US assumes world gendarme role Policing global dynamics

In the comments following the telephone conversation on June 20 between US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller noted the White House's emphasis on the “ongoing progress by Armenia and Azerbaijan toward a peace agreement and underscored the significance of concluding an agreement without delay.” Miller also highlighted Blinken's statement on the significance of the "bilateral relationship between the United States and Azerbaijan" and the Secretary of State's commitment to "helping make COP29 a success."

At the same time, the State Department spokesman said that Blinken emphasized Azerbaijan's compliance with " its international human rights obligations " and the prompt release “all those unjustly detained”. In light of the last passage, many observers immediately stated about the open interference of the United States in the internal affairs of Azerbaijan.

Indeed, it turns out to be very interesting. Not only is there a disregard for the Azerbaijani perspective, but also an absence of tolerance for any dissenting views toward actions taken by the Washington administration on its domestic front. The White House seems to assert its influence, dictating the expected behaviour of sovereign nations without room for criticism or differing opinions.

For example, the recent approval by the US State Department of the sale of the Switchblade-300 and related equipment to Taiwan was assessed by Beijing as no other than a violation of the "one China" principle and "interference in internal affairs with damage to the country's sovereignty."

Consequently, Washington will never get over its inherent disease of ideological and practical "invasion" of the internal field of certain states with their own charter. But this is one side of the issue. The second side of the issue is that the American attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of Azerbaijan coincided with another wave of anti-Azerbaijani manifestations on the part of Paris.

Sometimes France and the USA like to act in tandem, particularly in an engaged format. Most importantly, both parties ostensibly acknowledge support for the peace process between Baku and Yerevan, but upon closer examination, they attempt to hinder progress towards peace. In other words, their actions contradict their words. But that's not all.

Josep Borrell, who needs no special introduction, came here with his rants about the importance of Baku releasing "Armenian prisoners" and "ensuring the rights of Armenians who left the Karabakh region, including the right to return to their homes". Azerbaijan's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Aykhan Hajizada provided an appropriate response, rejecting "these false and provocative accusations" as a new attempt by the "EU High Representative to appease Armenians and promote a narrative that lacks both moral and factual basis."

Undoubtedly, the phrase about promoting a narrative lacking a real factual basis also characterizes the commentary from the Washington administration on the phone call between Blinken and Ilham Aliyev. The question arises: what platform was the US Secretary of State oriented towards?

This question is far from idle. The fact is that less than 20 days ago, on June 4, in his letter to Ilham Aliyev on the occasion of the Baku Energy Week, US President Joseph Biden defined "regional stability" as a "priority for the United States," within which "a durable and dignified peace agreement that ends decades of conflict would transform the South Caucasus and fundamentally change Azerbaijan’s role in the region." In light of this, the United States, "is ready to support this noble ambition. We owe it to future generations to ensure peace and prosperity remain our guiding principles," the letter reads.

One wonders, how much does the tone of Mr. Miller's comments, as mentioned at the beginning of the article, contribute to stabilizing the situation in the South Caucasus? Does the State Department really need to, in some form, exacerbate tensions? Moreover, if the President of the United States speaks about Azerbaijan's importance to the world, why does the State Department convey a fundamentally different assessment of Baku's policy?

Although it would be more convenient for this American agency to react to other glaring incidents that have occurred in our region over the past week. For example, where is the reaction from the Washington administration to the shelling of Azerbaijani territory by Armenia in recent days? Where is the State Department's acknowledgement of the mine problem for Azerbaijan and Armenia's reluctance to hand over maps of minefields to Baku?

It should be noted that due to the crimes of Armenian terrorists in this field, on June 21, a member of the Azerbaijan National Agency for Mine Action (ANAMA), Rafiq Isayev, was blown by a landmine in the Jabrayil district of Azerbaijan. As a result of the explosion, Isayev died, and another agency member sustained various injuries and was hospitalized. Where is the White House's response to these glaringly inhumane acts committed by our geographical neighbours?

By Teymur Atayev

The views and opinions expressed by guest columnists in their op-eds may differ from and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff.