Turkey-U.S. Relations and Its importance for Eurasia"

Mayflower Hotel, Washington, DC
December 10, 2007
As Prepared for Delivery

Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Cetin, for your kind words. And Salaam and merhaba to all of you here and participating from overseas.

I’m told that the name Azerbaijan comes from the Old Persian for “Land of Fire,” a reference supposedly to Azerbaijan’s famous petroleum deposits.

The link between the nation and energy does neatly capture the way many look at Azerbaijan.

But there is another theory that the name refers to bonfires lit by the Zoroastrian high priests of this ancient country. I prefer that theory of the origin of the name Azerbaijan, because it roots the nation in ancient culture, and it is culture, not resources, that makes civilizations.

Nations need resources, but traditions and values are deeper ingredients of successful nationhood. America looks at Azerbaijan in the deeper sense.

The United States and Europe are of course large consumers of foreign energy, and we are interested in a free and open market for all commodities, especially strategic ones, and I will speak to that. But U.S. interests in partnership with Azerbaijan are broader.

We have a stake in the spread of the rule of law and democracy, the stability that results over time from their consolidation, and an open-trading system. And our relations with Turkey are similarly broad.

The three of us—Azerbaijan, Turkey and the United States—can forge a strategic partnership that will benefit us all, and in turn benefit the region.

Turkey’s example as a secular democracy with a Muslim-majority population can inspire reformers in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and broader Middle East who seek the same political freedom, prosperity, and stability that Turkish citizens increasingly enjoy.

America’s grand strategy for post-communist Europe since 1989 has rested on a deceptively simple principle: America’s interests are best served when the countries which liberated themselves from Soviet control are free and empowered to fulfill their own destiny by pursuing their own reforms.

The United States does not view the countries in the South Caucasus and Central Asia instrumentally. Rather, we are convinced that Azerbaijan’s success as a nation – free and at peace at home, at peace in its region – is in our long-term interest.

I would like to make three points to illustrate how we apply this overall approach to Azerbaijan in particular and what Turkish-Azerbaijani-U.S. strategic partnership means.

· First, by succeeding as a democracy over time and building modern national institutions, again over time, Azerbaijan can be a stronger nation and more important strategic partner.

· The second point concerns the Turkish-Azerbaijani-U.S. energy partnership: through this partnership, we hope Azerbaijan can find resources for building its state at home and peace and security in its region.

· The third point includes the impact we hope U.S.-Turkey-Azerbaijan strategic cooperation will have on the region that stretches from the Black Sea to China.

Azerbaijan’s Democracy and Nationhood

Let us acknowledge and applaud what Azerbaijan has achieved since regaining its independence in 1991. It managed the immediate post-Soviet transition successfully. It stabilized itself and developed cooperative relations with Russia. Today, it is helping Iraqis and Afghans retain their freedom, in partnership with the United States.

Nagorno-Karabakh remains an unresolved and dangerous problem. But even given this, we should affirm that President Heydar Aliyev achieved a great deal in successfully creating a viable and sovereign state.

The question now is what kind of state Azerbaijan will become. And the that question is not yet answered.

Will Azerbaijan continue a successful path of national development? It can do so only if it creates 21st century institutions essential for a modern state. These include an independent legislature, an independent banking system; an impartial judiciary free of political control; independent, functioning markets; an independent media, and more. This is the challenge of President Ilham Aliyev.

Notice the operative word: independent. Checks and balances are necessary if a government is going to correct course. And checks and balances only exist when institutions act without fear of retribution.

Freedom in this sense is not a luxury that one looks to achieve as an afterthought. Democracy is not simply the holding of elections. The 21st century faces many challenges—terrorism and ideological radicalization, the proliferation of unconventional weapons, and weak and corrupt governance among them. The response to these problems will be found through the rule of law, through governments that rule justly and accountably, through free markets and the institutions that keep them honest.

And Azerbaijan’s achievements in this context are mixed. The opposition has been marginalized, and while I know there are outstanding individuals in parliament—one with us today— the legislature needs to play its role in governing the country and not be simply a transition belt for the government. Courts, too, need to function as courts.

More importantly, we are deeply disturbed by the continued and recently growing pressure on media, including the arrests of journalists. I was dismayed to learn of the arrest of an RFE/RL correspondent – Nasibov -- in Azerbaijan late last week under charges of “criminal libel.” I understand that the Nakhichivan prosecutor has dropped the most severe charges; if true, I welcome it. But I also understand that Mr. Nasibov has been given a year’s probation for what appears to be no more than him doing his job. Moreover, this latest arrest follows a disturbing pattern of pressure on independent journalists. I regret to say that we appear to be witnessing a deterioration of media freedom in Azerbaijan. This is not good news for Azerbaijan or our relations.

We all witnessed the difficulties Georgia encountered when it closed a major television station. Our message to our Georgian friends was the same as my message to you: if the media are not free, neither is the nation. Strong countries have free media. The media has a responsibility to maintain professional standards, but arrests are not the way to improve media.

These blunt words may not meet with an enthusiastic reaction from some here. They are not intended to elicit one. But let me add that America is far from perfect, and we do not hold ourselves above criticism. Nor does Azerbaijan need look to the U.S. as the sole available democratic model. There are other examples.

Turkey is itself deepening its democracy and gradually developing the practices and institutions of secular democracy with a Muslim-majority population. Turkish democracy has faced setbacks in the past and faced a test this past spring and summer, but there is no doubt that the main trend in Turkey over the past generation has been profoundly democratic, and this year Turkish democracy demonstrated its strength through the last elections that provided a fair chance for the nation’s will to make itself known and respected.

Azerbaijan could follow Turkey’s example, even as Turkey conducts its own debates about improving journalistic freedoms and eliminating taboos that have no place in a confident, modern nation. Again, strong nations do not arrest their journalists and silence their critics.

Azerbaijan might consider that U.S.-Turkish relations are based on shared values as much as shared interests.

By succeeding as a secular democracy, Azerbaijan can similarly elevate its strategic importance, as Turkey has done. This process, to be realistic, takes time. If Azerbaijan over time opens itself up, deepens its institutions, opens its economy, the rest of its democracy will follow and its independence and sovereignty will have stronger foundations, as will our partnership.

Energy Partnership

The longer term impact of energy development will also be a factor in Azerbaijan’s success in developing independent institutions.

Azerbaijan needs to make its oil and gas deposits become a blessing and national asset, and not a source of fast wealth and long-term instability. We all know of petro-dictatorships abound in the world. Theories why also abound, and they usually revolve around how oil and gas revenues free leaders from checks and balances. Sudden wealth unchecked by strong, honest institutions to handle it can fatten a small group of well-placed leaders rather than strengthen a nation. In such cases, massive amounts of petro-money lead to corruption, mis-governance, economic distortions and, ultimately, political and social instability.

The answer lies in transparent institutions and open markets, independent of monopolies and the distortions they bring.

Azerbaijan has taken some of the right steps already. In 1994, President Haydar Aliyev made a bold decision to open Azerbaijan’s energy sector in the Caspian Sea to international investors.

This opening, coupled with the Baku-Supsa and Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipelines and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline, aimed to cement Azerbaijan’s place in Europe, in close cooperation with Turkey and the United States.

This vision was then shared and amplified by then-President Demirel of Turkey. Working with Azerbaijani President Aliyev, Azebaijani Energy Minister Natiq Aliyev, Azerbaijani Vice Speaker Aleskherov, and Turkish Energy Minister Guler, these plans have gone forward to establish a new generation of energy infrastructure in a Southern Corridor that will help Europe diversify its energy supplies by relying on Azerbaijani, and Caspian energy more generally, eventually delivered via Turkey. It is hardly surprising that all these men are either here or are addressing this conference via video.

I also want to note the success of the State Oil Fund of Azerbaijan as a success. The establishment and functioning of this fund show that Azerbaijan’s leadership is aware of and addressing the pitfalls of the “Oil Trap.”

Azerbaijan has a strategic importance as an alternative supplier of natural gas to Europe. It is emerging as a giant producer of natural gas, in addition to the oil that fills the landmark BTC pipeline. Azerbaijan’s gas reserves should be sufficient to launch—and perhaps complete—a new generation of natural gas pipelines that will link Southern and Central Europe with the Caspian Basin via Turkey, providing several of our European Allies with a viable alternative to a monopoly transport system and a closed investment climate.

The opening of energy development and end to closed, monopolistic transport systems will tend to reduce corruption, if matched by development of institutions to see to it that energy wealth benefits the nation: independent, well-regulated and un-politicized banks; and accountability for the energy resources.

U.S.-Turkey-Azerbaijan Cooperation in the Region

Azerbaijan’s successful development at home and support for open energy markets should go hand-in-hand and successful U.S.-Turkey-Azerbaijan strategic cooperation directed at the surrounding region.

We three countries at this conference know that our tripartite relationship is a major strategic factor for the region. Turkey is an old friend and ally of ours, and we have been through many a crisis together. Our friendship transcends the state-to-state, government-to-government levels and includes individuals. I have friends at this conference, and they have a friend in me.

Let me say how pleased I am that, at long last, our cooperation against the PKK terrorist organization is at a new phase and yielding concrete results.

But aside from our interests in each other, we three can also do a lot together externally, impacting not just the South Caucasus but also the vast land that stretches on the other side of the Caspian.

The title of your conference is “The Azerbaijan-Turkey-U.S. Relationship and its importance to Eurasia” and I find that apt. The three of us should do all we can to help this region expand its strategic horizons and its political and economic freedoms. Achieving this would raise our tripartite relationship to a higher strategic level.

The South Caucasus and Central Asia emerged from the Soviet Union, but have yet to find their place in the wider world.

A Turkey and Azerbaijan as it goes in the right direction will lead these countries to a destination of peace and prosperity, and I agree with Ambassador Sensoy about Turkey’s soft power. We want a Central Asia open to and engaged the world as a subject in its own right, not an object.

In saying this, let me add that the United States does not regard itself in a zero-sum game against any other country. To be blunt and specific: Russia will be a major factor in this region; it is neither wise nor possible for the United States to pit itself against Russia as an objective of our policies. Rather, in our vision of an open region, there is room for all nations to develop relations with Central Asia and the South Caucasus, as this region finds its own way in the world in its new independence and sovereignty. We will defend and advance this vision vigorously.

One huge benefit for the region, and a huge achievement for the US-Azerbaijan-Turkey partnership, is the physical and economic manifestation of the development of a Southern Corridor to Europe for natural gas. This will require the US, Azerbaijan, and Turkey to work together to attract gas from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. The result would be a far stronger basis of long-term strategic openness for the region and its connection to the west.

Our partnership can have a tremendous impact beyond the former Soviet empire. A democratic, developing, prosperous, and stable Azerbaijan will provide an example to inspire aspiring reformers in Iran, whose 17 million ethnic Azeris comprise one-quarter of Iran’s population.

In order for this vision, an important one, to materialize, Azerbaijan is going to need to enact the political reforms I referred to. It will also need to resolve its outstanding issue with Armenia.

The South Caucasus cannot achieve its full potential in the absence of a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. As long as Armenia remains isolated in its region, a common vision of prosperity and freedom, and therefore stability, will not be attainable. It is time to wrap up agreement on the Basic Principles of a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement.

Azerbaijan’s success can be as critical for Central Asia as was Poland’s success was 15 years ago to Central Europe.

But to succeed, Azerbaijan will have to:

· Deepen its institutions as a secular democracy, something that will only elevate Azerbaijan’s strategic importance; and

· Do all it can to ensure transparency in its energy markets.

If it does make reforms in these areas, the U.S.-Turkey-Azerbaijan relationship can help shape the strategic evolution of the vast region from the Black Sea to China and to advance its sovereign and independent place in the wider world.

Azerbaijan’s future will be as bright as it makes it. Turkey, given its geographic position and NATO membership, is a natural gateway for Azerbaijan to the Euro-Atlantic family. Just as Turkey is deepening its democratic reforms to sustain its EU accession ambitions, so must Azerbaijan advance democratic reform to bolster its ties with Euro-Atlantic institutions.

Those bright lights that caught the eyes of Ancient Persians should not be allowed to die down.

Thank you very much for your attention and for organizing this conference.

Released on December 10, 2007

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Labels: ,

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Come share our rusty, resented radar

June 19, 2007
IHT
Putin's provocation
By Thomas Goltz
LIVINGSTON, Montana:

President Vladimir Putin's suggestion to President George W. Bush at the G-8 summit that the United States relocate its missile defense system from Eastern Europe took many by surprise, not only because of Putin's apparent (and sudden) acquiescence to the neo-Star Wars program, but also because of the alternative site he proposed: Azerbaijan.

Actually, the idea is not so strange.

Azerbaijan is in many ways the most logical place to set up an early warning system, if Bush's concerns are really about the future nuclear capabilities of Iran or terrorists in the larger Middle East.

Indeed, it was in the former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan - outside the town of Gabala on the southern slopes of the eastern Caucasus Mountains - that the Soviet Union erected its own massive early-warning radar system.

Today in Opinion
President Bush's stem cell diversionCostly collateral damage in AfghanistanA student, a teacher and a glimpse of war
The Soviet goal then was to interdict possible nefarious action by states such as Iran, then perceived as an American proxy under the late Shah Reza Pahlavi, as well as NATO-member Turkey and, more distantly, Israel.

Although antiquated now, Gabala continues to function as Russia's eyes and ears on the Middle East, picking up spy signals, it is said, from as far away as Cairo, Oman and the Indian Ocean.

More to the point, the station is a bone of contention between Azerbaijan and Russia, as it represents the last piece of Russian military presence in Azerbaijan. Another source of friction over the station is the claim, often repeated by local media, that the radar emits radiation that causes everything from infertility to cancer.

All Russian combat units left Azerbaijan in 1993 as part of a complex deal that may or may not have been part of a coup d'état in progress at the time.

The Russian generals apparently believed they would soon be back to re-establish their traditional zone of influence, only to be resisted by the very leader they were backing.

Heidar Aliyev, a former Politburo member and KGB general, saw Azerbaijan's future with the West and declined to let the Russian military back in.

Only the Gabala radar station remained.

After Baku agreed in 2006 to extend the lease on Gabala for another decade, the Azerbaijani deputy foreign minister, Araz Azimov, almost scoffed at the notion that Moscow's military was somehow sneaking back into the country. The technology at Gabala was already antiquated, he said, and he doubted the station would still be functional in five years.

So it was less surprising that Putin offered Bush the use of Gabala, than that he invited the Americans to set up shop in Azerbaijan at all.

After breaking out of the Soviet Union in 1991, Azerbaijan fell almost immediately into internal political chaos and a losing war with neighboring Armenia over the disputed territory of Nagorno Karabakh. Appeals to the United States for support, including an offer to let the Americans use Azerbaijan as a forward base in its tense relationship with Iran, fell largely on deaf ears in Washington.

But a massive infusion of oil wealth over the past few years, and a strong-handed sort of stability established by Aliyev and carried on since his death by his son Ilham Aliyev has made Azerbaijan quite a different place than it was when the Soviet military left in 1993.

So, what is Putin's gambit all about? One explanation is that he wants to put American radar where it would be looking out of Russia, rather than in.

Another is that in "ceding" the last piece of Russian military presence in Azerbaijan to the United States, Putin means to shift the onus of a foreign presence to the Americans, and then wait for resentment to well up among the population at large.

Another is that by bringing in the Americans into a joint military installation in Gabala, Russia will have gained a binding legal presence in Azerbaijan for the first time in almost 15 years - at least until the Americans leave (or are asked to leave, as in Uzbekistan).

Thomas Goltz, a visiting scholar on Caucasus affairs at the University of Montana's Central and Southwest Asia Studies Program, is the author of "Azerbaijan Diary: A Rogue Reporter's Adventures in an Oil-Rich, War-Torn, Post-Soviet Republic."

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Labels: ,

Saturday, June 09, 2007

Azerbaijan favors anti-missile idea

June 8, 2007
Seattle Post Intelligencer, WA
By DOUGLAS BIRCH
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

MOSCOW -- Officials in Azerbaijan, a nation with a questionable human rights record and huge oil reserves, on Friday welcomed Moscow's call to use a Russian-leased radar installation in their country as the cornerstone of a proposed U.S. anti-missile system.

Elmar Mammadyarov, Azerbaijan's foreign minister, said in the capital of Baku that the proposal "can only bring more stability into the region because it can lead to more predictable actions in the region."

Novruz Mamedov, head of the Azerbaijani presidential administration's international relations department, told Russia's Rossiya TV that "such cooperation can have a very strong and positive impact on the situation in the world as a whole.

"If such countries as Russia and the U.S. cooperate, they will have common interests and it will prevent tensions," he said.

For weeks, Russian President Vladimir Putin bitterly denounced the U.S. plan to build a missile interceptor base in Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic, saying the system was aimed at Russia's strategic arsenal.

Then on Thursday, Putin caught President Bush off guard by urging that the Soviet-era radar installation at Gabala, in northeast Azerbaijan, be used instead as part of a joint U.S.-Russian missile shield. On Friday, he suggested the missile intercepter base could be in Turkey or at sea.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday that Putin's idea was worth studying, but stressed that negotiations on putting the bases in eastern Europe would continue.

"One does not choose sites for missile defense out of the blue," she said in an interview with The Associated Pres. "It's geometry and geography as to how you intercept a missile."

A Russian military expert said the Gabala installation was built to track U.S. bombers and submarine-launched missiles from the Indian Ocean.

The Bush administration has said it seeks to counter future missile threats to Europe from Iran, which Washington fears is developing nuclear weapons.

Azerbaijan, a former Soviet nation of 8.5 million about the size of Maine, is on the western shore of the Caspian Sea, flanked by Russia to the north and Iran to the south. It is one of the countries in Central and South Asia that the U.S. has turned to since the Sept. 11 attacks, despite their mixed records on human rights and democracy.

The government in Baku has contributed 150 soldiers to the war in Iraq and 20 to coalition military forces in Afghanistan.

According to a Council of Europe report last year, Baku has served as a refueling stop for CIA aircraft shuttling terror suspects to secret prisons.

The country has rich oil and natural gas deposits - Baku was one of the first oil boomtowns in the 19th century. But according to government statistics, nearly one-fifth of the population lives in poverty.

Azerbaijani authorities have been criticized by rights groups and the U.S. government for their hostility to independent and opposition journalists.

Human Rights Watch says that over the past year or so, authorities have prosecuted and imprisoned seven journalists, mostly on charges of criminal libel and "insult." Journalists are also attacked and threatened with violence, the group said.

The State Department's human rights report for 2006 said the Azerbaijani government engages in the arbitrary arrest and detention of political opponents.

The country is also the site of one of the "frozen conflicts" left over from the post-Soviet era. Azerbaijan and Armenia are at odds over Nagorno-Karabakh, a region that is inside Azerbaijan but has been controlled by ethnic Armenian forces since a 1994 cease-fire ended a six-year war.

---

Associated Press writer Maria Danilova contributed to this story.


Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Labels: ,

Monday, April 23, 2007

Azerbaijan postpones high-level U.S. visit over wording on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

April 22, 2007
IHT
Source: The Associated Press

BAKU, Azerbaijan: Azerbaijan said Sunday that it postponed a high-level visit to the United States because of what it claimed were changes in U.S. wording describing its dispute with Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh territory.

The Caspian Sea coast nation's Foreign Ministry warned that the issue "may become a serious impediment to further security-related cooperation between our countries" — a possible reference to Azerbaijan's contribution to the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq.

The government postponed the two-day visit for security talks, which was to have started Monday and to have included high-level officials from several ministries, because of "changes to the provisions" on Nagorno-Karabakh in the State Department's 2006 report on human rights abroad, a ministry statement said.

The changes "distort the essence of the Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" and their introduction "puts in doubt the U.S. position of the 'honest broker' in the resolution of the conflict," the statement said.

It did not offer details, and officials were not available for comment after the statement's release.

Nagorno-Karabakh is a territory inside Azerbaijan that has been controlled by Armenian and local ethnic Armenian forces since a six-year war that ended in 1994. Tension remains high between Armenia and Azerbaijan, ex-Soviet republics in the Caucasus.

There was speculation in Azerbaijan that the government was angry at the absence, in the State Department's country report on human rights practices in Armenia, of a statement saying that Nagorno-Karabakh is Azerbaijani territory occupied by Armenia.

The country report on Azerbaijan, posted on the State Department Web site, states that in 2006 "Armenia continued to occupy the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding Azerbaijani territories" — wording that is apparently acceptable to Azerbaijan.

The report on neighboring Armenia, however, says: "Armenian forces occupy large portions of Azerbaijani territory adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenian officials maintain that they do not 'occupy' Nagorno-Karabakh itself."

The Azerbaijani statement said resolution of the conflict "based on the territorial integrity of ... Azerbaijan, with Nagorno-Karabakh as its inalienable part, is a primary and foremost element" in its security cooperation with the United States.

The United States said its policy had not changed.

"Any interpretation that our policy regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has changed is not correct," State Department spokeswoman Nancy Beck said Sunday. She said the U.S. was aware of Azerbaijan's statement announcing the postponement and was in contact with its government.

"These talks are important and we look forward to them taking place at the earliest date," Beck said.

On Friday, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack also said there had been no change, adding: "The United States reaffirms its support for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and holds that the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh is a matter of negotiations between the parties."

The United States, Russia and France, under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, have been encouraging Azerbaijan and Armenia to resolve the conflict for more than a decade.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Labels: ,

Thursday, February 08, 2007

WHITE HOUSE PROPOSES TO RENDER AZERBAIJAN MORE ASSISTANCE

06 February, 2007
A1+

WASHINGTON, DC - The Bush Administration, in its FY2008 federal budget, has proposed a 49% cut in aid to Armenia, and is - once again - seeking to break the agreement it struck with Congress more than five years ago to maintain parity in military aid levels to Armenia and Azerbaijan, reported the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA)

The President's budget recommends cutting U.S. economic aid to Armenia from the FY2006 actual level of $69 million to a proposed FY2008 level of $35 million. The budget proposal does not include any specific assistance figures for Nagorno Karabagh.

The proposed military aid cuts come in two broad categories, Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and International Military Education and Training (IMET). The proposed FY2008 FMF figure for Armenia is $3 million, a cut of $960,000, fully 30% less than the proposed FY2008 figure for Azerbaijan of $4.3 million. The President is seeking only $300,000 in IMET for Armenia, down $538,000 from FY2006, a dramatic cut of 64%. In sharp contrast, the White House is proposing that Azerbaijan receive $1 million in IMET, a considerable increase over their FY2006 level of $823,000 and more than three times the IMET levels being proposed for Armenia. Overall, the President's budget proposes 38% less in U.S. military aid for Armenia than for Azerbaijan.

"We are troubled, once again, both by the President's breach of his agreement with Congress to maintain parity in military aid appropriations to Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as by the drastic cut that he is proposing in economic development assistance to Armenia," said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian.

"We look to our friends in Congress to help restore military aid parity and to substantially increase aid levels to Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh that reflect Armenia's growing partnership with the United States, as well as the shared values and enduring friendship between the American and Armenian peoples."

The Foreign Operations Subcommittees of the Senate and House Appropriation Committees will now review the budget and each draft their own versions of the FY 2007 foreign assistance bill.

The agreement to maintain parity in U.S. military aid to Armenia and Azerbaijan was struck between the White House and Congress in 2001, in the wake of Congressional action granting the President the authority to waive the Section 907 restrictions on aid to Azerbaijan. The ANCA has vigorously defended this principle, stressing that a tilt in military spending toward Azerbaijan would destabilize the region, emboldening the Azerbaijani leadership to continue their threats to impose a military solution to the Nagorno Karabagh conflict. More broadly, the ANCA has underscored that breaching the parity agreement would reward the leadership of Azerbaijan for obstructing the peace process, and undermines the role of the U.S. as an impartial mediator of the Nagorno Karabagh conflict.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Labels: , ,