U.S. TROOPS IN AZERBAIJAN? MOSCOW SAYS NO, BUT BAKU SAYS MAYBE
By Taleh Ziyadov

Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
The Jamestown Foundation
Aug 15 2005

Monday, August 15, 2005

Reports of potential U.S. military bases in Azerbaijan have intensified
in the wake of another expected visit to Baku by the U.S. Secretary
of Defense. Donald H. Rumsfeld is expected to arrive in Baku sometime
this month, but this information has not yet been confirmed. While in
Azerbaijan, Rumsfeld would likely meet with local military officials
and possibly President Ilham Aliev himself.

In recent months, a number of high-ranking U.S. political figures
have visited Azerbaijan, including former secretary of state
Madeline Albright, Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs
Paula Dobriansky, as well as various diplomats and congressional
representatives. Dobriansky delivered a special invitation from U.S.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the Azerbaijani Foreign
Minister, Elmar Mammadyarov. Last week Mammadyarov flew to Washington
and held talks with Secretary Rice.

The State Department’s increasing attention to Azerbaijan is not
surprising, as the U.S. government has been actively trying to ensure
that the November parliamentary elections will be free and fair. In
addition, the Pentagon stepped up its contacts with the Azerbaijani
Army after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

But the growing U.S. presence in Azerbaijan has alarmed some officials
in the Azerbaijani government. Their argument for caution is based on
U.S. support for the “color revolutions” that toppled the governments
of Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan. The Azerbaijani government
has been suspicious of the activities of some U.S.-based NGOs that
allegedly sponsor Azerbaijani opposition parties.

Another worry is the consequences of a potential deployment of U.S.
troops in Azerbaijan. Until now, President Aliev, like his predecessor
and late father, Heidar Aliev, has called for a balanced foreign
policy, in which the interests of several powers are played against
each other, but relations with all remain non-conflictual. However,
the possibility of having U.S. bases or troops in Azerbaijan runs
counter to the interests of two other regional powers: Russia and
Iran. Giving preference to one power over the other would change the
geopolitical balance in the region, a development that the Azerbaijani
government sees as destabilizing.

Finding itself in a very uncomfortable situation, Baku has been trying
to maneuver within the limited space available. The non-aggression
pact with Iran signed in May 2005 seeks to mitigate potential damage
to Azerbaijani-Iranian relations should there be a U.S. deployment in
Azerbaijan. The pact prohibits the use of either country’s military
bases by a third country in order to attack the other.

More importantly, while official Baku has slowly distanced itself from
Washington, it has started to move closer to Moscow. Relations between
Azerbaijan and Russia have improved in recent years and increased
since the beginning of this year. Several high-ranking officials
from Russia, including former president Boris Yeltsin, have visited
Baku. In addition, Azerbaijani officials have also promoted increased
Russian involvement in the upcoming parliamentary elections. There
will be Russian exit polls along American exit polls on election day.

Several opposition newspapers have argued that the warming relations
between Baku and Moscow are a result of holdovers from the Soviet
government who continue to hold important positions in the Azerbaijani
government. These officials are the ones who feel the most insecure
about the growing U.S. presence in the South Caucasus and want to
secure their interests, both national and personal, playing Russia
against the United States.

Even the recent scandal in which the leader of an opposition youth
organization, Ruslan Bashirli, was caught on videotape receiving
a $2,000 donation from representatives of supposedly Georgian
and Armenian democratic movements reflected the concern over U.S.
involvement (see EDM, August 8). In the videotape, Bashirli claimed
that it was the United States — specifically the National Democratic
Institute (NDI, which Albright chairs) — that is preparing a
revolution in Azerbaijan. Some in Azerbaijan believe that the Russian
security services helped their Azerbaijani counterparts secretly
film this meeting, which was later used to discredit the leader of
the main opposition party, Ali Kerimli.

There are also reports that if Washington secures its main demands or
gets a green light for the deployment of American troops, it will not
support a color revolution in Azerbaijan. However, the Azerbaijani
government is not willing to say “yes” to the Pentagon, unless the
United States offers substantial help in solving the territorial
conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the Karabakh region.
Although the United States is one of the co-chairs in the OSCE’s Minsk
Group that mediates the conflict, many in Azerbaijan say that Russia
holds the keys to solving this long-standing conflict.

In any case, demands from the Pentagon and Rumsfeld have never
been easy to satisfy, nor easy to ignore. Azerbaijan’s involvement
in NATO’s Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) may help the
Azerbaijani government in reaching a compromise, at least for the
short-term. The parties could likely reach some sort of an agreement
that would allow for the short-term deployment of American troops in
Azerbaijan. However, the prospects for a permanent U.S. military base
in Azerbaijan remain questionable.

Whatever the outcome of Rumsfeld’s upcoming visit to Baku, the
geopolitical battle between the United States and Russia in the South
Caucasus and Azerbaijan’s struggle to accommodate both will continue
to intensify. The main question is whether or not the Azerbaijani
government will be able to balance the interests of both states
effectively or will simply favor one power over the other. The second
choice would involve some geopolitical risks and would have critical
consequences for the future of Azerbaijan.