Section 907 of Freedom Support Act (or the Monumental Wisdom of US of A’s Foreign Policy)

Bu yazı 23/11/2023 tarihinde yayınlanmıştır.

*Mehmet Yahya ÇİÇEKLİ/ Araştırmacı-Yazar

[This short assay is a eulogy to the bliss in some aspects of United States foreign policy which incorporates a great ignorance about national and global interests of its own.]

Dissolution of Soviet Union was a great structural transformation in global scale that United States of America was deeply beware of. Policy-makers in Washington D.C. were keen on supporting and promoting a liberal and stable order among former Soviet states, which was a wise stance. Among 15 former Soviet States, almost all –including Russia– have received different kinds of aid from United States during 1990s, excluding one single country. That country was/is Azerbaijan. Many aspects of this country could/should have been very alluring to US, including but not limited to being a neighbor to Iran and therefore Middle East. The legal name and basis for this distinction is “Section 907 of Freedom Support Act of 1992”.

The reason behind this discriminative act was not mysterious, as it was written explicitly in the Section 907; “Government of Azerbaijan is (…) to cease all blockades and other offensive uses of force against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh”. At that time Azerbaijan was in fact trying to use force and blockade against Armenia and separatist armed forces in Karabakh, which were waging a war against Azerbaijan. In one perspective, this aggression against Azerbaijan was a war of secession, in another perspective it was a war of aggression. The front against Azerbaijan primarily consisted of armed forces of Armenia and ethnic Armenian separatist armed forces in Karabakh, and some Russian/former Soviet military units that were based in Armenia. Azerbaijan was trying to defend its borders against intrusion. Ethnic Azerbaijanis were massacred or displaced by the above-mentioned forces. Azerbaijan was not the aggressor but it was the victim. The real situation could have been verified soon by resolutions of United Nations (four resolutions of Security Council and another resolution of General Assembly, all had been adopted in 1993).

At this point, it’s imperative to reiterate that Armenia, not the Azerbaijan, was the aggressor and the perpetrator of ethnic cleansing and mass murders of civilians in the first Karabakh war.

UN Charter recognizes the inherent right of self-defense. In the light of aforementioned UN Resolutions, Section 907 of Freedom Support Act was admittedly pushing to fend off the self-defense right and will of Azerbaijan. This was a… curios move, in the framework of US foreign policy, which was elsewhere trying to facilitate peace and stability among post-Soviet and former Warsaw Pact countries. The rationale behind this discretion was actually domestic. There is a loud diaspora of ethnic Armenians in USA. Ethnic Armenians in USA constitute less than 1 percent of population, as in not even half a percent of population. Nevertheless, this population is concentrated in a single state, California. Which had been traditionally a battleground between Democrats and Republicans.

Aftermath

A question comes to mind. What has been the outcome of the US foreign policy bias favoring Armenia? During the 1990s, Armenia kept close ties with and became a military ally to new Russia, while Azerbaijan continued to distance itself from Soviet legacy and Russian Hegemony. As Azerbaijan tried to build stronger relations with the NATO and west, US has mostly dwindled or excluded itself from this initiative in the shadow of Section 907.

With the turn of millennium, Armenia became a formal fully-fledged military ally of Russia, hosting one of largest oversea military bases of Russia. During that time, Azerbaijan was removing the remaining Soviet military installations within its borders. After the 9/11 USA come to terms with rational foreign policy in Caucasus and amended the Section 907 to allow waivers by president.

The year 2023 brought an end the long lasting conflict in South Caucasus with Azerbaijan finally recovering all of Karabakh and surrounding regions and ending the 30 year long occupation. Armenian Diaspora did not welcome this breaking of irredentist dreams. Soon after, in November the same year, there comes a push from Senate to suspend the waivers for two years, in regard to the recent Azerbaijan victory. This decision is mostly symbolic, as average military aid from USA to Azerbaijan is less than 10 million dollars annually. As a side note, this balance includes the costs of American personnel attending the joint training missions. (Armenia, as a close ally of Russia, did not receive a comparable amount of military aid from USA during the last two decades, which had been an annoyance for Armenian Diaspora.)

Aforementioned decision of Senate is considered by Armenian diaspora as a positive but overdue move. Final cycle of the perpetual Section 907 arrives in where it has started. Azerbaijan shouldn’t have defended its territorial integrity, also known as “No UN-Charter Self-Defense Right for Azerbaijan. Because, Armenian Diaspora.” 

These events came in a period of historical tragicomedy, as NATO, led by US, endeavors to repel the invasion in Ukraine, and at the same US Senate moves to sanction the repelling of an invasion of another aggressor, which is, dramatically, an ally to the aggressor in Ukraine.

The apparent bigotry in between these two victims by the leading country of NATO is actually undermining the international political cohesion on Ukraine. “Your aggressor, my aggressor” differentiation and considering “my minority voters’ ethnic nationalistic desires” by some decision-makers in Washington D.C. loosens the faith and confidence in the current international system.

For an analyst, comprehending the wisdom of foreign policy stance over Section 907 of Freedom Support Act is a difficult task. But it’s easy to say that this initiative by US Senate clearly does not match with national interests of USA. On one hand, Armenia is one of the closest allies of Russia and supported by Iran in its aggression against Azerbaijan. On the other hand, Azerbaijan is a western oriented, secular Muslim country defending its internationally recognized borders. On a micro scale, Azerbaijan is a partner state of NATO and has close ties with allies of USA in and out of NATO, and on a macro scale the system which grants Azerbaijan the self-defense right is the UN, and it’s created and led by USA.

[As a final note, I would like to state that it’s hard to add some final words to this essay because a fine joke shouldn’t be outstretched and it’s not my duty to tell some country’s policy-makers to mind their own national interests.]