Armenia’s Foreign Policy Should Be Made in Yerevan—Not in Baku; The Future of Azerbaijan is Uncertain: Michael Rubin
Dr. Michael Rubin, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and Director of Policy Analysis at the Middle East forum believes that there are two types of American ambassadors.
During the interview with 168 Hours, he mentioned that one type of American ambassador wants to represent Washington, even if it means making the host nation upset, another type of Ambassador will try to ingratiate himself, especially with the dictatorships in the world, thinking that if they have a smooth relationship with the president of the country in which they’re serving, that means that they are a good ambassador.
“The U.S. ambassador in Turkey, Tom Barack is of the second type, and so effectively, when he is speaking in some of the anti-Armenian nonsense he spews likely comes directly from Erdogan himself. The good news is that when it comes to discussion of trade routes and so forth across Armenia. This is being discussed in the United States, in the White House, not in the State Department. And ultimately, Tom barrack has absolutely no say in this, and so I wouldn’t take this quite so seriously. Frankly, look, I’m no longer in the US government, but when the United States is talking about 100 year commitments, and we can’t even keep one year commitments. It would be dangerous to gamble on the willingness of the United States to fulfill those promises. But look the broader. The broadest issue is this, if you’re going to have a corridor, a cordon sanitaire, that is only for the use of Azerbaijan and Turkey and Armenians can’t use this road. That’s an indication Azerbaijan doesn’t want peace. Because if you do have peace and you open up the borders for free trade, then you don’t need any of these so called corridors. And therefore, perhaps the very formulation of this is wrong. So ultimately, what comes out of Tom barracks mouth is often nonsense, which is why during the first Trump administration, the US Department of Justice had investigated him. I’m not sure whether he actually has the backing of those in Washington,” he mentioned.
He said that Tom Barack is there because of his friendship with Trump: “The problem is, Tom Barrack can act more Turkish than the Turks themselves, and for that reason, he actually isn’t taken so seriously inside Washington anymore.”
Michael Rubin compares Ilham Aliev to Saddam Hussein and mentions their similarities.
“In the 1980s Saddam Hussein was depicted as a great moderate, and he was juxtaposed often with Ayatollah Khomeini inside the Islamic Republic of Iran. And these were in the first years after the Islamic Revolution. The Iraqi ambassador in Washington, Ambassador Hamdoon, was actually very, very skilled, and he would specifically cultivate the American Jewish community to show them that Iraq bore them no ill will. And he also, frankly and cynically thought that the Jewish community had more power than it did. And so you had this whole myth of Saddam Hussein’s moderation. And this culminated in then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld’s famous handshake when he was sent as an envoy of the Reagan administration to interact with Saddam Hussein. Now, ultimately Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship, his megalomania, his thirst for power, went to his head, and he became much more erratic, to the point that even his one-time friends could no longer ignore just how erratic Saddam Hussein had become. In many ways, Ilham Aliyev have followed the same trajectory they were long depicted as a moderate. And we can argue about whether that was fair or not, but what we can’t argue about is the oil money. The gas money of Azerbaijan was pumped into public relations, just like Nizar Hamdoon did inside Washington at the time. The more people actually listen to Ilham Aliyev, the more they realize that he’s just not right in the head anymore. He’s become crazy. He’s become unstable. You can’t really negotiate with someone who has become so unhinged, so erratic and so unstable,” Rubin explained.
As the last point of similarity he mentions their children. when you look at their children: “One of the big problems with Saddam Hussein, especially leading up to 2003 was this notion that when you looked at Saddam Hussein’s children, when you looked at Uday and Qusay, they were either unstable, mentally or incompetent. When you look at Ilham Aliyev statement, this might not be polite in diplomatic calls, but let’s face it: there’s something wrong with his son. There’s some rumors whether he’s autistic. There’s some rumors whether it’s a more serious mental condition. But the fact the matter is, there is no way that Ilham Aliyev son is going to succeed him. You talked about how Tom Barrack was saying that this is all “tribal”. The only place where tribalism really matters today is in Baku, in the family alliances between Ilham Aliev and his wife’s family and people. It’s an open question about how these family dynamics, these tribal dynamics, are going to play out, given that Ilham Aliev’s son isn’t going to be able to succeed, and frankly, his daughters are no better. Therefore, you’re going to have a complete vacuum of leadership, in which the various clans, the various families, the various tribes of Azerbaijan are going to fight it out. It’s going to it’s going to be ugly,” he said.
He noticed that the future of Azerbaijan is uncertain: “Every democrat wakes up every morning and knows when his term in office is over. Every dictator wakes up in the morning thinking that today could be his last. When Ilham Aliyev dies or is removed, there is going to be a vacuum. It therefore becomes so important for Nagorno Karabakh, for the Artsakh Republic, even if they don’t control territory anymore, to keep up the legitimacy of representation, so that when a vacuum develops again in Nagorno Karabakh, they are ready to move in and take back over. The fact of the matter is Ilham Aliyev, through the Minsk process, could have had a long term diplomatic deal over this. He chose military force. He chose unilateralism. The problem with unilateralism is it goes both ways, and so it’s important to keep the legitimacy of the Artsakh is going together. It’s not a threat to Armenia. And the one thing which I would hope that everyone in the Armenian government understands is when we are talking about the Artsakh, that does not cause war, that does not cause Azerbaijani aggression. The only person who causes Azerbaijani aggression is Ilham Aliyev himself. The victim blaming only plays into Ilham Aliyev hands.”
He believes that Armenia is the one country where everyone can come together and really negotiate: “Armenia really has that power. But ultimately, while people do want peace, peace can’t just be getting a signature on a piece of paper. to quote Neville Chamberlain, that doesn’t work in the long term. It’s actually got to be a piece that is based on reality, that is calibrated to reality, rather than wishful thinking. And so we need to start to address the problem is not in Armenia. We need to start addressing this revanchist, this irredentist, this denialist policy that is coming from Azerbaijan. At the same time, we need to understand that Turkey’s blockade of Armenia is absolutely illegal. It’s not only unjust, it’s illegal, because under the Treaty of Moscow and under the Treaty of Kars, Armenia has a right for its own corridor to the Black Sea. The fact that Turkey denies that isn’t something you negotiate over, because Turkey has already agreed to this in its treaty.”
He emphasized, that being quiet does not bring peace: “The fact of the matter is, Armenia can do something because Armenia has morality on its side. I think Armenians genuinely want peace, and I celebrate that. I don’t see the same thing in Azerbaijan. And as you know, I’ve been in Azerbaijan, but the international community would listen to the Armenians, would listen to the Armenian government and Armenian civil society, if they spoke up, especially because, and here is where Azerbaijan is its own worst enemy, just the ridiculousness of these Azerbaijani show trials. It brings back the worst memories of the Soviet Union, of what we might see in North Korea and so forth. It doesn’t actually reflect well on Azerbaijan and what Armenian diplomats should be pointing out is the purpose of this trial isn’t simply to bash Armenia. It’s certainly not sincere in terms of anything these elected representatives had done. Rather, it’s purely a domestic message on the part of Ilham Aliyev to his own population to fan the flames of anti-Armenian hatred, of armenophobia, and this isn’t the move of someone who is sincere about peace. So by actually talking up for the hostages, what you could actually do is put Azerbaijan on the defensive by calling out the cynicism and the falsehood of Ilham Aliyev actions.”
As a historian he noticed that Armenia is absolutely correct, Azerbaijan is wrong: “It was a very controversial decision years ago in order for Armenia not to recognize Artsakh, the Republic of Artsakh, because they didn’t want to provoke Azerbaijan when all Artsakh was took advantage of its own autonomy. By refusing to take responsibility and recognize Nagorno Karabakh, by saying them that they are the other, it raises questions then, how can you negotiate on their behalf? The only people who should be able to negotiate on behalf of the fate of Artsakh are the Artsakis themselves. They should be the ones who are front and center at the negotiating table, rather than the Republic of Armenia. And the worst thing that can happen is to try to delegitimize their ability to represent themselves here”
He mentioned: “The foreign policy of Armenia should be made in Yerevan. It shouldn’t be made in Baku.”
Michael Rubin took part in the Armenian Heritage Conference in Bern, Switzerland. After the conference, the Catholicos of All Armenians was criticized by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and his wife, who wrote a post on Facebook by asking questions: “What are you doing in Switzerland? Whom are you safely sending back to their homeland? Whom are you urgently freeing from captivity?”
Michael Rubin said if he had to answer to that questions, he would say: “You’re freeing from captivity, the hostages, which are being held illegally in Baku, and who are you returning to their homeland? You’re returning the Armenians, who were the indigenous community of Nagorno Karabakh, from the year 300 all the way up until 2023. It’s a simple answer, and it would surprise me if someone doesn’t understand, if someone has to ask that question, as if they don’t know the answer, if they want to play another political game. I don’t do domestic Armenian politics, so I’m going to stay out of it.”
By Razmik Martirosyan
