When it comes to Eurasia’s South Caucasus region, the _expression_ “to the victor belong the spoils” seemingly does not apply in foreign policy circles.
Today, the victor in Karabakh overwhelmingly receives condemnation, including from the U.S. government and California lawmakers.
Azerbaijan’s September victory in Karabakh — completing the liberation of formerly Armenia-occupied territories that began with Armenia’s surrender in the nations’ 44-day war in 2020 — is persistently met with accusations of “forcible displacement,” “ethnic cleansing,” and even “genocide.” Commentators lament how Karabakh’s “fight for independence” has ended.
The Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, which includes California-based U.S. Reps. Adam Schiff and David Valadao, last month accused Azerbaijan of “implementing a genocidal campaign against the Armenian people of Nagorno-Karabakh.” Schiff later introduced a resolution to require the State Department to report on the human rights practices of Azerbaijan, repeating the accusation that the country is “actively engaged in ethnic cleansing or genocide.”
Yet as 100,000 Armenians recently departed the region, such claims are devoid of both historical context and present realities on the ground.
According to the U.N. Human Rights Council, Azerbaijan hosts more than 650,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs), largely resulting from Armenia’s three-decade-long occupation of Karabakh — which four U.N. Security Council resolutions repeatedly reaffirm is Azerbaijani territory. As the narrative of Armenian displacement dominates today’s headlines, these Azerbaijani refugees are continuously forgotten.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken, meanwhile, in a call with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan “reaffirmed U.S. support for Armenia’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity.” USAID Administrator Samantha Power has used the same language. This means that longstanding State Department policy, which explicitly “supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan” and “does not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent country,” is disregarded at Foggy Bottom.
These double standards on IDPs and territorial integrity reflect an American policy rooted in a spur-of-the-moment reaction to the current situation, ignoring more than 30 years of history in the region.
What occurred in Karabakh from the early 1990s until 2020? It was Azerbaijanis, in fact, who were killed en masse and displaced within their country’s internationally recognized border.
Armenia’s occupation was marked by not only neglect but intentional destruction of the area — which remains painfully visible today through looted homes, mosques (including those that were used to house livestock), and cemeteries, and what U.N. experts estimate to be more than 1 million explosive devices in the area. What had once been a lush green area with vineyards as well as thriving wheat and cotton production prior to the occupation was decimated, as springs were blocked to divert water for military purposes.
Subsequently, what occurred between Azerbaijan’s victories in 2020 and 2023? When Armenia’s military had several weeks to withdraw from Karabakh following their surrender in the 2020 war, they used the time to plant difficult-to-detect explosives such as remote-controlled and plastic mines, posing threats to Azerbaijan’s redevelopment of Karabakh and the return of Azerbaijani IDPs to peaceful life in their homes.
Armenia has used the Lachin road — the road connecting Armenia with Karabakh — to transport landmines and plant them in the territory of Azerbaijan. At the same time, Azerbaijan faced widespread accusations that it had closed the Lachin road, even while it kept the road open to Armenians for humanitarian purposes.
The current U.S. administration and California lawmakers, however, have echoed the Armenian perspective to the detriment of international law and American interests. In contrast to his supportive words for Pashinyan, Blinken asked Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev “to refrain from further hostilities in Nagorno-Karabakh and provide unhindered humanitarian access.”
Azerbaijan remains the key to U.S. national interests in the region as the administration navigates the complexities of policy toward Russia, China, and Iran. But Washington fails to give Baku the attention it deserves.
It must be asked: What is driving U.S. policy in the South Caucasus? Is it religion, given Armenia’s predominantly Christian population and Azerbaijan’s Muslim majority (though with strong interfaith and secular traditions)? Might it be partisan politics, shaped by the support Armenia receives from Congressional Democrats and its sizable diaspora in the blue state of California? And how does this skewed policy advance American and Californian interests?
It is incumbent upon U.S. and California leaders to understand that the world is watching their response in the South Caucasus. Regrettably, America’s allies and adversaries alike are witnessing a policy that practices double standards, lacks a moral compass, and fails to acknowledge decades of context in the region.
Americans are likely to be left with more questions than answers. Yet in the absence of a clear understanding of the administration’s motivation, the least they should expect of Washington is a balanced approach. Only then can the U.S. live up to its promise as a trustworthy broker of an enduring peace in the South Caucasus.
Jacob Kamaras is the editor and publisher of the San Diego Jewish World, the former editor-in-chief of the Jewish News Syndicate, and the founder of Stellar Jay Communications, a PR firm representing Azerbaijan.