JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1995, Pages 28-29

The Armenian-Azerbaijani Dispute As Seen From the U.S.—Two Views

An Experienced Armenian Lobby Opposes Azerbaijan

By Dr. Mahir Ibrahimov and Erjan Kurbanov

The activities of the Armenian lobby in the U.S. are coordinated by the several Armenian organizations: Armenian Assembly of America, Armenian National Committee of America (ANC) and others. They have within their structures government divisions dealing with the executive branch and Congress, and academic divisions involved in organizing conferences and workshops. These organizations have their own publications, describing activist campaigns by Armenian Americans and recording the degree of support for pro-Armenian initiatives by individual members of Congress.

In contrast to the Azerbaijani community, which is extremely small in the U.S., the Armenian lobby reflects the political weight of the experienced and active Armenian community in this country. They routinely undertake various different means to exert influence on the members of the House and Senate. These include writing letters, distributing leaflets and making phone calls, especially to those elected from the states with high ethnic Armenian populations such as California, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

Activities of the Armenian lobby in the U.S. currently are concentrated on Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, which determines the aid to the former Soviet republics. Armenian lobby activities were the sole reason for congressional adoption of this legislation in 1992. Section 907 "prohibits the provision of U.S. assistance to the government of Azerbaijan until the President determines...that the government of Azerbaijan is taking demonstrable steps to cease all blockades and other offensive uses of force against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh" (Public Law 102-511).

While the significance of foreign aid normally is measured more in humanitarian and economic impact than in political terms, the very wording of this amendment made a serious impact on Azerbaijan. It actually states that Azerbaijan is an aggressor and Armenia is a victim in the Azerbaijani-Armenian war. Politically it is very important for the Armenian lobby, because it places the U.S. on the side of the Armenian party to the conflict, and condemns Azerbaijan.

Amendment 907 is based on the claims that Azerbaijan is an "aggressor" against Armenia, and that Azerbaijan is blockading Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.

However, Azerbaijan cannot be the aggressor, because the war is being fought solely on Azerbaijani territory. About a quarter (!) of Azerbaijani territory currently is under Armenian occupation, and no ethnic Azerbaijanis remain in this occupied territory. They all were forced to flee as a result of ethnic cleansing by the Armenian military. The fact of Armenian aggression has been confirmed by U.N. Security Council Resolutions 822, 853, 874 and 884 and by many states.

Regarding the second argument, Azerbaijan cannot physically blockade Armenia because Armenia borders three other countries and its border with Azerbaijan is hardly 50 percent of the entire Armenian border. Since the start of the conflict in 1988, all railroads and highways which connected Azerbaijan with Armenia have been destroyed. It is physically impossible to use these roads through front lines to deliver civilian supplies. Therefore all foreign aid for Armenia has been successfully delivered to that country through its borders with other countries or by air. During the period 1992 to 1993, Armenia received U.S. aid worth $188 million. (That is $55.04 per capita, putting Armenia in first place in U.S. aid received by all former Soviet republics [Ukrainian Weekly, June 13, 1993].) Between 1991 and 1994, Armenia received U.S. aid totaling $404 million, and will recieve a further $75 million of American aid in 1995.

It seems that the Armenian lobby regards this issue as a "zero-sum game." The worse it is for Azerbaijan, the better for Armenia. The search for a peaceful compromise, therefore, does not concern it. The occupation by Armenian forces of a quarter of Azerbaijani territory has led to the worst humanitarian crisis in Azerbaijan ever. It created an influx into Azerbaijan of more than one million Azeri refugees (the entire population of Azerbaijan is seven million). These refugees do not get direct American assistance because of the amendment.

Politically, Armenian lobby activities have left Azerbaijan without U.S. support, or at least impartiality, in the face of continued Armenian aggression. This also encouraged the most radical hard-liners in Armenia by promoting further attacks on Azerbaijani territories far beyond Karabakh.

During the discussion of Section 907, these negative outcomes were clearly predicted by several senators. A special statement by Senators Richard Lugar (R-IN), Terry Sanford (D-NC), Nancy Kassebaum (R-KS), and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) regarding the sanctions against Azerbaijan said: "By imposing sanctions against a specific country in the former Soviet Union, this amendment would establish a potentially dangerous precedent of choosing sides in conflicts which have deep historical roots. Indeed, we fear that this amendment would be an invitation to consider other such provisions in which the United States is asked to side with one state, nationality group, or religious entity against another state, nationality or religious body within the former U.S.S.R. That would be most unfortunate. We simply do not believe that the provision will have any positive effect on resolving the conflict."

This conclusion has turned out to be quite correct. There is no sign of any positive effect of this amendment on the peaceful resolution of the conflict. The main impact of this policy on the U.S. position in the Transcaucus is the practical limitation of U.S. influence in the peace process in the region. While the American peace policy in the Middle East was extremely effective during the last period, it cannot be effectively expanded on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict while the restrictions remain in force. Meanwhile, many in the Congress and other political circles have already urged a more evenhanded U.S. policy on the matter. There were several attempts to reach this objective. They included legislation introduced in the Senate by Senators Paul Simon (D-IL) and Harry Reid (D-NV); the legislation introduced by Rep. Tim Penny (D-MN) that would entirely repeal the restrictions against Azerbaijan; initiatives of Senator Lugar for modification of Amendment 907; a proposal to lift the sanctions against Azerbaijan introduced by Ambassador John Maresca, former U.S. negotiator in the CSCE Minsk group, a person with first-hand knowledge and experience; statements of views by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ) regarding the expedience of maintaining these restrictions on Azerbaijan; and, finally, U.S. administration recommendations to repeal this amendment. There is clear evidence that the continuation of the sanctions against Azerbaijan will have a negative impact on the peace process in the region. Moreover, they appear to be contrary to the humanitarian, economic and strategic interests of the United States.