Azeri experts say cancellation of Baku war games to damage ties with USA, NATO

Ayna, Baku
14 Sep 04

The cancellation of NATO war games scheduled to start in Baku on 14
September due to the refusal to allow Armenian military officers
entry to Baku could damage Azerbaijan’s relations with the USA,
political experts have told Azerbaijani daily Ayna. Independent
military expert Uzeyir Cafarov said that the incident was a serious
blow to the country’s image and would hamper Azerbaijan’s integration
into NATO. Political analyst Eldar Namazov held both the Azerbaijani
authorities and NATO responsible for the incident saying that all
disputable questions should have been resolved beforehand. The former
foreign minister, Tofiq Zulfuqarov, said that the cancellation of the
exercises was “a wrong decision” and NATO should have taken heed of the
position of the Azerbaijani public. The following is an excerpt from
C. Sumarinli’s report in Ayna on 14 September entitled “NATO exercises
in Baku cancelled” and subheaded “NATO leadership accuses Azerbaijan
of violating commitments”; subheadings have been inserted editorially:

The Cooperative Best Effort 2004 exercises within the framework of the
NATO Partnership for Peace programme, due to be officially opened in
Baku at 1800 [1100 gmt] today, were unexpectedly cancelled yesterday.

[Passage omitted: background]

Cancellation of NATO war games to damage Azerbaijan’s image

Independent military expert Uzeyir Cafarov believes that this incident
is a serious blow to Azerbaijan: “This incident is the first in the
history of the military exercises under NATO’s Partnership for Peace
programme. The cancellation of the exercises is a sign of serious
plans against Azerbaijan.”

Cafarov said that this incident would cost Azerbaijan dear: “I think
that we have come across a grave obstacle in Azerbaijan’s way to
integrate into NATO. In this direction, including in the resolution
of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, we shall witness western states’
political and other pressure on official Baku.

“As is known, NATO is planning to open its South Caucasus
representative office and the alliance’s secretary-general will
visit the South Caucasus states in November. I assume that when
deciding where to station NATO’s representative office, Georgia will
be given preference. We can say almost for sure that among the South
Caucasus states, NATO’s main partner Azerbaijan has yielded its place
to Georgia.”

The expert said that the cancellation of the exercises was a serious
blow to Azerbaijan’s image: “The attitude towards us will alter. Just
imagine that up to 1,000 servicemen from about 20 countries have come
to Baku. Now they are returning home frustrated.”

He thinks that Armenians and their supporters have a hand in this
incident: “We did not want Armenians to arrive in Baku. What did we
hope for and what have we got? We are now face to face with mighty
NATO. I think that Armenians did their best to provoke anti-Azerbaijani
moods in NATO and succeeded in this. Although Azerbaijan is the closest
partner of NATO, pro-Russian Armenia created a serious obstacle to it.”

…and ties with USA

The former foreign minister, Tofiq Zulfuqarov, thinks that NATO’s
biased decision was adopted without taking into consideration
the existing situation. He thinks that although the incident is
an undesirable one for our country, this decision will make think
those who sign agreements on hosting various international events
in Azerbaijan.

“Azerbaijan is a victim of aggression, our lands are under occupation
and we have hundreds of thousands of refugees. It is wrong not to
take heed of this. I think that the NATO secretary-general took a
wrong decision,” the pundit said.

Zulfuqarov thinks that Azerbaijan’s refusal to grant visas to the
Armenian officers is connected with the tense regional situation. “It
is natural that the Azerbaijani public protests against Armenians’
visit to Baku. Unlike others, I would not say that this was an
erroneous step. I think given the current situation, Azerbaijan will
gain certain positive dividends. This shows that Azerbaijan has a
principled position on the conflict. This position should be taken
into consideration in the future by NATO and other international
structures.”

However, the expert does not rule out that Azerbaijan’s relations
with NATO and the USA might be affected by the incident.

Azeri leadership “feeble-minded”

“The incident shows that the Azerbaijani leadership is feeble-minded,”
expert Zardust Alizada said. He thinks that the current rumpus has
nothing to do with patriotism and the fight for Karabakh: “However,
this incident will gravely damage Azerbaijan.”

He thinks that the possibility of Armenians coming would not have
affected the Karabakh problem: “Armenians could choose to come or not
to come. This would have had no impact on the Karabakh settlement. I
think that our public should not have kicked up fuss or take the
position of ‘hurrah patriots’. This is a stupid and limp-wristed
position. This reminds me of stupid slogans of 1988-89. Some ‘hurrah
patriots’ were shouting that Baku was a nice city if not for Armenians.

“Actually, it is important to deal with the army [building] in
earnest. And a defeatist general should not be appointed defence
minister. On the whole, I think that the government of Azerbaijan
is behind all the uproar. They imply fighting for Karabakh,” the
expert said.

Both Baku and NATO are to blame

However, pundit Eldar Namazov’s approach to the issue is
different. He thinks that the incident both damaged our country and
NATO’s authority. The Azerbaijani leadership and NATO’s responsible
structures are responsible for this development of events.

“I think the issue of Armenian officers’ participation in exercises
on our territory should have been resolved long before,” the expert
said. Although Namazov deems the country’s refusal to accept Armenian
citizens to be a belated step, he thinks that this will be a good
lesson to all international organizations in the future: “They will
know which commitments Azerbaijan can fulfil and which it cannot.”

“I think that every country has the right to protect its national
interests and should be able to say ‘no’. A yes-man or country becomes
a ‘wimp’ in the end,” the expert said, adding that he did not rule out
tension in Azerbaijani-US relations after this incident. However, he
thinks that sooner or later international structures and the whole of
the international community will understand the situation and reckon
with Azerbaijan’s position.

Namazov said that the emotional public reaction was fully
understandable. But in contrast to this, the Azerbaijani authorities,
especially the Foreign Ministry, should have acted cold-bloodedly
and pragmatically.

“The country’s leadership should have ironed out all disputable
issues at the preliminary stage of the Cooperative Best Effort 2004
exercises. Emotions are unavoidable if this did not take place and
people intervened in the situation to protest,” he said.