George Friedman on Azerbaijan 07/12/2010
During his visit to Azerbaijan last month, George Friedman (aka Stratfor dude) repeatedly admitted ignorance about the Caucasus generally and Azerbaijan specifically, so when I saw Stratfor had a new report on Azerbaijan, I was more than a bit skeptical. Surprisingly, the piece wasn’t that bad, which isn't to say it was actually good.
Friedman spends the most of the article playing in the geopolitical shallows and there are some pretty epic WTF moments. But between paraphrasing the Wikipedia page on Caucasus geography and claiming that the Caucasus is the region “most likely to involve the United States” in conflict he manages to make a couple important points:
First, regardless of what Hillary Clinton said during her meetings with President Ilham Aliyev and Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov, the resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict is low on Washington’s list of priorities and will remain so for the foreseeable future: “Clinton’s call for negotiations and her offer of U.S. help are not particularly significant, especially since the call was for Washington to help under the guise of international, not bilateral, negotiations.”
Second, for the three countries in the South Caucasus geography is, was and forever will be a liability: “It [the region] is quiet now — but like the Balkans in 1990, quiet does not necessarily reassure any of the players. Therefore, seven players are involved in a very small space. Think of it as a cauldron framed by Russia, Iran and Turkey, occasionally stirred by Washington, for whom each of the other three major powers poses special challenges of varying degrees.”
The rest of the article is standard Stratfor fare. Friedman claims that America wants to build a close relationship with Azerbaijan so that it can “put U.S. hands on one of Turkey’s sources of oil,” completely ignores Azerbaijan’s essential role in the US’s war in Afghanistan, and manages to go the entire article without discussing Azerbaijan’s economic situation, Nabucco, or significant political issues like the absence of an American ambassador in Baku.
At the end of the day, if you really want to learn about politics of the Caucasus, I’d recommend you cancel your Stratfor membership and read Thomas de Waal, Thomas Goltz, or Steve Levine instead. They've all been here more than once.
-Evan
P.S. In contrast to a lot of the weird stuff Stratfor publishes, Friedman's remarks at the Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy while he was here in Azerbaijan were excellent. Check out some of the highlights here.
Friedman spends the most of the article playing in the geopolitical shallows and there are some pretty epic WTF moments. But between paraphrasing the Wikipedia page on Caucasus geography and claiming that the Caucasus is the region “most likely to involve the United States” in conflict he manages to make a couple important points:
First, regardless of what Hillary Clinton said during her meetings with President Ilham Aliyev and Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov, the resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict is low on Washington’s list of priorities and will remain so for the foreseeable future: “Clinton’s call for negotiations and her offer of U.S. help are not particularly significant, especially since the call was for Washington to help under the guise of international, not bilateral, negotiations.”
Second, for the three countries in the South Caucasus geography is, was and forever will be a liability: “It [the region] is quiet now — but like the Balkans in 1990, quiet does not necessarily reassure any of the players. Therefore, seven players are involved in a very small space. Think of it as a cauldron framed by Russia, Iran and Turkey, occasionally stirred by Washington, for whom each of the other three major powers poses special challenges of varying degrees.”
The rest of the article is standard Stratfor fare. Friedman claims that America wants to build a close relationship with Azerbaijan so that it can “put U.S. hands on one of Turkey’s sources of oil,” completely ignores Azerbaijan’s essential role in the US’s war in Afghanistan, and manages to go the entire article without discussing Azerbaijan’s economic situation, Nabucco, or significant political issues like the absence of an American ambassador in Baku.
At the end of the day, if you really want to learn about politics of the Caucasus, I’d recommend you cancel your Stratfor membership and read Thomas de Waal, Thomas Goltz, or Steve Levine instead. They've all been here more than once.
-Evan
P.S. In contrast to a lot of the weird stuff Stratfor publishes, Friedman's remarks at the Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy while he was here in Azerbaijan were excellent. Check out some of the highlights here.
Comments
Leave a Reply
Loading
