Washington's ludicrous accusation of multicultural Azerbaijan in religious intolerance US religious freedom blacklist debunked

Let’s take a glance at the recent inclusion of Azerbaijan by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in the blacklist of religious freedom watchdogs.

This is already America's second outright demarche against our country after the triumphant anti-terrorist events of September 19-20 last year. The first, as is well known, was related to the speech by US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs James O'Brien in November last year.

He not only expressed his dislike for Azerbaijan but also afforded an outright blackmail, saying that the corridor from mainland Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan could not pass through Iran. He also made a loud statement that after September 19 relations between the United States and Azerbaijan would not be the same and announced the cessation of visits of officials to our country.

Then came a harsh reaction from official Baku. After which Secretary of State Blinken called Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, and State Department spokesman Matthew Miller noted at a briefing that ending cooperation with Azerbaijan would be contrary to US interests. Almost simultaneously, the “culprit” of the hype, O’Brien, solemnly breaking his promise to end the relationship, flew to Baku, where President Aliyev received him.

Let us note that the day after O’Brien’s visit, a historical event occurred - a joint statement by Baku and Yerevan on the exchange of military personnel and support for each other at the COP sites. This event was a breakthrough in the peace process and evidence that the parties can negotiate directly, without intermediaries. Evil tongues immediately began to claim that this happened as a result of Washington’s pressure on Baku and was nothing more than a manifestation of the will of the United States.

We have already noted the absurdity of this version. Firstly, such statements have been prepared for more than one day, and simply could not be agreed upon and drafted overnight. Secondly, the whole dynamics showed that Baku had achieved Washington's departure from maximalist positions, and not vice versa. In this sense, the joint statement can be linked to O'Brien's visit only insofar as Baku managed to convince Washington of the steadfastness of its position.

Another piece of evidence is that Baku and Yerevan acted without intermediaries and the current demarche of the State Department serves.

Washington needs to achieve the conclusion of a peace treaty between Azerbaijan and Armenia under its umbrella. This is necessary for it, firstly, for prestige, secondly, to increase its rating in the eyes of the Armenian diaspora in the run-up to the elections, and thirdly, to squeeze Russia out of the South Caucasus. Let's also not forget Washington's zealous attitude towards the increasing weight of the Turkish-Azerbaijani tandem in the region.

Given the previous rhetoric of the White House, as well as the refraining from voicing recognition of Azerbaijan's sovereignty over Karabakh, it can be assumed that the Americans are somehow trying to push a separate paragraph concerning the Armenians of Karabakh into the text of the treaty, which categorically contradicts Baku's vision. For example, about the return of Armenians to Karabakh under the supervision of international forces.

Our country has no problems with the first part of this assumption, there is only one condition – the acceptance of Azerbaijani citizenship by Armenians wishing to live in Azerbaijan. But Baku is not only going to include any speculations on international missions in the treaty but is also not going to discuss them. The Azerbaijani leadership has repeatedly stated that the issue of the reintegration of Karabakh Armenians is a purely internal matter of our country and will proceed exclusively within the framework of its sovereignty and legislation.

On the other hand, Washington is clearly pushing Yerevan to abandon Moscow's mediation mission, and, as a result, the fulfilment of paragraph 9 of the Trilateral Statement, which refers to the opening of the Zangezur corridor and control over it by the forces of the Russian FSB. Baku, on the other hand, does not want to play along with Washington in this quest and quarrel with Moscow from scratch. All these factors combined give reason to suspect that today the Washington platform does not seem appropriate to Baku, as well as its "branch" in the form of the Brussels one.

Washington's irritation was apparently further fueled by the recent meeting between Aliyev and Pashinyan on the sidelines of an informal summit of CIS leaders in St. Petersburg. Even though the meeting was informal and President Putin tactfully did not participate in the conversation, the White House perceived this as Moscow's interception of the initiative in the peace process. Washington also understands perfectly well that Baku, if it agrees to mediation by third countries, is more likely in favour of Moscow. Simply because, of all three international mediators, it was Russia that voiced a clear recognition of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Azerbaijan.

Against this background, the Americans are frantically looking for a gap to torpedo the peace process without their participation. And they found nothing better than to accuse our country of a lack of religious tolerance, which, again, is intended to point to the "Armenian question." The Americans want to demonstrate to Baku that they consider the resettlement of Armenians from Karabakh to Armenia to be violent, and committed based on religious intolerance, even though the Armenians themselves do not realize such a conclusion.

In fact, there is interference in the internal affairs of not only Azerbaijan but also Armenia, as Washington assumes the authority to make judgments on behalf of Armenia. It is very curious, and even comical, that Washington's attack on Baku coincided with another attack by the Pashinyan administration on the Armenian Apostolic Church – Catholicos Garegin II was not allowed to speak, as it was before, on Public Television.

It would be time for the State Department to raise the alarm about the oppression of Christianity in the "first Christian country." However, the Democrats' administration is least interested in the real feelings of believers. Democrats in general, unlike Republicans, do not treat religion and traditional values with great reverence. Blinken's list is for political purposes only.

The act of the State Department caused a wave of indignation among representatives of religious and ethnic communities of Azerbaijan. The chairman of the Albanian-Udi religious community Robert Mobili, the first deputy chairman of the Russian Community of Azerbaijan Anastasia Lavrina, the chief rabbi of the Synagogue of Mountain Jews in Tel Aviv, Shmuel Simantov, a native of Baku, and others spoke in support of their country. The accusation of the State Department is so ridiculous that the former US ambassador to our country, Matthew Bryza, raised his voice in defence of Azerbaijan.

The pressure on the religious component is a weak blow from Washington to Azerbaijan's strong point. Accusing Azerbaijan of religious intolerance is like accusing Italians of disrespect for pasta. The public outcry exposed the initiative of the State Department awkwardly. On the other hand, Azerbaijan is too important for the United States to impose sanctions on it because of Armenia. Moreover, on the eve of the elections in America, the main reason for such abrupt and impulsive actions of the White House is most clearly visible. It is called the voices of the Armenian Diaspora. It is likely that, having felt the impossibility of concluding a treaty on the Washington track, Biden's team, in order not to scare off American Armenians with another "surrender" of Karabakh, will now do everything possible to postpone peace in the South Caucasus until the November elections.

Whether Armenia will find enough will in itself to act in line with national interests and without looking at the other side of the ocean remains one of the main questions.