Where is the US President going?

On October 21, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev met with Assistant to the US President for Europe Michael Carpenter. Carpenter handed Aliyev a letter from US President Joe Biden and confirmed Washington’s support for the speedy signing of a peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Biden’s message certainly deserves attention, so it is necessary to carefully study its contents. Despite the seemingly positive tone of the letter, there are signs of potential manipulation regarding the peace process between Baku and Yerevan. A detailed analysis follows.

“I am glad to see that your country and Armenia have made steady progress towards a peace agreement that normalizes relations between your two countries. I want to assure you that the United States is committed to supporting a lasting and honorable peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia. An Armenia that will finally put an end to the centuries-old conflict,” said the American president. address begins on a solemn and uplifting note.

At first glance, these phrases seem harmless; however, some details point to a less than favorable narrative not only for Azerbaijan, but also for the emerging world.

First, Americans have repeatedly used the term “decent peace.” In the context of previous usages, it can be concluded that “worthy” in the American sense implies a peace beneficial to the Armenians. Moreover, describing this conflict as a “centuries-old conflict” is very awkward. It can hardly be considered a century-old conflict, since the first armed clashes between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in Karabakh and Western Azerbaijan occurred in the early 20th century. It is important to note that the cause-and-effect relationships of this conflict are clear – it arose solely as a result of the expansionist ideology propagated by the Armenians. By calling this conflict centuries-old, the American president seems to attribute to it an excessive level of complexity that simply does not exist.

Overall, these details do not inspire confidence in the impartiality of the American side, especially in light of the efforts of the Armenians and their supporters to create an artificial narrative regarding the “rights of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh.”

“The peace agreement will not only secure Azerbaijan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, it will transform the entire region, paving the way for increased trade, investment and connections between Europe and Central Asia,” Biden continued.

One cannot argue with this statement here, and it is even commendable that the American president directly mentions “the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.” However, the intuition of the Azerbaijani reader, formed by bitter experience, immediately foresees some kind of catch. And, of course, it won’t keep you waiting long.

“As the world’s attention turns to Baku at COP29, you have a unique opportunity to demonstrate your commitment to peace in front of a global audience. As you know, finalizing the remaining articles of the peace agreement will require creativity and compromise on all sides. But I am confident that you will continue to move towards this moment, and I urge you to finalize the agreement this year,” the White House occupant moves on to the main topic.

This is perhaps the most significant and manipulative part of his message. Unfortunately, its significance lies precisely in its manipulation. The White House is trying to portray the situation as if Azerbaijan received approval from the international community, particularly the United States, to host the conference in exchange for a commitment to quickly sign a peace agreement with Armenia. In fact, it is well known that Armenia’s agreement to host COP29 in Baku was made possible thanks to bilateral, direct contacts between Azerbaijan and Armenia, without the participation of the United States or any other parties. During these discussions, it is worth noting that Azerbaijan, as a gesture of goodwill, supported Armenia’s candidacy from the Eastern European Group for membership in the Bureau of the COP.

The next question is: what kind of creativity and compromise is the American leader advocating? Obviously, this implies turning a blind eye to the territorial claims against Azerbaijan enshrined in the Armenian constitution, which Baku calls the main obstacle to peace.

Besides, what is the urgency? Why, four years after the 44-day war and a year after Azerbaijan fully restored its sovereignty, is Washington suddenly worried about achieving peace? There is little evidence that American leaders encouraged Armenia to demonstrate “creativity” during its thirty long years of occupation of Azerbaijani territories.

“I want you to know that I am committed to supporting this cause. My administration is ready to take bold initiatives that will help pave the way to peace. I have asked my senior director for Europe, Michael Carpenter, to brief you on some of the steps we would be willing to take and also to get your feedback on the negotiations with Armenia,” Biden further stated.

It is certainly interesting to think about what these “bold initiatives” might entail. Instead of being dismissive, it is important to refrain from criticizing what has not yet been seen – these initiatives may, contrary to the tone of the letter, actually be aimed at steering Armenia away from the madness of revanchism. In this regard, it remains to be seen what will happen next.

“I hope you will use this opportunity to chart a new course for the region, one based on shared prosperity and pursuit of the common good,” Biden concluded his message.

Once again, there is a clear attempt at manipulation – placing the burden of a “new course” for the region and “shared prosperity” on Baku. There is a temptation to answer the Americans in their characteristic straightforward manner: “Wait, guys. We are not beholden to anyone.” Azerbaijan has no moral obligation to enter into any agreement with Armenia this year. However, it appears that Armenia is desperate for a peace agreement without any commitments.

Yerevan hopes to reap the benefits of Armenia’s integration into regional projects, including normalization with Turkey, while doing so at minimal cost – avoiding public backlash and refraining from abandoning fundamental pillars of Armenian identity, such as expanding “living space.”

The Democratic administration in Washington is satisfying Yerevan’s desire for a peace agreement. This is partly due to US geopolitical interests, which do not include a strong, sovereign Azerbaijan. However, more importantly, it is motivated by electoral interests: by helping Armenia sign a peace agreement “at minimal cost,” Democrats are securing votes for the Armenian diaspora.

To avoid being too overt on the matter, Biden gave the deadline as “the end of the year” rather than the start of COP29, which almost coincides with the Nov. 5 election date. Previously, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said that the United States had never linked a potential peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia with COP29. However, everything indicates that the White House is pinning its hopes on this date. Apparently, they expect that Baku will at least express its readiness to sign a specific document by the desired date – November 5.

It is worth emphasizing once again that Baku will continue to prioritize its national interests. Azerbaijan has already demonstrated its ability to withstand ultimatums and pressure from major powers. However, the country remains open to dialogue and is willing to explore viable options for cooperation and progress toward peace if those options are in line with its national interests. The success of Special Assistant Carpenter’s mission will depend on whether the proposals he presents from the United States truly respect Azerbaijan’s sovereignty, not only in words, but also in concrete actions.