"If you don't know where you are going, every road will get you nowhere", Henry KissingerSo therefore, it is crucial to know the road you go, the obstacles you have, and more importantly: if the road is the right one. All these dictate which tools to utilize to make sure you choose the right path and complete it.
For these reasons, we would like to discuss the following:
- What are Azerbaijan's foreign policy priorities (it means not only the stated ones, but also those perceived by the people - and difference between the two);
- What are obstacles in a way of achieving those priorities (again both real and imagined).
7 comments:
Both questions are crucial but with pages to be answered. This kind of discussion format may be perfect model to cover some points and I am very thankful to owners of this blog. So let me try to suggest one of the possible foreign policy priorities that I think should be in the agenda of our diplomacy assuming that the goal is to develop long-term strategy rather than a fluctuating course.
Promotion of Democracy in the Region – this is not because I am a great lover of liberal democracy and my aim goes far beyond making our foreign policy strategy a romantic novel. Oppositely, by promoting democracy in our near abroad I mean a tangible policy aiming:
(1) Counteract external national security threats – what kind of regime in Iran is more predictable and safe for Azerbaijan? The same with Russia, Turkmenistan, Georgia and Armenia. Its influence to minimizing security dilemma in the region. Another related issue is Azerbaijani minorities in those countries and their capacity to affect to those countries decision making process.
(2) Become active partner of western institutions (governments, interest groups, policy organizations, investment circles etc.) in the region.
(3) Foster integration to European security and economic institutions (not just because it is interesting and fun to be in Europe but it is safe to be with / or in Europe rather than with unpredictable Russia and unreliable US).
(4) Support domestic economic, political, cultural (list can be extended to infinite) development of Azerbaijan (in constitution we have many articles related on building democratic state as our goal).
(5) And it is a progressive policy that is included foreign policy and national security doctrines of many other countries, may be even it is even included to our currently developing doctrines, who knows.
How to start? Of course I do not suggest blindly to interfere domestic issues of our neighbors and establish anti-Azerbaijan alliance. We can start with small and unnoticeable steps, for instance, establish kind of international university in Baku, the one with competitive western curriculum, methodology, faculty and provide scholarships, fellowships not only for our citizens but also for neighboring countries ones. We have finance for that, can invite experts to help us and education is very profitable business to sustain itself. No need too much elaborate on this issue, just think about ultimate goals and long-term results of educational programs funded by US government abroad including in Azerbaijan. Or Turkish Lyceums can be another example. This is just one of many possible steps.
When to start? Well, I do not want to politicize this issue, but no need to note on relation between domestic and foreign policy. If we agree with our government who claims that we are successfully building democracy in Azerbaijan, then we can start right now. If we have reservations, then again we need to start right now. And for me this is not a question of government, opposition or NGOs, this is a question of security and future of Azerbaijani nation and statehood.
Sadig
I would point out eight foreign policy priorities
Priority number one:
1) The foremost is the restoration of the country's territorial integrity and re-establishing sovereignty over Nagorno Karabakh. Cementing the permanent status of Nagorno Karabakh as an integral part of Azerbaijan in a legally binding international treaty. This is priority number one that goes above everything!
Continuing to play a balanced game in a multi-polar world without alienating any of the major international actors by approaching too close to any of them:
2) Euroatlantic and European integration – joining NATO and the EU as an ultimate goal of integration (Russia will be upset but eventually she will give in).
3) Strengthening political, economic and cultural ties with Russia – a country that has shared common fate and history with Azerbaijan for almost two centuries and which remains Azerbaijan's most influential neighbor.
4) Developing strategic partnership with the United States and closer cooperation in the international fight against terrorism and non-proliferation of WMD.
Focusing on the factor of growing number of Azeris living abroad:
5) More active involvement through international organizations and bilateral relations in the advocacy of fundamental human and minority rights of ethnic Azeris in Iran, Georgia, Iraq and Russia's Republic of Daghestan, by recognizing at the same time territorial integrity of these states.
6) Closer ties with growing Azeri diaspora (fellow Azeris mentioned in item 5 are not considered to be part of diaspora) and active involvement of diaspora organizations in the policy-making process in the historical homeland and the country of residence.
Finally,
7) Active participation in international and regional organizations.
8) Fostering efforts of the littoral states on defining the legal status of the Caspian Sea - a precondition for the rapid development of the region's vast hydrocarbon reserves.
Vugar Seidov
Budapest
Hi to everyone!
Just a couple of very brief points with regard to the previous comments.
IMHO, Azerbaijan foreign policy priorities are adequately reflected, overall, by Sadiq and Vugar.
Yet, several issues deserve special consideration.
Sadiq:
- While agreeing that democracy in the region would be good for us just like for anybody else, it needs to be noted that democratic reforms represent an issue of conscious choice on the national level and as such can not be forced upon anybody from the outside.
- Hence, our capacity to influence decision-making in any other country should be through positive example, and not othervise.
- Love the idea of a Western-style university in Baku. Diplomatic Academy is a good start. Any other ideas?
Vugar :
1). Restoration of territorial sovereignty is a must, no disagreement on that one! Yet, any suggestion of settling the NK status through a special international document would suggest that it is unique, while what we insist upon is that it is yet another case, to which experience gained by other states in terms of relations between an autonomy and central government can be fully applied. Hence, no need for an international document.
6). Azerbaijani Diaspora EVERYWHERE is the same for all practical purposes from the standpoint of the national interest of Azerbaijan. We do not see any reason for precluding our fellow-Azeris in neighboring countries from playing their positive role in promoting the cause of Azerbaijan.
Best from Tahir and Khazar
Dear friends,
The MFA web site shows the following foreign policy priorities for Azerbaijan, do you agree with them?
- Promotion of the establishment of pluralistic democracy based on market economy and the rule of law;
- Conduct of an independent foreign policy aimed at the soonest restoration of sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan over its territory;
- Elimination of threats and risks to the security, political independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan;
- Peaceful settlement of the conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan through negotiations within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group on the basis of the principles of the OSCE Lisbon Summit;
Elimination of the consequences of military aggression of Armenia against Azerbaijan;
- Development of good-neighbourly and mutually advantageous relations with neighbouring countries;
- Promotion of security and stability in the region;
Prevention of illegal arms and other transfers in the region;
Adherence to existing global non-proliferation regimes and establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Southern Caucasus;
Demilitarization of the Caspian Sea basin;
- Integration into European and Transatlantic security and cooperation structures, including NATO, EU, WEU, CE;
- Facilitation of the development of various sectors of the country's economy with due consideration of Azerbaijan's crucial geostrategic location at the crossroads between the East and West;
- Development of the Eurasian Transport Corridor of which Azerbaijan is a part.
Best, Tahir and Khazar
Salamlar,
Let me comment on some points:
Tahir, “democracy in the region would be good for us just like for anybody else”, your comment refers to “RESULT” and I share your vision. However, I think not only “result” or “end product” matters, but also the “PROCESS” it-self is important and even we cannot get credits from “outcome” now (and there is no guarantee that we will get it in the future too), we can still significantly benefit from the PROCESS (for instance, how "democracy priority" can affect negotiation with Armenia). Also to make it sure I would never-ever suggest “forcing upon anybody from the outside”, may be I was not that clear in my previous message. And I have great expectations from Academy of Diplomacy, it is very important for Azerbaijan.
Khazar, on your question “do you agree with MFA definition of FP priorities?” Well, of course all of them are important, but to be honest I think of them more in terms of “objectives” or short/medium term policy prescriptions, while priorities could be developed more broadly (but realistically), similar to goals with long term vision (and then relevant objectives can be developed to achieve those priorities). Another issue is that they are more “defensive” and address mostly “hard” security threats (which are reasonable in our current security environment), but still what about “promotion Azerbaijani culture and heritage abroad", we sometimes forget this kind of “unimportant” staff, but it matters and significantly if not left just on paper.
Vugar, I have serious reservations on “continuing playing balanced game”. Do you think (1) is it possible (in our particular case)? (2) Is it effective (matrix of 3Os "outcomes, outcomes and outcomes")? (3) Is it consistent with our long term goals and national interests? There is something called Europe and the other CIS (or “the rest”) and there is no hybrid one here. Depending on our interest and particular situation our diplomacy may require to talk about this “balanced game”, but just to talk (the rest also talks about balancing policy). I don’t think it should be our FP priority, sooner or later we have to make a choice and it is better to make it when we have a choice.
Thanks,
Sadig
Sadig: valid points. As a response:
1. To a certain degree i agree that priorities could have been elaborated more precisely, but it is important to keep them achievable; therefore, national interests, current environment, resources and other major factors need to be applied.
2. As far as defensive nature of the priorities are concerned, I would have rephrased it more as "responsive" vs. "proactive". I believe that the stated priorities do have some proactive substance, but there is one trick with "proactiveness" - it can be misinterpreted. Therefore, it needs to be very clearly self-limiting.
3. As to the "hard" security: it is true that priorities are overwhelmed with them. But "soft" security component is also present (e.g. democratic promotion, economic development). From another side, given our current security environment, we are sort of forced to look at "soft" security issues through the "hard" security prism.
4. "Promotion of Azerbaijani culture and heritage abroad" may be, indeed, a missing component, but it needs to be deeply thought out, because as underlined in point 2: it is better be self-limiting to avoid misinterpretation.
Dear Tahir and Khazar,
I am delighted to see that priorities outlined on the MFA's webpage mostly reflect public sentiments and views of independent experts and politicians who are not directly involved in the government. This proves that our foreign policy is popular and has public support.
However, there are several points that immediately draw one's attention.
- Prevention of illegal arms and other transfers in the region
- Demilitarization of the Caspian Sea basin.
It is hard to disagree with these items in principle and with the detrimental consequences of the arms race in the South Caucasus. Yet, it is not clear to me how our country is going to prevent illegal arms transfers in the region (particularly in Armenia) and achieve a demilitarized Caspian basin. The militarization of the region goes on, it has intensified over the last years and it has not shown any sign of reverse. My prediction is that with growing influence of Russia in Armenia (as well as Russian presence in breakaway Abkhazia and South Ossetia) and with the huge share of Rosoboronexport in Moscow's revenue-making foreign trade, the South Caucasus will continue to be the imminent destination of arms transfers and the modern weaponry purchases by the states. Russian military cooperation with Iran is yet another story that definitely affects military composition in the region, including the Caspian basin. In this respect, I am not quite sure how the nice MFA's declaration on prevention of arms transfers will be implemented in practice.
Sadiq, nice to meet you! And thank you for your comments! Very few politicians seriously perceive the CIS as an alternative to anything. It is a dead organization, many state leaders realize it, though not everybody says it openly. In his recent interview to Echo Moskvi, President Ilham Aliyev made a hint and it was immediately heard by the world. Let me put it this way: the existence of the CIS does not hurt anyone, but it does not prevent integration processes outside the CIS either. Ukraine and Georgia do not make secret of their intentions to join NATO and in the future the EU too, yet this does not prevent them staying in the CIS or being evicted from there by Russia. Let us be frank: the only practical incentive of being part of the CIS was preserving the visa-free movement between the countries and purchases of natural resources at lower rates. The rest was no different from relations with other non-CIS countries. And even these benefits are being slowly tightened, if not eliminated altogether (Russo-Georgian visa regulations, Turkmenistan requiring visa for all countries, gradual adjustment to the world-market prices for natural gas, etc.)
The CIS turns into a formal club where the state leaders meet to shake hands, drink tea and leave for their countries with no results. It will eventually cease to exist, and everyone realizes this. Therefore, the CIS can by no means serve a serious alternative to the EU, and the EU accession cannot cause any trouble in relations with any of the CIS member-state (other than positive envy).
Therefore, I would rather emphasize on the development of bilateral Russo-Azerbaijani relations than making wasteful efforts to revitalize the CIS. It is Russia that is another pole, not the CIS. And Russia is indeed a serious pole in this multi-polar world.
To develop the idea, my view is that it is quite possible to pursue Transatlantic and European integration while preserving at the same time and even developing mutually beneficial partnership with Russia. I realize that it is a difficult task, like being on a circus arena with angry lions – making the show to the enjoying spectators while keeping the lions from attacking you. That is why many things depend on the professionalism of our national diplomacy, which I am confident will do fine!
Best wishes,
Vugar
Post a Comment