EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - Aliyev in Washington: No Change on Iran Position

EURASIA INSIGHT

ALIYEV IN WASHINGTON: NO CHANGE ON IRAN POSITION
4/28/06

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said April 28 that his three-day visit to Washington would play an "instrumental" role in promoting the democratization of the Caucasus nation. He added that the visit had not altered Baku’s position on the Iran crisis, appearing to reduce the White House’s room for geopolitical maneuver on the issue.

Aliyev met with top US officials on the final day of his Washington stay � President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Speaking to journalists, the Azerbaijani leader said his talks with Bush "covered all aspects of our bilateral relations." Bush said he emphasized three topics � energy, Iran and democratization. The US president added that global democratization efforts would benefit from Azerbaijan’s emergence as "a modern Muslim country that is able to provide for its citizens, that understands that democracy is the wave of the future."

The Azerbaijani leader said the trip would prove "instrumental in the future development of Azerbaijan as a modern, secular state." Aliyev went on to stress the stalemated Nagorno-Karabakh peace talks, expressing hope for a negotiated end to the conflict and adding that any settlement would have to preserve Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. "Armenian troops have to withdraw from occupied territories, Azerbaijani internally displaced persons have to return, and after that we can discuss the status of Nagorno-Karabakh," Aliyev said.

On Iran, the two presidents provided scant details on their discussions, suggesting that a significant geopolitical difference exists. Political analysts in Baku believed that US officials were eager to obtain Azerbaijani support for possible military strikes against Iran in order to prevent Iran from continuing with its nuclear research. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Baku has been opposed to the use of force against Iran, which is Azerbaijan’s southern neighbor. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Aliyev told Azerbaijani television April 28 that "our position has not changed � the problem should be resolved by diplomatic means."

Prior to the presidential meeting, Elmar Mamedyarov, Azerbaijan’s foreign minister, said the Bush-Aliyev discussions would aim to provide US officials with a clearer picture of Azerbaijani-Iranian relations. "Iran is our neighbour and many Azerbaijanis are living there. We carry cargo to Nakhchivan [an Azerbaijani exclave] via Iran. We supply Nakhchivan with Iranian gas. That is why we do not want a military solution to the Iranian problem," he told journalists on April 27. Mamedyarov also discouraged speculation that Aliyev was acting as a go-between in the US-Iranian dispute. He denied that Iran’s defense minister, Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar, who visited Baku on April 19, had asked Azerbaijani officials to pass along a message to the Bush administration.

Though military cooperation and US access to bases in Azerbaijan now seem out of the question, the United States may tighten intelligence gathering and sharing, suggested Kaan Nazli, a Europe and Eurasia analyst with the New York-based consulting firm, Eurasia Group. "The real issue is continuation of intelligence cooperation," Nazli said. That Aliyev met with John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, and that the Azerbaijani president’s entourage included National Security Minister Eldar Makhmudov lend credence to the idea that the two states explored ways to enhance intelligence cooperation.

Some analysts in Baku characterized the Washington visit as an all-around success for Aliyev. "His position in Azerbaijan is stable, and he did not have to ask any favors of the United States. Meanwhile, the United States needs Azerbaijani support in the Iran issue," said Ilgar Mammadov, an independence political analyst.

Opposition leaders in Baku, struggling to regain traction after parliamentary elections in late 2005, attempted to stir up the domestic political scene with unsubstantiated speculation that Aliyev cut a secret deal with Bush to make Azerbaijani bases available to US forces. A report posted April 27 on the Day.az web site quoted Isa Gambar, head of the anti-Aliyev Musavat Party, as saying, "now it is time for official recognition of the existence of such agreements between Azerbaijan and US."

Upon his return to Baku, experts expect Aliyev to follow up on his democratization rhetoric with reforms -- both substantive and symbolic � that are designed to improve Azerbaijan’s international image. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Arif Yunusov, head of the Conflict Prevention Department at the Baku-based Institute for Peace and Democracy, suggested that Aliyev might reopen channels of communication with his political opponents, adding that the opposition could very well win a few additional seats in repeat parliamentary elections, scheduled for May 13.

Mammadov said that Aliyev’s enhanced international stature could prompt him to undertake liberalizing economic and political changes. "There is no elections scheduled in the country soon and the opposition is weak, so the president may easily initiate some liberal steps and reforms," Mammadov said.

Concerning the Karabakh issue, Azerbaijani officials are now looking forward to the next meeting of the OSCE Minsk Group, which Mamedyarov, the foreign minister, indicated would convene May 2 in Moscow. The Minsk Group is charged with mediating peace talks, and Baku’s expectations are high that US negotiators will press for a settlement that conforms to Azerbaijan’s wishes. "They [US officials] need stability in the South Caucasus given the rise of tension over Iran," Yunusov said.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.