[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AZERBAIJAN: U.S. ENERGY, SECURITY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS INTERESTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 12, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-6
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
93-285 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
MATT SALMON, Arizona KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
PAUL COOK, California ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas GRACE MENG, New York
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TED S. YOHO, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
CURT CLAWSON, Florida BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
TOM EMMER, Minnesota
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats
DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman
TED POE, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
MO BROOKS, Alabama THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
PAUL COOK, California WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Audrey Altstadt, Ph.D., fellow, Kennan Institute, Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars.............................. 6
Svante Cornell, Ph.D., director, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute,
School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins
University..................................................... 21
The Honorable Richard Kauzlarich, adjunct professor, School of
Public Policy, George Mason University (former American
Ambassador to Azerbaijan)...................................... 32
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Audrey Altstadt, Ph.D.: Prepared statement....................... 9
Svante Cornell, Ph.D.: Prepared statement........................ 24
The Honorable Richard Kauzlarich: Prepared statement............. 35
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 50
Hearing minutes.................................................. 51
The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and chairman, Subcommittee on Europe,
Eurasia, and Emerging Threats:
Prepared statement of the Honorable Michael R. Turner, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio............ 52
Prepared statement of the Honorable Michael G. Fitzpatrick, a
Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania................................................. 53
AZERBAIJAN: U.S. ENERGY, SECURITY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS INTERESTS
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 o'clock
p.m., in room 2200 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana
Rohrabacher (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Rohrabacher. The subcommittee is called to order.
This is the inaugural meeting of the Europe, Eurasia, and
Emerging Threats Subcommittee for the 114th Congress. I am
happy to introduce our new ranking member, Greg Meeks of New
York. I am sure that we will have a very productive session
together in these next 2 years.
So, we are very happy to have you with us, Gregory.
Before I go into my opening statement, I want to recognize
that we are joined in the audience by Sarah Paulsworth--Sarah,
where are you?--and Sarah's husband Emin, and I am going to
pronounce this, Heseynov, who helped to found the Azeri NGO
dedicated to journalist safety. When it became clear that he
was wanted by the authorities, he asked the United States
Embassy for help. Our Embassy turned him away, but he was
granted safe haven in the Swiss Embassy, where he is today. And
again, I guess it is a sad day when the Swiss are more
courageous than the Americans.
Our topic for this afternoon is the U.S. relationship with
Azerbaijan, a country of about 9 million people on the coast of
the Caspian Sea, sandwiched between Iran, Russia, Armenia,
Georgia, and Turkey, a pretty tough neighborhood.
Our relationship with Azerbaijan is normally described as
being comprised of three parts: Energy, security, and human
rights. Azerbaijan is rich in oil and natural gas. Since the
1990s, it has grown into a notable exporter of oil, which is
making Azerbaijan a relatively and notably wealthy country.
Now, with the construction of the Southern Gas Corridor,
Azerbaijan has the potential to play a key role in helping to
provide the European Union with sources of natural gas that is
not controlled by Russia.
The Azerbaijani Government has been a source of
irreplaceable support for the United States and NATO operations
in Afghanistan. Azerbaijan is a key link in the northern
distribution network which supplies and carries troops battling
in Afghanistan.
On this point, I would like to mention especially I want to
thank the Azerbaijani Government for their cooperation in
saving the lives of numerous U.S. military personnel. While
acknowledging this important context, it is impossible to
overlook Azerbaijan's poor track record when it comes to civil
liberties. Azerbaijan, as I say, is in a very tough
neighborhood and borders on other countries--this is
important--it borders on other countries that have far worse
human rights records. But human rights violations in one
country does not justify or excuse them in another country. So,
we need to keep these in perspective on both sides of that
argument.
The disturbing reports of 90-plus political prisoners held
by the Azerbaijani Government just can't be ignored. It would
be better for all concerned if the Azerbaijani Government,
which has many attributes which we are putting into our
calculation, but it would certainly be better for all of us--
these attributes also include what, freedom of religion and
other important elements. Of course, it would be a really good
thing if the Azerbaijani government wasn't so thin-skinned
about criticism because that leads them to actions that really
are unacceptable and unnecessary, causing all of us problems,
including themselves.
The purpose of this hearing is not--I repeat not--to
unfairly bash Azerbaijan. But disregarding its shortcomings
will not improve the situation, as was evident the other day
when, after Christmas in Azerbaijan, the authorities raided and
shut down the Baku Bureau of Radio Free Europe and Radio
Liberty. That was, of course, shutting Radio Liberty and Radio
Free Europe is just unacceptable.
I, myself, have advocated, for example, that the same Azeri
language service that we are talking about that was used in
Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe, that that same Azeri
language service covered northern Iran and has serviced the
Azeri people in Iran. The Baku Bureau and its employees should
be released and be free to go about their work.
Again, the purpose of this hearing is not to attack or bash
Azerbaijan. It serves everyone's interest to recognize the many
positive aspects of our relationship with Azerbaijan and the
great potential that Azerbaijan has to play a positive role,
and it is already playing a positive regional role. This
positive role in that region will have significance for the
entire planet.
There is a legitimate fear, for example, of radical
Islamic's subterfuge of Azeri society and Azeri government.
Unfortunately, repressing democratic elements in any society
increases the appeal that such radicals have. So, it is in no
one's best interest to being thin-skinned about criticism and
to act against people who are criticizing your government for
whatever reason.
The people of Azerbaijan are not fanatics and neither is
their government. They have much to be proud of, but flaws that
should not be ignored.
I look forward to hearing from the panel today and hope
that their conversation with us will leave us with some
constructive recommendations of how we can improve our
relations with Azerbaijan and how Azerbaijan can improve their
relations with us.
I would hope that, without objection, all members will have
at least 5 legislative days to submit additional questions or
extraneous materials for the record.
Before recognizing Mr. Meeks for his opening statement, I
would like to recognize that we have a very special guest with
us. We have one whose husband is, of course, being held in
Azerbaijan. We wish him well and hope that maybe this hearing
could say we are friends; let this guy go, please.
We also have a wonderful other good friend, Dan Burton--
there he is--Dan Burton, who actually chaired this committee a
couple of years ago and has been a dear friend to all of us and
one of the most hard-working and responsible Members of
Congress that I met in my 26 years here. He is a fine man.
Dan, we are very, very pleased that you have come here to
observe what we are doing today.
With that said, Mr. Meeks, please feel free to have your
opening statement.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I look forward to working with you over the next 2 years.
We have done some traveling together, and I think that we will
be working collectively together to try to stay focused on the
issues of this subcommittee. You know, I look forward to
working with you and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle
on the important issues that fall under the subcommittee's
jurisdiction.
In this subcommittee it is up to us to ensure that American
interests in Europe and Eurasia are protected and promoted, but
also that the common ideals and interests that we share with
our allies and partners in the region are held to the highest
standards. It is an honor to take up the ranking member role
during these trying times in the region.
Azerbaijan has a remarkable and notable history. Well
before Azerbaijan gained independence in 1991, it made an
important and global distinction when it became, albeit
briefly, one of the world's first Muslim democratic republics.
Since then, Azerbaijan has had significant success in
navigating the difficult path to becoming an open-market
economy. But success does not come without concern in other
areas.
I believe our witnesses today will highlight some of the
areas of concern, including human rights and the lack of
democratic governance. But I hope we can also discuss ways in
which the United States can support progress. I hope we can
talk about the broader scope of cooperation with the EU and
OSCE on some of the challenges.
Human rights and democracy advancements will not happen in
a vacuum, and we must work in a multilateral way to support
progress. The U.S.-Azerbaijan relationship is a partnership
that we value. Azerbaijan is a critically-located partner in
the South Caucasus Region. It is a secular nation that
neighbors Iran and works closely with the United States. That
is not an easy position to be in. It borders Russia and is the
key to the EU on energy diversification. In short, our
partnership is not one we can take for granted.
Today's hearing is for me an opportunity to examine the
tough issues and potential for advancement in the nation that I
believe has promise. Azerbaijan's success is, of course,
broadened by its natural resources. But I know that our
Government is also committed to helping Azerbaijan grow the
non-oil sectors of the economy to avoid overreliance.
We are also committed to fostering a vibrant, open society
and upholding democratic ideals as a part of the development
process. We want to build on Azerbaijan's success in using its
resources, its resource wealth, to reduce poverty levels
dramatically and grow its middle class and create jobs.
Ensuring the continued success of Azerbaijan's development
and encouraging democratic progress is of strategic importance
to the United States. Our interests on all fronts are
critically linked. The energy and security cooperation we enjoy
is important. But these things are not separate and apart from
the equally-important need to ensure that we address civil
society's push for an open and democratic society.
I hope to hear from our experts today on the recent
setbacks in this area. President Aliyev and the Azerbaijan
Government should know that we are concerned with the treatment
of several members of the Azeri civil society.
I know that progress is not always linear and not often
as quick as we would like. In fact, right here in the
United States we are still perfecting our democracy and our
great nation. And we took too long, in my estimate, in this
country to correct some of our own human rights mistakes. But
what we want to do is work together to share methods to make
sure all voices are respected.
So, I look forward to a fruitful discussion where we can
explore what we in Congress can offer and do to positive growth
in Azerbaijan that includes all members of its society, for it
is a very important ally, and we do need to work collectively
together to make life better for all of our people and our
citizens.
And I yield back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Meeks.
If any other member of the hearing panel would like to--Mr.
Sires, maybe a 1- or 2-minute opening statement--feel free.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for today's hearing on
Azerbaijan. Thank you for being here today.
Since Azerbaijan broke free of the Soviet Union over two
decades ago, the U.S. has had a concerted interest in
strengthening democracy in Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is unique, as
it is a bridge between the East and the West. A peaceful,
democratic, and prosperous Azerbaijan is in the best interest
of the United States and our European allies.
Unfortunately, there have been many obstacles to a fully-
recognized democracy in Azerbaijan, including ongoing
government corruption and human rights abuses. I am deeply
troubled by recent efforts by the government to crack down on
civil society groups and independent media. As we all know, a
democracy cannot exist without the ability of the citizens to
freely exercise their voices.
I look forward to hearing from our esteemed panel of
witnesses on how Congress can shape policies that will assist
in promoting democratic principles in Azerbaijan in order to
strengthen our ties in the region.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you.
Mr. Deutch, do you have an opening statement?
Mr. Deutch. I do. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman
Rohrabacher and Ranking Member Meeks.
I am honored to rejoin this subcommittee which covers a
region with significant value for our national security and one
that is facing many new and significant threats, and Azerbaijan
is no exception to this. It is easy to understand what risks
the country faces just by looking at its precarious geographic
location with Russia to its north, which has shown irredentist
actions toward its neighbors. To its south is Iran, a state
sponsor of terrorism with nuclear weapons ambitions and a
significant Azeri population. And Azerbaijan also shares a
border with Armenia, with the unresolved Nagorno-Karabakh
region in between.
Azerbaijan has built up a multifaceted partnership with
European countries and the United States. Its access to
offshore ore deposits and the plan to build a pipeline via
Turkey to southern Europe is an appealing prospect for many
European countries as an alternative source to Russia's near
monopoly as an energy provider to eastern Europe.
Amid the list of threats coming out of Europe and the
Middle East, our security and counterterrorism cooperation is
of significant mutual value. That cooperation doesn't prevent
us, in fact, nothing should prevent us from speaking out for
human rights. And the human rights situation in Azerbaijan
cannot be overlooked.
NGOs are being intimidated and shuttered. Free media and
journalism is being inhibited, and pro-democracy leaders are
being incarcerated at alarming rates. Last December, Security
Forces raided and shut down the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
office in Baku, and other U.S. programs like Peace Corps are
closing shop.
Regressive human rights policies like these are concerning.
When it gets to the point that international civil society
groups which are active in countries, in order to improve the
democratic and human rights climate, are forced to pull back
their presence out of fear of oppression and incarceration, it
should send a loud signal to the government that its policies
are heading in the wrong direction.
The LGBT community, in particular, experiences a tremendous
amount of social stigma, often in the form of physical abuse
and harassment. And with restricted registration policies for
civil society organizations, Azerbaijan is left with zero
groups promoting the rights of LGBT people in the form of legal
protections and public acceptance.
These are important questions for Congress to ask. I thank
the chairman for holding this public hearing.
And I hope you will accept my apologies. I have two other
hearings taking place at exactly the same moment. So, I will be
back----
Mr. Rohrabacher. How is it possible that somebody has two
hearings at the same time? It almost always happens, the one
you really want to go to--and you have got to go to them--and
then, all of a sudden, there are three others scheduled.
Well, thank you for joining us and sharing your thoughts
with us, at least to kick it off today.
So, we have three great witnesses today. First is Dr.
Audrey Altstadt. I think is that the pronunciation? I am sorry
if I got it wrong. Dr. Altstadt is a professor at the
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and currently spending a
year in Washington as a Fellow at the Wilson Center.
She has authored dozens of articles on Azerbaijan and has
been following the issues in that country since the 1980s. She
earned her PhD from the University of Chicago and is currently
writing a book about Azerbaijan.
We also have with us Ambassador Richard Kauzlarich--okay,
that is good enough?--the Director of the Center for Energy
Science and Policy at George Mason University. He has held a
number of high-level positions within the State Department,
including formerly being our Ambassador to Azerbaijan and
Bosnia-Herzegovina. He also served as the National Intelligence
Officer for Europe on the National Intelligence Council.
Finally, we have Dr. Svante Cornell. He is the Director of
Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and the Silk Road Studies
Program at Johns Hopkins University. He is the author of four
books and many articles on security studies and international
relations. He is an expert on the Caucasus and earned his PhD
from the University of Uppsala in Sweden.
I am really bad on some of these foreign names. But
Uppsala, all right.
Listen, we welcome our witnesses, and we thank you for
sharing your expertise with us today. I would ask if you could
keep it down to 5 minutes and the rest for the record. You are
certainly welcome to submit as long a statement as you want for
the record. And then, we will follow up with questions after
you have all testified.
So, Doctor, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF AUDREY ALTSTADT, PH.D., FELLOW, KENNAN INSTITUTE,
WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS
Ms. Altstadt. Thank you for the opportunity to be here
today. I appreciate the fact that we are having this meeting.
Azerbaijan is the only country that borders both Russia and
Iran. It was ruled by both and it bears the vestiges of both in
its politics and its culture. Its oil and gas wealth have made
Azerbaijan a significant contributor to European energy
security and gives it the potential to be an important partner
in this and other commercial dealings.
The government has cooperated with the United States in the
war on terror. At the same time, the Government of Azerbaijan
must deal with pressures from its neighbors and near neighbors,
and these are challenges that any government in Baku would have
to face, by virtue of its location.
Azerbaijan's independence and internal stability are
necessary, but not sufficient, for it to be a full and healthy
functioning partner as a state or a society. Nor does stability
alone make it a good partner.
Azerbaijan today is not a democracy and its government does
not respect human rights. The present government has been
moving away from, and not closer to, pluralism, democratic
elections, open discourse in society, freely-functioning media,
and the observation of human rights. These restrictions have
gradually increased over the last 10 years, but most radically
so in the last 1\1/2\ to 2 years, since the Presidential
election campaign of 2013. It has become worst of all since the
spring and summer of 2014.
Ruling circles have shown intolerance of criticism and
protests. Yet, the criticism and protests have continued,
raising fears of a potential Baku Maidan, as we have seen in
Ukraine.
The government of President Ilham Aliyev has carried out a
preemptive strike against regime critics of political groups
and parties, especially youth movements, human rights
defenders, journalists, and the lawyers that defend them. These
people are not against Azerbaijan's statehood, independence, or
stability, but do oppose the ruling regime's policies and,
increasingly, the ruling regime itself.
The crackdown of 2014 is counterproductive and dangerous.
Public discourse in civil society is the life breath of the
body politic. Constricting the space for freedom of speech,
assembly, and press, as we have seen in Azerbaijan, is
suffocating to that body. The loser is Azerbaijan society,
which is deprived of political participation and peaceful
redress of grievances.
But the government also loses because it is deprived of new
ideas, the purifying fire of public debate, and the legitimacy
which transparency bestows. Such restrictions, moreover, can
drive the populace toward radicalism in its effort to find a
venue for social and economic change.
The European Parliament, the United States Subcommittee on
Human Rights, and a number of other international and non-
governmental organizations have noted this disturbing trend in
the last year and more. The Council of Europe Commissioner for
Human Rights said, ``All of my partners in Azerbaijan are in
jail.''
The rhetoric of these repressions has taken a decidedly
anti-American tone. In December, an article was published by
the Presidential Chief of Staff, Ramiz Mehtiyev, which accused
the United States of instigating color revolutions in Georgia
and Ukraine, the Arab Spring, and the Maidan movement in
Ukraine. He accused the U.S. of trying to destabilize the
Aliyev government under the guise of protecting human rights.
The alleged U.S. tools were NGOs and Azerbaijani citizens
that Mehtiyev declared to be a fifth column within Azerbaijan.
Such citizens, he added, were disloyal, and he named as one
example Investigative Journalist Khadija Ismayilova who worked
at Radio Liberty in Baku. Two days later, she was arrested, and
by the end of the month, as we have noted here, the Radio
Liberty, or Azadliq Radiosu, office in Baku was raided and
closed, and its staff was questioned multiple times without an
attorney being present.
These statements and actions within Azerbaijan suggest that
the Azerbaijani Government may be moving away from the West and
increasingly toward Russia, which President Aliyev has recently
called ``a good friend.'' It may be that a pro-Russian faction
is in the ascendency, but it could not act without President
Aliyev's knowledge and approval.
This does not mean, however, that Azerbaijan's leaders are
completely changing direction. It is more likely that they are
seeking a new balance among neighbors and business partners.
Baku's ruling elites do not want to lose the benefits of
commercial deals with the West and the lavish lifestyle options
available in western countries, including real estate,
education for their children, and bank accounts in stable
currencies protected by law.
Azerbaijan's elites want to maintain these opportunities
and privileges that the West offers and present themselves as
western partners without actually fulfilling the obligations of
a western state, a member of the OSCE and the Council of
Europe, a country that observes human rights and holds free and
fair elections. In short, they want to have it both ways.
The United States should certainly evaluate Azerbaijan in a
nuanced, holistic, and realistic light, but it is imperative
that the United States not ignore or deny the Azerbaijan's
regimes failings in human rights, media freedom, civil society
and democratization.
The U.S. owes it to the pro-democracy forces within
Azerbaijan to speak up clearly and consistently for the defense
of the same rights that are the foundations of the United
States. The argument that the U.S. should set aside these
failings in the interests of commercial gain or so-called
stability, which the regime advertises, would constitute a
betrayal of U.S. values and would further diminish the image
and the moral power of the United States in Azerbaijan and in
the world.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Altstadt follows:]
----------
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, thank you, Doctor.
And Dr. Cornell?
STATEMENT OF SVANTE CORNELL, PH.D., DIRECTOR, CENTRAL ASIA-
CAUCASUS INSTITUTE, SCHOOL OF ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL STUDIES,
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Mr. Cornell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a longer
written testimony for the record, and I will be summarizing
some of the points here.
I will start by saying that the U.S. relationship to
Azerbaijan was once a well-functioning strategic partnership.
Today it is dominated by tension and acrimony. In the next
minutes, I will try to provide my perspective on why this is
the case but, more importantly, what we can do about it.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Doctor, could you hold on for one moment?
Mr. Cornell. Sure.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Is that a vote? Are those votes? No?
You know, I have been here all these years; I can't figure
out those lights yet. [Laughter.]
Recess? All right, good.
All right, you may proceed.
Mr. Cornell. Thank you, sir.
To start with, I would like to say a few words about why
Azerbaijan in this region matters to the U.S. Several of the
members here have mentioned these things.
I will start by saying that, in a 1997 book, former
National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski called Azerbaijan
one of the five geopolitical pivot countries of Eurasia.
Azerbaijan lies at the intersection of the key Eurasian powers,
Russia, Iran, and Turkey. It is a bottleneck of the east-west
corridor that connects Europe to Central Asia and beyond for
the purposes of trade, for energy, but also for U.S. military
access, as in Afghanistan.
And I would say that in the present situation, where the
two most acute challenges to the Trans-Atlantic Alliance are
Russia's aggressive expansionism as well as Islamic radicalism
emanating from the Middle East, Azerbaijan and its neighbors
are actually a bulwark against both. There is, indeed, an
opportunity in the existence of Muslim majority states that
reject Russian projects of coerced Eurasian integration,
maintain the openness of the east-west corridor into Central
Asia, and remain committed to secular statehood. And, of
course, this is all the more crucial, given Iran's continued
jockeying for regional domination from Syria to Yemen and
Turkey's turn toward an Islamism and anti-Western
authoritarianism.
This is not just a theoretical point. Looking back to 9/11,
America's military response in Central Asia was made possible
by the air corridor across Georgia and Azerbaijan, which you,
Mr. Chairman, correctly characterized as irreplaceable.
Now for most of the past decade, the broader regional
picture is that America's ability to affect the developments in
Azerbaijan and the entire region has been in decline. I would
even say that at no time since the collapse of the Soviet Union
has the U.S. had less influence over regional matters than it
does today.
Now this is the context, of course, of the discussion we
are having today, and it is customary to blame the Azerbaijani
domestic evolution for the decline of the U.S.-Azerbaijani
bilateral relationship. That is, indeed, a factor. But, a
decade ago, it is important to note that the Azerbaijani
Government was considerably more responsive to U.S. criticism
and advice on its domestic affairs.
So, the question is, what has changed in the past decade
and why is it not today? Now the most obvious point has been
already made, which is that oil and gas has brought wealth to
Azerbaijan. Twenty years ago it was a failing state. Today it
is wealthy. There is a growing reluctance to take advice from
abroad.
A more important factor, I would argue, is the worsening
regional security environment. Only in the past few years,
Russia has invaded Georgia, invaded Ukraine, contributed to
orchestrating a coup in Kyrgyzstan, and forced Armenia to
abstain from any form of European integration.
Russian subversion is on the rise everywhere in the region,
and the case of Azerbaijan there are also growing tendencies
not only by Iran, but also by Turkey, of meddling in internal
affairs. And all of this has grown a powerful inhibition
liberalization.
Unfortunately, I would say that U.S. policies have actually
been an important contributing factor to this situation. In
fact, for the past 20 years, the U.S. relationship with
Azerbaijan was built on the understanding that the U.S. has
interests in several diverse areas, which you have mentioned
and which are in the title of this hearing.
Human rights and democracy was one area. The second was
engagement on energy issues, and the third, of course, was
cooperation on security affairs, including America's role in
negotiating a solution to the Armenian and Azerbaijan conflict.
If you will, these three areas formed a tripod that was the
basis of U.S. policy, and the problem is that this tripod has
faltered, because American engagement in energy issues and
security issues over the past decade have declined, I would
say, drastically. Now I want to be clear here. My argument is
not that the U.S. has engaged too deeply in democracy
promotion. The problem is that the U.S. has not provided enough
attention to security----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Is your microphone on?
Mr. Cornell. I believe so.
So, I want to be clear that my argument is not that the
U.S. has engaged too deeply in democracy promotion. The problem
is that it has not provided enough attention to security issues
and energy issues. And the important fact is that these were
the issues that provided America with leverage in Azerbaijan.
Now the U.S. also made a number of missteps after the
Russian invasion of Georgia. I could discuss these in detail,
including how the Russian Reset was handled, the fact that the
Turkish-Armenian normalization process was prioritized over the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, all of which alienated Azerbaijan
and reduced the value of the U.S. for its national interests.
Now the U.S. has also not properly understood, I would say,
the effect of inter-regime politics in Azerbaijan in this, and
Dr. Altstadt alluded to that. As the current policy is not
working, what can be done looking forward?
My Institute has newly released a paper on Western Strategy
in the South Caucuses, which I am sure your staff will be made
available, in which we propose a detailed outline of what a new
U.S. strategy toward the region would look like.
Now some have argued for a tougher approach; that is, a
policy that would include punitive measures. Of course, that
would, first of all, amount of singling out Azerbaijan since
the U.S. does not apply such policies for countries that have
worse human rights records, and it would also be
counterproductive in a country where compact frustration which
they see as the American indifference to the hundreds of
thousands of displaced people from the Karabakh conflict.
More importantly, such an approach would also be certain to
fail. Since the ruling elite presently does not see much of a
meaningful U.S. involvement in key matters of national
security, the U.S. today simply does not have the leverage to
influence Baku's policies by the use of the proverbial stick.
Instead, I feel that such steps would extinguish whatever
influence the U.S. still has in the country.
Instead, what I would call for and what we call for in our
paper is a broad strategic re-engagement, not only of
Azerbaijan, but of the entire region. I would say that in the
past 20 years, whenever the U.S. has been strongly involved in
the security issues and the energy issues of this region, the
Azerbaijani Government has actually been responsive to
criticism. When that has not been the case, like now, America's
leverage has declined. So, going forward, I would say that the
U.S. cannot expect realistically to see any progress in
governance and human rights issues without a clear engagement
on the issues of security and energy.
Similarly, I think Azerbaijan's leaders should understand
that they cannot expect U.S. support on security issues and
energy issues without a commitment to reforms in governance and
human rights. Again, this does not mean that a new policy
should have less of an emphasis on human rights issues, but it
does mean that the U.S. must engage the government on a broader
front and do more to address the issues on which it worked
effectively a decade ago. These are bolstering sovereignty and
independence, addressing security issues, working seriously,
which we have not done, to resolve the Armenian-Azerbaijan
conflict, and re-engaging on energy politics. All of these also
happen to be in the U.S. national interest.
So, in closing, for both Azerbaijan's domestic situation
and our bilateral relationship to improve, America's presence
must once again be felt in the region, which it is not today.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cornell follows:]
----------
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
And we have been joined, also, by Congressman Keating. Do
you have an opening statement that you would like to make
before our next witness?
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to be
back here with yourself and Ranking Member Meeks.
Like so many on the panel, I have had many discussions
focused on Azerbaijan's strategic relevance and geopolitical
importance. Its potential can't be underestimated. Yet, the
potential alone of that cannot bear fruit in the global arena
without adequate rule of law and basic protections and
freedoms.
Unfortunately, we have seen a drastic regression in the
rule of law, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly,
transparency, and other basic rights in Azerbaijan. And I am
particularly concerned over the deliberate targeting of
American and international NGOs and media. These organizations
that have been able to provide vital assistance to local
citizens have already been forced to close. They include IREX,
the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican
Institute, the U.S. Peace Corps, Transparency International,
and Oxfam.
Last month I spoke out in regard to the latest scapegoat of
Azerbaijan authorities, Radio Free Europe. The government-
sponsored raid on Baku Bureau and the arrest of and continued
detention of Khadija Ismayilova, as well as others, raise
serious questions and concerns over the intentions of the
Azerbaijan leadership and the desire to partner with the U.S.
and the West as a whole.
It should be noted that the regular conspiratorial
pronouncements of Azeri officials against the U.S. and the West
raise similar concerns. Yet, many of us who watch Azerbaijan
continue to hope to see a change in the course of Azerbaijan.
In this way, I urge the U.S. administration to prioritize these
concerns when addressing Azerbaijan leadership. In particular,
I hope that our Government will work to reopen Radio Free
Europe in Baku and ensure a safe passage of Emin Heseynov, the
husband of a U.S. Army servicewoman who spent the last 6 months
sheltered in the Swiss Embassy in Baku.
Again, I thank you for holding this important hearing and
look forward to working with you on this important issue, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
Mr. Keating. I yield back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And now, for our last witness, Mr.
Kauzlarich, go right ahead. Or, Ambassador, I should say.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RICHARD KAUZLARICH, ADJUNCT
PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
(FORMER AMERICAN AMBASSADOR TO AZERBAIJAN)
Ambassador Kauzlarich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you and the committee for holding these hearings and giving me
the opportunity to testify.
I have submitted a written statement for the record and,
with your permission, I will summarize that statement now.
I agree with the previous speakers that we are at a
critical point in U.S.-Azerbaijani relations, though I take a
little more positive view of what we have accomplished in two
decades of successful diplomatic engagement. This engagement
has been based on a clear set of bipartisan objectives. Despite
the restrictions of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act,
which tied our hands in the early days in Azerbaijan, as well
as the tragic war between Azerbaijan and Armenia regarding
Nagorno-Karabakh, we have through those two decades supported
the development and transportation of Azerbaijani energy
resources. Through co-chairmanship of the OSCE Minsk Group, we
have provided an opportunity for Armenia and Azerbaijan to
pursue a peaceful settlement of the conflict on Nagorno-
Karabakh. And we have, especially since 9/11, engaged
Azerbaijan in NATO and other international peacekeeping
operations in Afghanistan and Kosovo.
I am not saying this has been easy, especially when the
United States has pressed Azerbaijan on democracy and human
rights issues, but we are in a different place today. There has
been a deterioration in U.S.-Azerbaijani relations. Part of
this is due to external factors. The changing global energy
situation means that Azerbaijan energy resources are less
important today than they were in the 1990s, when I was
Ambassador. Unfortunately, the Minsk Group has not led to
Yerevan and Baku finding the political support to produce a
peaceful settlement to the Nagorno-Karabakh situation. And as
the U.S. and NATO presence draws down in Afghanistan,
Azerbaijan's strategic role in protecting that northern supply
route will be less over time. And finally, there has been
increased international, not just U.S., focus on human rights
and democracy in Azerbaijan.
I think the far more important reasons for the
deterioration are internal. There has been an attack on the
double-standard the U.S. uses in its approach to the Ukrainian
crisis compared to Nagorno-Karabakh. There has been a continued
stress of unfairness of U.S. policy with sanctions under 907 of
the Freedom Support Act compared to the assistance that we give
to Armenia and to the regime in Stepanakert, Nagorno-Karabakh.
There is a belief that the U.S. and Europe need Azerbaijani
energy more today than Azerbaijan needs the kind of political
support we provided in the 1990s and early 2000s to
transporting these resources to market.
Our continued support for U.S. NGOs in has increasingly
been seen as a negative and led, I think, to this wave of over
90 arrests and detention of Azerbaijanis who are opposing the
regime.
Global attacks, unprecedented during my time, on U.S.
Government officials, including Ambassadors and the President
of the United States have intensified. And we have mentioned
the closure of the RFE/RL offices.
As Dr. Altstadt pointed out, I am focused on the December 3
statement by Ramiz Mehtiyev as indicating an end of the era of
cooperation between the United States that was established
during the presidency of Heydar Aliyev. Accusing the United
States of fomenting color revolutions or creating PIF columns
is not positive grounds for a good relationship.
So, what can we do under these circumstances? I think it is
time to set not a strategic partnership, but a limited set of
attainable goals, support serious engagement by both Yerevan
and Baku in reaching a negotiated settlement to the Nagorno-
Karabakh conflict, support stability in Azerbaijan by all
means, but only through greater democracy and observance of
international human rights standards, and release the political
prisoners. Only then is it possible to talk about a strategic
partnership.
If we do not have progress in these areas, then I think it
is time to consider sanctions, including travel and other
sanctions on officials who are responsible for the arrest and
detention of political prisoners, and consider a travel warning
to Americans contemplating travel to Azerbaijan.
I think we have reached the point in our relationship that
it is time to be concerned about the people. That is why the
release of the political prisoners is so important. These
prisoners and their families and the American citizens, some of
whom are here today, and their families deserve that kind of
attention in our relationship that we have not given up to this
point.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Kauzlarich follows:]
----------
Mr. Rohrabacher. I thank all the witnesses.
I will just lead off on the questions. I will try to keep
it to 5 minutes, so we all should have a chance before the
votes that come up.
Let me just note, as a former journalist, I am fully aware
that, when you restrict people's right to criticize the
government, it encourages corruption and it makes it more
difficult to solve the problems that exist. So, there is an
actual, besides just a principle of believing in freedom of
speech, it serves the country which respects freedom of speech
and freedom of the press. And I hope our friends in Azerbaijan
understand that, can come to understand that, and especially
because I am sure that there are people who are patriots in
that country who are both in the government and outside the
government that want what is best for their country.
The criticism that has been leveled, even here today, was
not leveled at trying to say that we don't like Azerbaijan and
we think of them as an enemy. No, it is just the opposite. We
want to create a pathway, so that 10 years from now we could
have had a great relationship with a great country that is
serving the purpose of peace and stability as well as
protecting the rights of their own people.
Let me ask a little bit about this. We know how Azerbaijan
compares to the United States or Great Britain. How does it
compare in human rights to Iran, its neighbor? Anybody want to
answer that?
[No response.]
Don't all jump in at once. I mean, are there more human
rights in Azerbaijan than in Iran, respect for the human rights
there? Are there more----
Mr. Cornell. Well, I think one way of answering that is
seeing if people from Azerbaijan go to Iran, or vice versa, to
get a breather. And as you know, a lot of people from Iran are
buying apartments and the like in Azerbaijan in order to get
out of Iran.
I think it also depends on exactly what rights are talking
about. Especially if you talk about religious rights, there is
absolutely no comparison since Azerbaijan actually protects its
people from religious extremism; whereas, Iran does the
opposite.
If you talk about other types of rights, you could have
less of a----
Mr. Rohrabacher. When I take a look, and as I mentioned in
the opening statement, at the countries, the neighborhood that
Azerbaijan is in, this is a very tough neighborhood, and I
don't believe that any of those countries demonstrably have
more respect for human rights than the Azeris have. That is not
an excuse for it, but that is putting it in perspective.
And we should not be singling out Azerbaijan. If we are
going to have a solid commitment on human rights, which I
believe in, we have to make sure that the people in the
Azerbaijani Government know that they are not being singled out
with a double-standard.
And so, what about Armenia? It is my understanding that
that is still a very repressive government in Armenia. How
would you compare the human rights in Azerbaijan with Armenia?
Anyone want to jump into that?
Ambassador Kauzlarich. I have a little problem in
comparing, you know, what about some other country. I mean, you
can say that there are more political prisoners in Azerbaijan
than there are in Russia and Belarus together.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. But the reason that comparison is
made is because, without doing it, comparing it to its
neighbors, it is automatically being compared to western Europe
and the United States. I mean, automatically, that is our
standard. And that may not be fair, unless we are willing to
make sure that what we are demanding is of each and every one
of those countries in the neighborhood.
Ambassador Kauzlarich. And are we comparing it in terms of
numbers of political prisoners, in numbers of opposition
newspapers? I mean, these kinds of comparisons, there is not a
recognized factor.
Mr. Rohrabacher. There is not just one factor. Yes, there
is a bunch of factors that play into that.
Did you want to jump into that?
Ms. Altstadt. Azerbaijan did join the Council of Europe and
has been a signatory to other organizations which entailed that
it commit itself to upholding human rights and democratization.
And Iran, for example, has not done that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Of course.
Ms. Altstadt. And so, it is important to note that
Azerbaijan made these commitments and has not fulfilled them.
That is at the most basic level.
Mr. Rohrabacher. It is not really better to have a country
that just thumbs their nose at anything in the West saying that
we don't even respect your basic values that you're trying to
push versus another country that says, well, we really believe
in those, but, then, they fall far short of reaching the
standard. Now those are the two things we face.
Ms. Altstadt. That assumes that their signing it says that
they are committed to those rights. I don't think we are seeing
that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Well, I honestly believe we need to
make sure human rights is a major part of our policy, but we
have to make sure that governments like Azerbaijan, which have
not reached that stage, don't think that we are singling them
out because we don't like them for one reason or our Government
is being manipulated by somebody who doesn't like them.
About the OSCE, has Azerbaijan agreed or has there been an
agreement with Azerbaijan with the OSCE about solving the
Nagorno-Karabakh dispute? Have they agreed to allow the OSCE to
try to find a solution? And has Armenia done that?
Mr. Ambassador?
Ambassador Kauzlarich. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the OSCE Minsk
Group process, not to be confused with the one we are writing
to Ukraine, has been in place for several decades. The United
States, France, and Russia are co-chairs as mediators. And I
think it is a misunderstanding that sometimes both Armenia and
Azerbaijan engage in, as if the Minsk Group itself or the
mediators are going to provide a solution. It is really they
are providing the mechanism where Azerbaijan and Armenia can
engage together in trying to find a peaceful solution to the
conflict.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But both have agreed to that?
Ambassador Kauzlarich. Both have agreed to the process, but
both have also agreed not to really made the political
commitment necessary to solve the N-K problem. And that is why
there is an impasse today. Neither Baku nor Yerevan have made
the kind of commitment to solve the problem.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I have used up my time.
Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. Thank you.
So, we have various diplomats on the ground, as you once
were, Mr. Ambassador. They have a wide variety of issues
because of what they are focusing on today. We just had a
newly-appointed, a newly-confirmed Ambassador last week who
should arrive in Baku very shortly.
I will start with asking all of you, what would you say our
Embassy needs to do on the ground to help (a) improve the
relationship and move things forward, as well as help and move
things forward on the human rights front? Because the other
concern is, how do the regional dynamics help or hurt the
democratic principles of Azerbaijan, as indicated? You know, I
don't know whether there has been some influence because of
what has taken place in the Ukraine, for example. Does that
play a role in it or not? What effect do Azerbaijan's
calculations in balancing their positions because of their
geographic proximity to Iran and Russian--how do these things
play?
Let's start with you, Ambassador.
Ambassador Kauzlarich. Well, I am not going to say what the
new Ambassador should do. [Laughter.]
But I think this tripod that Dr. Cornell described,
whatever your judgment is on the effectiveness, has to be in
place for U.S. and Azerbaijani relations to go forward. What
makes it so difficult for Ambassador Cekuta going in is that,
unlike when I went to Azerbaijan, he is facing a less-favorable
leadership toward strengthening U.S.-Azerbaijani relations.
This Ramiz Mehtiyev piece was very telling in rejecting a lot
of the values that President Aliyev has said that he endorsed.
So, we are really in a very, very difficult place.
And the regional balance question is not going away. I
think they look at Ukraine and say, ``Well, you are trying to
convince the Russians to give Ukraine back to--or give Crimea
back to Ukraine. Why aren't you forcing Armenia to give
Nagorno-Karabakh back to Azerbaijan?'' So, there is an issue,
when they look at the world, of a double-standard.
But, you know, the question of balance is going to be
there, whatever the leadership, whatever the attitude toward
human rights. It is just the neighborhood.
Mr. Meeks. Dr. Cornell, anything else?
Mr. Cornell. Yes, thank you for your question.
I would say, first of all, that the problem is not with the
Embassy, but with the fact that they don't have the backing
from the higher levels of the U.S. Government in making this
tripod work. The Embassy cannot do that by itself. The Embassy
is not even involved in the talks over Nagorno-Karabakh with
Armenia. That is a separate office in the U.S. Government,
which is held by a very distinguished but mid-career diplomat.
This is not a conflict that has been given the attention it
deserves from the higher levels of the U.S. Government,
especially if we know that the Russians are constantly involved
and really don't want a solution to this.
What I think the Embassy could do is to be more active in
understanding the intra-regime politics of Azerbaijan. Dr.
Altstadt referred to a pro-Moscow faction in ascendency. There
are various parts of the Azerbaijani Government that have
different ideas about where the country should go.
The parts of the government, and not only government, but
business and society, that don't necessarily want a western
orientation very often are the ones that are involved in acts
that we disagree with and that are not in conformity with
Azerbaijan's international commitments. And sometimes it is
done for exactly that purpose. So, we have to know why
something is being done if we are going to find a way to
respond to it.
Mr. Meeks. Go ahead, Dr. Altstadt. Go ahead.
Ms. Altstadt. Thank you.
I have to say that in the many years I have seen the U.S.
Embassy in Baku function, I have continually been impressed by
the way that they have paid attention to what is going on
inside Azerbaijan, the degree to which Ambassadors have tried
to learn and use the Azerbaijani language publicly. And in
terms of supporting human rights, many of the Ambassadors have
actually visited the families of journalists that are being
held in prison, and so on. And so, they have many, many tasks
to perform, but I have been really impressed with how well they
have functioned in the meantime.
And I think that it is very important to note that, not
only the government, but the public in Azerbaijan is extremely
sensitive to the way the United States treats Azerbaijan and
the other governments in the region and elsewhere. I think the
reason for that is that they hold the United States to a higher
standard. They expect more of us, and I think that is
appropriate and we should live up to that.
Mr. Meeks. Well, my other question was going to back to Dr.
Altstadt also, but I am going to be brief because I know we
have got votes coming up.
Because I was wondering about it. I mean, should I take
anything out of that 2 weeks ago the Azerbaijani delegation to
the Parliamentarian Assembly of the Council of Europe, of
course, spoke out for Russia and voted against sanctions for
Russia. So, it does seem that Russia and Azerbaijan have
exchanged a high-level delegation and launched out to venture
to explore oil and gas.
Now is that something that we should look at as far
strained relations with the United States? Should that be
something that we are concerned with? Or is that just being
strategically trying to figure out where that balance is
because they live next to this other big country?
Ms. Altstadt. I believe in the case of Ilham Aliyev, like
with his father Heydar Aliyev, whom he succeeded, that they are
striving to find a balance. And at some point they need to do
more things to accommodate Russian interests. And so, I find it
worrying, on the one hand, that they are doing that. They also
applied to join, as observers, to join the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization. But, in the larger picture, I think it is part of
a tilt toward Russia, but I don't see it as a radical change in
direction over the long run.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
Mr. Brooks?
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have been looking at on the internet stats about
Azerbaijan. As I understand it, it is roughly a 9.4 million
population, of which 95 percent is Islam of one kind or
another. As I also understand, its leaders are elected. Is that
correct?
Ms. Altstadt. There are elections. [Laughter.]
Mr. Brooks. There are elections? Okay. The way you answered
that, what do you mean by ``There are elections.''? Are you
telling me that there is a lot of fraud or that there is no
competition or there is not more than one party? What do you
mean?
Ms. Altstadt. All of the international observers that have
observed Azerbaijani elections have declared them to be not
free and fair, for all of the reasons you suggested: The runup
to the election, restrictions on opposition parties, carousel
voting, and ballot stuffing during the polling itself,
falsifications of every kind.
Mr. Brooks. Is Azerbaijan now a threat to any other nation?
Please.
Ambassador Kauzlarich. Because of this unresolved conflict
regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh region, there is the great
threat of a military conflict resuming again with Armenia.
Mr. Brooks. When was the last time there was a military
conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan?
Ambassador Kauzlarich. There has been a ceasefire in effect
since 1994, Russian-imposed, by the way. But, in recent months,
there has been an increase in military action from both the
Armenian and the Azeri side, resulting in deaths of military
and civilians on both sides.
Mr. Brooks. And are there any other countries that are
threats to, in your judgment, Azerbaijan?
Ms. Altstadt. I think Russia is potentially a threat. I
think that in more subtle ways Iran is potentially a threat.
But I do want to emphasize, sir, that even though they are
a Muslim-majority country, it is highly-secular society, and it
has been secular because of indigenous secular movements since
the 19th century.
Mr. Brooks. What do you mean by the phrase ``highly-
secular''?
Ms. Altstadt. In other words, the degrees to which the
people adhere to Islam, the forms that it takes, and the public
practice, all are on a very wide range, as we might find in the
United States in terms of people who adhere to particular
religions, and some go to church every Sunday and some show up
faithfully on Christmas Eve. So, there are those kinds of
differences.
But the real, I think, politically-important question is
political Islam and whether there is a political use of Islam,
and that is much less. And even for those situations, the
degree to which it is radical is an even smaller amount. It is
very difficult to measure, however, because research on that
topic is, of course, very sensitive, and it is very difficult
for anyone to do.
Mr. Brooks. My next question may be a little bit difficult
for you. But I am from a community that has the highest number
of engineers per capita in the United States, a lot of
scientists, physicists, highly-educated people who like
numbers. And so, I am going to ask you to try to rank on a
scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is no substantive relationship to 10
is a great relationship. Now how would you rate today the
relations between America and Azerbaijan?
Dr. Altstadt, we will start with you first. On a 1-to-10
scale, give us a feel.
Ms. Altstadt. So, 1 is no meaningful relationship and 10--
--
Mr. Brooks. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Altstadt [continuing]. Is wonderful relationship?
Mr. Brooks. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Altstadt. For quality or quantity?
Mr. Brooks. Quality.
Ms. Altstadt. 7, 6.
Mr. Brooks. A 7. So, it is pretty good? Better than
average, in your judgment, the relations between America and
Azerbaijan? Five would be average.
Ms. Altstadt. Well, let me revise that and say 5.
Mr. Brooks. 5? Okay, about average.
Dr. Cornell?
Mr. Cornell. 5.
Ambassador Kauzlarich. 3\1/2\.
Mr. Cornell. 3\1/2\? Why do you say 3\1/2\ versus these
others who suggest that it is about a normal American versus
another country relationship?
Ambassador Kauzlarich. Because in my two decades'
experience there has been no senior Azerbaijani political
figure who has written a document that attacks the United
States and its leadership. That is not a sign along with
accusing us of being involved in fomenting yellow or color
revolutions.
Mr. Brooks. I caught on a comment by Dr. Cornell that
America's presence must once again be felt in the region. And
as we all know, America has limited resources. We have limited
money, limited military. We have engagements all over the
world, relationships all over the world.
Why should America divert our limited resources from other
hotspots in the world or from other places where we want to
have relationships to Azerbaijan? What is our national
interest?
Mr. Cornell. Let me answer that very briefly. I think the
first part of the answer is that this is not about money. This
is about political leadership and attention, which we used to
have, which we don't anymore.
The second part is that the reason is, as I described
initially, that you have a country and a region which is a
factor in both of the major issues facing the Transatlantic
Alliance, which is the expansionism of Russia and the Islamic
radicalism of the Middle East. And Azerbaijan and the whole
region of the Caucuses in Central Asia is a potential bulwark
against both of those.
I will end by saying that the experience of 9/11 showed
that cultivating relations with these countries became a
crucial asset in prosecuting the war in Afghanistan. Mr.
Chairman himself used the word ``irreplaceable'' for that, the
level of support, the air corridor through Azerbaijan, which
enabled the U.S. to deploy military resources in Central Asia
and Afghanistan.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Now we have a vote coming. It is my intent
to have the ranking member have his closing statement and,
then, the chairman--that's me--will have a closing statement.
Mr. Meeks. I just want to, you know, because I am trying to
be as balanced as we can, because the flip side, I had asked
the question about Russia.
Had we had more time, I wanted to ask a question about Iran
because the relations between Azerbaijan and Iran have been
tough also, and Islamic Republic, they have been capriciously
unhappy, I believe, with the secular Azerbaijan and have not
spared any effort to undermine its very foundations of
Azerbaijan society. And Azerbaijan's close ties with Israel--
they have close ties with Israel--and the West have been met
with hostility, too, by Iran.
So, as the administration talks to Iran over its nuclear
program, you know, if we had time, the question is, how does
this engagement influence regional dynamics in the South
Caucuses and, in particular, the Iranian policies vis-aa-vis
Azerbaijan?
Because what I really, if we had time to highlight it,
there is pressure. The reason I asked the Russian question is
because sometimes in the region, they are a big country in the
region, so they have got to figure out how to work with Russia
and not just say, ``We are not going to work with them at
all.''
On the other side they have got Iran who does not like
their relationship. So, they have got to figure out how to live
in that world.
So, Azerbaijan is kind of squeezed, you know, in the middle
there in trying to determine how they can survive in the middle
of these two and, yet, still be a great friend or, as you have
said, most of you, an average friend to the United States.
So, I conclude just by saying that we have got to work
together. It is important that we work together, that we
improve the relationship. And when you are friends and allies,
you know, I don't want folks to think that is when you just
say, ``Look,'' to your friend, ``I want to help you with
whatever deficiencies you have.'' Because I understand, from my
perspective, we in the United States still are trying to
improve also with reference to our human rights issues that we
still have in this country.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Meeks.
We will be going down to the Floor to demonstrate how
people with different views can work together.
Well, that was a joke, actually. [Laughter.]
With that said, I think that Azerbaijan is a very
significant country to the well-being of the United States and
the stability of the world. We wish them well. We think it
would be better for them and everybody if they would be, as I
say, a little less thin-skinned about criticism and wouldn't go
after people because they are criticizing. We recognize that in
America as something that helps us perfect ourselves, helps us
solve the problems by knowing about them.
But Azerbaijan, we have to make sure that we are not
singling out a friendly country which is surrounded by
basically countries that aren't necessarily friendly to our
interest and friendly to the United States, singling them out
to try to attack their flaws in a way that will weaken them in
relationship to the others in their neighborhood. This is
something that requires a great deal of soul-searching as to
where to draw the line.
We appreciate your guidance today from the witnesses on
helping us make that decision as to how we will draw that line
and set the policy that will stay true to our principles of
liberty and justice while still watching out for our national
interest to keep a stable part of the world right there.
Because if Azerbaijan would go the direction of Iran, and if
radical Islam would sweep into Central Asia, the world would
not be a decent place to live in 30 years from now or even 20
years from now.
We saw that happen when little nut-cases in Germany took
over the government and we ended up in a conflagration. Well,
radical Islam poses that same kind of--you know, these are
fanatic people, and if they get control of Central Asia as well
as perhaps the Middle East, it will be a totally different
world, and not a good world.
So, let's work with those people who will work with us.
Hopefully, we can nudge our friends to go in the right
direction.
So, thank you all for your advice on how to draw that line
and achieve that goal.
This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:03 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California, and chairman,
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California, and chairman,
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]