News.Az interviews Javid J. Huseynov, Ph.D., General Director of Azerbaijani-American Council (AAC) and the co-founder of the Pax Turcica Institute (PTI).
What do you think of the recent law criminalizing the denial of so-called "Armenian genocide", which passed the lower house of French National Assembly?
The adoption of the law by 50 out of 577 deputies constitutes an unlawful attack on the freedom of speech. The World War I era atrocities in Eastern Anatolia were never tried under any legitimate international tribunal. No judgment was ever issued to describe these events as a genocide per the relevant 1948 United Nations' Convention. This is not the case with the Holocaust and Rwanda Genocide, the two cases identified in France as the crimes against humanity. Both crimes were determined by international courts to constitute the acts of genocide before France recognized them so. Thus, in the case of the so-called "Armenian genocide", French legislators would essentially impose the definition of genocide and criminalize its denial by circumventing a proper international legal process.
What should be Azerbaijan's reaction if the law is adopted?
Azerbaijan would have to react in a unified front with Turkey, and not only due to fraternal bonds. Ever since October 2009, when Turkey and Armenia signed protocols to restore bilateral relations, there developed two school of thought with regards to reconciliation. The first approach, advocated by the US, EU and Armenia, seeks to separate Turkish-Armenian rapprochement from the resolution of Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The second school of thought, advocated by Azerbaijan and Turkey, views the two issues as inseparable. As an ardent supporter of the second approach, Azerbaijan would have to take the most stern position against France on the new law.
More specifically, would this affect France's role as a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution?
Based on the logic I just described above, if the law is adopted, Azerbaijan would have to question France's position as the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair country. That is, since Azerbaijan views the Turkish-Armenian issue as a part of a broader reconciliation process, after the passage of the law, France would become a non-neutral party in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict resolution. Not to mention that France has already been a non-neutral arbiter ever since adopting the 2006 law recognizing the World War I atrocities in Eastern Anatolia as "Armenian genocide".
Recently, the Armenian news agencies, citing the Armenian National Committee of America, announced that the US Congress allocated $40 million in foreign aid to Armenia and maintained the aid to Nagorno-Karabakh at $2 million.
I would like to bring clarification in regards to US assistance to the occupied Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, especially in light of misinformation distributed recently by Armenian agencies. On December 17, 2011, the US Senate approved FY 2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Conference Report on HR 2055), including the FY 2012 State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs (SFOPS) Appropriations Bill (http://appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.view&id=c77b528b-623c-405f-8b54-55f076cf4605). Unless otherwise specifically amended (to my knowledge, it was not), the approved legislation is based on July 26th SFOPS draft by the House Subcommittee (http://appropriations.house.gov/UploadedFiles/FY12-SFOPS-07-25_xml.pdf). The only place, where Nagorno-Karabakh is mentioned in that document is: "That funds made available for the Southern Caucasus region may be used for confidence-building measures and other activities in furtherance of the peaceful resolution of conflicts, including in Nagorno-Karabakh."
Furthermore, the amounts of US aid approved for Armenia and Azerbaijan are based on the request and justification by the Department of State (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/156214.pdf ), which, unless otherwise amended, shows the aid of $40 million to Armenia (as opposed to $41 million allocated in FY 2011) and $16.6 million to Azerbaijan (as opposed to $22 million allocated in FY 2011). Again no specific aid amounts to Nagorno-Karabakh are indicated in these reports either.
Therefore, unlike suggested by some Armenian agencies, there is no $2 million in US aid to Nagorno-Karabakh allegedly being maintained, there was no specific aid amount allocation for Nagorno-Karabakh in the final FY2012 Appropriations. US legislators' realization that allocation of direct US aid to Nagorno-Karabakh is a waste of American taxpayer dollars in the times of economic peril is a first major success for Azerbaijani- and Turkic-American communities. Through the Pax Turcica Capwiz legislative and media campaigns and Congressional testimonies, they remained at the forefront of opposition to any direct US aid to the puppet regime on the occupied Azerbaijani territories. The Pax Turcica letters raising concern about the US aid to Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh were also published in the local newspapers in the states of Washington and Iowa.
As you know Ambassador Bryza's term expires at the end of this year without the confirmation from the US Senate. How do you think this would affect US-Azerbaijani relations?
As I mentioned in one of my interviews last year, the US foreign policy is defined in Washington and not in Baku. Therefore, the personality of US Ambassador serving in Azerbaijan is of little relevance to the conduct of that policy. Unfortunately, this was not well understood by Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA), both of which acted to please ethnocentric Armenian-American special interest by blocking Mr. Bryza's confirmation in the Senate. From the rhetoric used by Senator Menendez on the issue, it is clear that the Turkish ethnicity of Matthew Bryza's wife was a consideration in his blocking decision.
The departure of Ambassador Bryza would negatively affect US-Azerbaijani relations because it is influenced by Armenian-American special interest. It clearly demonstrates that US foreign policy towards Azerbaijan and the region is not conducted independently, but biased under pressure of an antagonistic ethnic lobby. This certainly stains the US image as an impartial arbiter in resolution of regional conflicts.
The Pyrrhic victory by Armenian-American lobby on Bryza confirmation case may also have a boomerang effect. It will now become a priority for Azerbaijani and Turkish advocacy groups to question US ambassadorial nominees to Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey on issues of interest to Azerbaijani- and Turkish-Americans. For example, the nominated US diplomats would have to be questioned about their views on Azerbaijani Genocide, Turkish suffering during World War I, the 1992 Khojaly Massacre, unfair allocation of US aid to the South Caucasus, and other issues of concern.
This month, the US Congress also adopted House Resolution 306 demanding Turkey to protect its Christian heritage and to return confiscated church property. What is the position of Azerbaijani-Americans?
Along with four other anti-Turkish resolutions introduced in US Congress this year, H.Res. 306 is yet another assault of ethnic special interest groups against Turkey. This resolution is an unhealthy attempt to accuse Turkey of religious discrimination, while numerous US and European reports uphold the freedom of religion in Turkey. If Congress had freedom of faith in mind while passing H.Res. 306, then why not ask Armenia, to restore Azerbaijani mosques in Yerevan or to stop erasing Muslim heritage on its territory? How about questioning why Athens remains the only European capital without a single mosque?
But most importantly, H.Res. 306, introduced by Republican Congressman Ed Royce of California, is a severe insult to the US Constitution. The establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits any federal or state government from preference to any particular religion, including Christian. Meanwhile, the US Congress passes a law asking the US government to demand a privileged treatment of Christian religion in Turkey.
Azerbaijani-Americans joined their Turkish counter parts in the Pax Turcica actions against H.Res. 306 throughout the year. Pax Turcica letters denouncing this resolution were published by the Providence Journal-Bulletin (Rhode-Island), Staten Island Advance (New York), Sun Herald (Mississippi) and most recently by prominent St. Louis Post-Dispatch (http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letters-to-the-editor/resolution-on-turkey-distorts-the-facts/article_4289fbfa-25ad-11e1-91d6-0019bb30f31a.html) and by The Troy Record (New York). Our objective is to tell American voters how US foreign policy and its image is being tarnished by a limited ethnic interest through Congressional lobbying. This is certainly a major concern that should be brought to attention in the upcoming elections.
F.H.
News.Az