Next week, Dmitry Medvedev travels to Japan for his first G-8 summit as president of Russia. But before that, he is on a three-day trip to Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. If the West hasn't taken note of that, it should -- Vladimir Putin and now Medvedev have neatly cemented strong relationships with the oil- and natural gas-rich Caspian countries of Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, nations that during the 1990s the U.S. sought to bring into the Western fold. These countries continue to be strategically important, both because of the tight energy supply, and because of the energy independence they can provide to Europe. In an email exchange, my friend Tom de Waal -- co-author of the classic Chechnya, and author of the trenchant Black Garden -- told me that in The Oil and the Glory I overplayed Azerbaijan's alienation from Russia. His argument was compelling, and I asked him to expand it into a guest column. The result follows.
By Tom de Waal
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev arrives in Baku today.
In the West, there is a widespread assumption that Azerbaijan is an ally, and in the same anti-Russian camp as Georgia. I think that is a misperception. Azerbaijan is now developing a foreign policy of “complementarity,” which used to be the aspiration of the Armenians – be on good terms with everybody and get the best out of everybody. The model here is Kazakhstan, rather than Georgia.
Actually this was always the case. I suspect the Azerbaijanis have always been good at delivering the message in Washington, “You are our main ally and friend” and then going to Moscow and repeating the same refrain. Heydar Aliyev, the first post-Soviet Azerbaijani president (and father of the current president), was careful to keep good relations with Russia; before he talked seriously to Western partners about the non-Russian Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline, he got a Russian oil pipeline in place – the so-called Early Oil line from Baku to Novorossiisk. Aliyev also wanted to give the Iranians a stake in the offshore Azerbaijani oil consortium, known as AIOC, but was of course over-ruled by the Americans. Aliyev kept his good contacts in Moscow, but was held back by Boris Yeltsin’s personal antipathy to him -- although he did successfully bury the hatchet with another Gorbachev-era reformer who had been his enemy in the Politburo, Eduard Shevardnadze.
Once Vladimir Putin came to power, Aliyev made it a strategic priority to rebuild relations with Russia. Aliyev was very successfully at charming the Putin Kremlin, and his daughter, Sevil, made a useful marriage with a well-connected Moscow Azerbaijani, Mahmud Mammadquliyev. The elite-level relationship has deepened under his son, Ilham Aliyev.
Medvedev, with his background as former chairman of Gazprom, the Russian natural gas giant, now speaks the same language of money and energy as the Azerbaijani elite. They must find it a relief not to have to bother with all that talk of democratization and human rights that enters conversations with Western politicians.
The Georgians enjoy the access they get in Washington but I wonder if they secretly envy the lobbying power in Russia of people like Vagit Alekperov, the Azerbaijani chairman of Lukoil, who have made sure that Azerbaijan doesn’t suffer the kind of boycotts, visa bans and border closures that the Georgians do.
The price for Azerbaijan is that it will not pursue NATO membership, which would alienate Russia, but I believe that is not a big priority for the country’s elite. The Azerbaijanis now feel secure enough because of their vast and growing oil wealth. Moreover, NATO standardization would also threaten to bring unwelcome transparency to the notoriously corrupt Azerbaijani armed forces.
This is not a love-match but a marriage of interests—as indeed is the Azerbaijani-U.S. relationship. Both Baku and Moscow are still capable of actions that hurt ordinary people:
In Azerbaijan, the authorities have needlessly banned the re-broadcasting of Russian television channels, barring Russian-speaking pensioners who cannot afford satellite television from their only form of entertainment; in Russia, the authorities have played to a xenophobic constituency by stopping Azeris from trading at markets. The newspaper commentariats in both countries continue to exchange hostile remarks, and men like former Azeri presidential adviser Vafa Guluzade continue to blame all of the country’s ills on the Russians.
But on an elite level, there are plenty of common interests. And consider also an opinion poll conducted by Azerbaijani political analyst Rasim Musabekov in Azerbaijan in February 2008.
Asked to name the three nations friendliest to Azerbaijan, 89% of Musabekov’s respondents unsurprisingly named Turkey. But Russia came in second place with a 20% vote of approval, well ahead of the United States, which was named by 5.7%, just behind Iran and on the same level as Ukraine.
This suggests that, on the street level, Russia and Russians remain popular with ordinary Azeris. They are still on the same wavelength in a way that Americans or Europeans will never be.
Labels: Aliyev, Azerbaijan, Baku, baku-ceyhan, Caspian, oil, oil pipeline
6 Comments:
Sir,
I have enjoyed reading your article. It undoubtedly contains many facts heretofore unknown to most readers of this esteemed blog. Oddly, it also omits some basic but important facts. These exclusions are lamentable both because they are only a Google search away and because they have led you to wrong conclusions.
I concur with your view that the Azeri political and business leaders are completely corrupt, undemocratic and care little about their own people. One would be justified to say that Azerbaijan is turning into a secular version of an oil-rich Arab sheikdom.
However, I beg to differ on your main assertion expressed in the headline. Facts indicate that Azerbaijan has been more like Georgia and less like Kazakhstan in its relations with the West. The country is a founding member of GUAM, a pro-Western grouping that tries to counter Russia's neoimperialist ambitions in the post-Soviet space. Baku also closely cooperates with the US and NATO on military issues and Azeri troops have been sent to Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. One can argue both Alievs have fully cooperated with the West on energy security: the BTC and the putative Trans-Caspian pipelines are two examples.
Karabakh, another surprise omission from your analysis, remains a crucial problem for both the Azeris and Armenians. Inclusion of this factor into your examination would have clarified many issues.
On Karabakh, the West took a "multivectored" stance. It declared the Armenian action an occupation and at the same time came out against Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan, rightly or wrongly, has felt it has been penalized.
Musabekov's poll only confirms that feeling. Turkey supported the Azeris while Russia managed to come across as seemingly neutral and the US came out against Azerbaijan.
The correct conclusion would be that both Alievs have skillfully distanced themselves from Russia and allied Azerbaijan with the West without paying the price, all the while running increasingly dictatorial policies at home. That is in stark contrast to Saakashvili who, while pursuing liberal policies at home, has often been too impetuous for his own good (and Georgia's) in his dealings with Russia. Moreover, his self-indulgence means democratic Georgia is not yet a foregone conclusion. The Caucasus remains a battleground of ideologies and writers like yourself serve the people there well by bringing the analysis of the issues to the attention of Western readers and policy makers. The value of such analysis will be even greater if it is done in a comprehensive fashion.
My point was a simple one – Azerbaijan aspires towards a balanced foreign policy and is not committed, as Georgia is, to one of Western integration. Energy independence and cooperation with the West – absolutely. Signing up to a Euro-Atlantic agenda – no thank you.
I think this is borne out by the fanfare given to Medvedev’s visit to Baku and the pledges of strategic partnership between Russia and Azerbaijan.
The Armenians tried for a similar balanced foreign policy but were too poor and isolated to have made it work. They too have always tried to balance their reliance on Moscow by maintaining good relations with Washington: they have a powerful lobby there, troops in Kosovo and Iraq and a good working relationship with NATO.
In Baku the emphasis is the other way round, but the message nowadays is “we are a partner, not a client, don’t lecture us on how to behave.” Note the angry reaction to Condoleeza Rice’s recent comments about democracy in the Caucasus. And wait to see the reactions after the October 15 presidential election in Azerbaijan. The CIS observer mission will rush out a warm statement of approval within hours, while the Americans and Europeans will issue their usual lukewarm and ambiguous verdict. For a regime which prizes political stability above all else, the Russian response will received very gratefully.
Karabakh is not very relevant here (if it was, believe me I would have mentioned it, having written a book on the subject…) In Azerbaijan Russia is perceived to have aided and armed the Armenians during the war, while the US took a neutral stance,and yet this is not reflected in Musabekov’s poll. It seems the Azerbaijani world-view is still shaped by the Soviet experience.
As for GUAM, I think it is a skin-deep organization and seems to be degenerating into GU. The Uzbeks have already left, Moldova has opted out of the last two summits and Azerbaijan’s commitment to it looks less than total. Georgia is now in a subservient relationship to Azerbaijan anyway. The balance is even shifting in the Azerbaijan-Turkey relationship, with some Turks complaining recently (rather quietly) that they feel bullied by Baku.
Tom, first off, thank you for writing Chechnya and Black Garden! Those two are must reads for anyone who's wants to understand the Caucasus.
What you say about Azerbaijan is quite depressing and I don't doubt you are right.
My question is: What's next? What's next for Aliev and the others who are running the country? Do they have a strategy for Azerbaijan, any kind of long-term plan? Or are they just happy to be rich and enjoy their expensive lifestyles as long as the petrodollars last? Like an Arab oil sheik, as a commenter said?
Thank you.
Hi Tom, what do you make of this?
Russia rekindles energy ties with Azerbaijan
By Oleg Shchedrov
BAKU, July 3 (Reuters) - Azerbaijan agreed on Thursday to discuss selling gas to Russia, a prospect that could undermine a Western-backed project to bypass Russia and ship fuel from the Caspian Sea region directly to Europe.
[...]
In a clear demonstration of close relations, the joint declaration signed by the two leaders contained an unusually strong support for the Azeri stance in Baku's long-running dispute with Moscow's ally Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh.
Aliyev described as "national goal No. 1" returning Karabakh, a territory internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan but controlled by Armenian separatists since 1990.
"The two sides underlined the importance of a speedy resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on the basis of respect for ... sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of a state's borders," the declaration said.
"We are grateful to Russia for this position," Aliyev said after talks with Medvedev.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7627998
Thanks, Tamaz and Onnik. My sense is that Azerbaijan at the moment is a mini-Russia, with the elite enjoying its newly found sense of importance in the world and living for today. Hence tensions with BP and the foreign oil firms who are talking about long-term investments and new deals, with the Azeris now saying out loud 'maybe we can get a better deal, you need us more than we need you'. But to me that points to the threat of a big hangover in about a decade's time, when the revenue curve starts to head downwards.
On Medvedev's visit, the language of the declaration was indeed strong on Azerbaijan's territorial integrity and that is partly a post-Kosovo phenomenon, partly about Medvedev's push to 'win back Azerbaijan' and move back into the Caspian. But the Americans are repeating the same message on territorial integrity at the moment. The devil is in the detail. Medvedev also said that any solution for NK has to be "mutually acceptable" while the Americans say that final status of NK will be subject to negotiations. In other words under the Document of Basic Principles, Azerbaijan will get its principle of sovereignty asserted but NK will get its de facto current status and carry on as it does now. Call it "constructive ambiguity." And to my mind that could be a positive way of squaring this particular circle.
Tom, thank you for your explanation! "Mini-Russia" is an excellent analogy that explains everything.
To be fair, Russians can say their rulers are not just living for the day but actually have proposed specific, long-term plans on how to fix education, health care, infrastructure and scientific R&D. Can the same be said of Aliev & Co.? OK, critics have said those Russian plans are poorly designed and implemented. But has the Azeri government proposed or implemented anything like those plans? Thank you.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home