US Armenian lobby and Section 907: source of instability in South Caucasus Expert opinions on Caliber.Az

A bipartisan bill, the ARMENIA Security Partnership Act, has been introduced in the U.S. Congress by co-chairs of the Congressional Armenian Caucus, Gus Bilirakis and Frank Pallone. The active promotion of the legislation is the result of efforts by the U.S.-based organisation Hay Dat.

According to the central office of Hay Dat, the aim of the bill is to prevent the U.S. President from bypassing the restrictions of Section 907 with respect to Azerbaijan until Baku takes clear and measurable steps to establish lasting peace with Armenia.

As noted by Aram Hamparian, Executive Director of Hay Dat’s Washington office, the bill “represents a common-sense approach to both checking Azerbaijani aggression and strengthening America’s partnership with Armenia.”

The document also provides for a review of U.S. security assistance to Armenia in the event that Azerbaijan refuses to meet the stipulated conditions.

In essence, this initiative undermines the results of U.S. President Donald Trump’s efforts, during whose presence on August 8 the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan initialled the text of a future peace agreement between the two countries.

This raises the question: are there any realistic chances for such a bill to be approved by Congress? After all, it appears that the goal of its authors and the diaspora supporting them is to prevent, by any means, the conclusion of a final peace agreement.

Caliber.Az asked well-known analysts to comment on this issue.

Farid Shafiyev, Director of the Center of Analysis of International Relations (AIR Center) and a diplomat, believes that there are no prospects for the adoption of this bill.

“On the other hand, a bill proposed with the aim of completely repealing Section 907 is also unlikely to advance easily. Nevertheless, there is hope that next year will bring clarity regarding the possibility of its full repeal. Most likely, this will be linked to developments in the Middle East and the South Caucasus.

A strong political decision and significant influence from the U.S. administration will be required—at least on members of the Republican Party—to secure their future support for the full repeal of this provision. And, without a doubt, it would be preferable to achieve this before the so-called midterm elections, expected in November 2026,” Shafiyev noted.

Tofig Abbasov, political scientist and Senior Advisor at the Baku International Center for Multiculturalism, believes it is important to remember how foreign Armenians—primarily their American structures such as Hay Dat, ANCA, and others—view the current Armenian administration led by Nikol Pashinyan, and whether they actually want Armenia to prosper.

“In reality, it turns out that they do not. They refer to Pashinyan exclusively as a ‘traitor,’ claiming that he allegedly backtracked by accepting a number of conditions from the Azerbaijani side. On the other hand, they attack him for refusing to pursue a policy of militarisation. And finally, they themselves seek to participate in the governance of Armenia.

The point is that the very concept of a ‘Real Armenia,’ authored by Nikol Pashinyan, aims precisely to free this troubled country from external encroachments and from the experiments that church circles and diaspora structures have been conducting for years.

“Even before Pashinyan realised the root of instability and the underlying causes of the crisis processes around and within Armenia, these forces had effectively created a conglomerate enabling the Armenian diaspora and church authorities to maintain their activity and influence. We are talking about the diaspora and the church having real tools to intervene in the governance of the Republic of Armenia. And this, undoubtedly, has led to the fact that foreign Armenians do not wish peace for their so-called historical homeland. We know perfectly well the reasons why they even call Armenia their ‘historical homeland.’

If the government of the first Azerbaijan Democratic Republic had not made the mistaken step of transferring lands to the Armenians and recognising their right to establish their own state, the situation in the region today could have been entirely different. But what’s done is done, and in the end, foreign Armenians turned the Republic of Armenia itself into a playground for experiments

We remember the early 1990s, when Armenian extremism and radicalism were at their peak. It was the diaspora circles that acted as the instigators of the war, deliberately pushing the situation so that there would be no stability in the Caucasus, and the two peoples would remain in a state of permanent confrontation.

That is why today we see American Armenians going to great lengths to cancel the concessions that Donald Trump allowed,” the analyst noted.

According to him, this is essentially an attempt to neutralise the bill introduced in Congress aiming at the complete repeal of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act.

“They want to maintain restrictions on state assistance to Azerbaijan—both military and financial. That is why they are currently restless.

I am convinced that key decisions should not be made in America or Europe—not where diaspora structures run rampant. Everything must be decided within the Republic of Armenia itself. And here, Nikol Pashinyan has serious advantages. He is obliged to see through what has been started to its logical conclusion: to remove the dirty hands of the diaspora and the church from the governance process, to concentrate power and management within the country, and to prevent other forces from claiming them.

The diaspora, of course, can provide assistance to Armenia. We know that this is practically the only country in the world that officially receives financial support from abroad, which is enshrined both in the constitution and in budgetary documents. But Pashinyan most likely understands: whoever pays the piper calls the tune. Therefore, such ‘guardianship’ must be eliminated, because in practice it is direct interference in the internal affairs of the republic.

Radical groups are fully aware that peace, stability, and calm are not part of their plans. They were the ones who, at the time, sent terrorists, supporters of separatist movements, and other destabilising elements to the Caucasus. And for Armenia to move toward a normal, predictable state and take its rightful place among stable countries, it is first necessary to get rid of all these ‘dirty hands’, which in practice act alongside the official authorities as organisers and inspirers of radical scenarios.

Therefore, Donald Trump’s position will be of great importance. The initiators of the new bill are effectively going against Washington’s policy. The White House is focused on achieving peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia through the signing of a peace agreement, the launch of the ‘Trump Route’, and giving the region a new development impulse.

This is precisely what clashes with the plans of radical diaspora elements. They need the Caucasus to remain in turmoil, with Armenia acting as a trigger for destabilisation, wars, and escalations. And I am confident that Trump will have no difficulty understanding why American Armenians are so zealously defending their alleged ‘rights’.

Thus, the bill introduced by Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna to fully repeal Section 907 has real chances of being adopted. In this case, the U.S. will no longer be an accomplice of the radical wing of Armenian movements, which prevents the Armenian people from independently determining their future, participating in regional stabilisation, preventing new wars, and forming a full dialogue between the two peoples,” Abbasov concluded.