“Sooner or later the American leaders will recognize relations with Azerbaijan themselves, that there are strategic interests, big interests, and they need protecting,” former U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan, Matthew Bryza said in his interview to Vestnik Kavkaza AzVision.az reprints the very interview.

U.S. diplomat Matthew Bryza is considered an expert on the Caucasus. He coordinated the US programs aimed at facilitating economic reforms in the post-Soviet states of Central Asia and the Caucasus, as well as the creation of new oil and gas pipelines. His responsibilities also included issues of energy diplomacy in the Caspian region in the late 1990s. He worked on the problem of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement in the mid-2000s and served as the U.S. Co-Chair of the OSCE`s Minsk Group. Matthew Bryza was U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan in 2011-2012. He left diplomatic service after the Senate’s failure to confirm his appointment to the post. Currently, Bryza is the director of the International Centre for Defence and Security of Estonia. However, he retains an interest in the Caucasus.

Relations between Russiaon the one side and US and european countries on the other are very tense nowadays. Do you agree with the opinion that it is gainless for countries to conflict with each other?

I think that it is certainly gainless, and generally, no one wants it. I think that the price of the conflict is a lot higher for Russia than for the West, much higher, in terms of economy and so on. I agree that the conflict is gainless for the sides.

What should be done for everyone to stop suffering losses from ruined relations?

Doubtlessly, Russia should stop the war with Ukraine and tell the truth instead of fantastic stories that there are no Russian forces in Ukraine at all, that the U.S. is waging the war, that America was sponsoring Europe, regarding sanctions in Russia. Russia needs to make a decision that that’s it, and it is clear that everything will be normal.

Are there forces interested in confrontation between the U.S. and Russia? What is their gain?

Frankly, I do not see such forces. Maybe there are criminal groups, bad people who gain from conflicts in general, some evil beings, of course there are. But what concerns countries, I do not know a country that wants it. I think that we are at an impasse, Russia is there. I know for 100% that no one in Europe, no one in America, when it comes to girls and children, wants it. I do not see a force craving for such conflict at all.Which country is the leader of the South Caucasus?I think there is no leader there at all. There are three separate countries. The most active one of them is Azerbaijan, of course, in terms of the economy, in terms of the population, in terms of strategic construction. But each country is different, I do not see a leader there so far. Yes, Russia plays a big role, but on the other side, concerning Azerbaijan, it is an independent state. And for the first time in the history of Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan decides its fate to a certain extent. Yes, there is the influence of Russia and other countries, but Azerbaijan can decide its fate for the first time.
What does the U.S. do to strengthen and develop its relations with the Caucasus?
Not enough. In my opinion, nothing so far. I think that a U.S. strategy is much needed. An American strategy is needed and the first step is to determine the strategic interests of the U.S. in the South Caucasus. I think that America is real in the South Caucasus.

How real are the evaluations by the U.S. political establishment of the domestic and foreign policy of Azerbaijan?

In my opinion, sadly, people in general expressing their opinion about the situation in Azerbaijan are hardly familiar with the situation in Azerbaijan. All they do is waste words. Without experience, they do not know what is going on in Azerbaijan, how complicated the situation is, how tangled the situation is. And they simply decide that Azerbaijan should be some country somewhere that has enormous problems with corruption, human rights, democracy. There are so many of them, they are so big that there is no point in helping the strategic ally solve problems together, as a team. If my colleagues there, in America, knew the situation here… Yes, they did take a look, yes, there are real problems, there were serious mistakes. But they would have understood too that the situation is not that simple. And concerning order in Saudi Arabia, President Obama said two days ago, yes, there are problems, solutions, and our strategic interests should be protected. And if together with Saudi Arabia, then why not do it with Azerbaijan, I would say.
In your opinion, how can political contacts between the USA and Azerbaijan be improved if they are so tense?
In my opinion, tolerance is needed, much needed, because sooner or later the American leaders, they will recognize relations with Azerbaijan themselves, that there are strategic interests, big interests, and they need protecting. But so far, it is not permissible in Washington. I think that a few months later, strategic thinkers would pay proper attention to Azerbaijan, then the situation would improve, as I see it. But it is very hard to predict how it should be.

Сould Azerbaijan take part in normalizing the diplomatic dialogue between Russia and the U.S.?

First of all, I would like to emphasize that such a strategy in Azerbaijan is wise, so that Azerbaijan would have a balanced policy, but eventually the president of Azerbaijan and all influential politicians understand that the independence of Azerbaijan depends on the one who has such firm relations with the West in this aspect, this is very important. But concerning the role of Azerbaijan as a mediator between Russia and the U.S., I think that it is impossible, because if there is no decision from President Obama or President Putin, there will be no relations. For example, Secretary of State Kerry needed to visit Moscow, I have recently seen an article about it. But President Obama made a decision, not yet, the visit needs to be postponed. Ok then, a mediator is needed, because President Obama decided that it was time to restore relations. Frankly speaking, it depends on what Russia would do in Ukraine and that is all.

The topic of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Is the U.S. interested in settling the conflict? Should the U.S. act more actively?

I would say yes, very much yes. Yes, the U.S. has some interest in settling the conflict, but that is not enough. If the U.S. wants a breakthrough in the conflict, a new process, the president and the secretary of state themselves should make a political umbrella, political support for the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia, so that when the presidents are ready to take tough decisions on the conflict, so that the U.S. president would back them up and tell all Azerbaijanis, Armenians, that our presidents, they have taken the most important decisions, maybe they are a little inconvenient for you, but they are necessary. Or the U.S. president should meet with the presidents, with Aliyev and with Sargsyan, from time to time. The way President Medvedev did it when he was the president. But he, President Obama, needs to demonstrate publicly that the conflict is important to the U.S. Anyway, President Obama has very many such conflicts. In my opinion, it means that the most important and the most fruitful thing would be if one of the sides, maybe Azerbaijan and Armenia, would take a step that would demonstrate that they, the presidents, are seriously ready for a compromise. Then it would draw the attention of the American president. But without such attention, I am afraid, the stalemate would remain. There is also Congress, which is also inactive in the settlement process.

What should be done for the U.S. to be interested in settling the conflict?

First of all, the Azerbaijani Diaspora and the Turkish one could play a bigger role in forming opinion in the U.S. That would be nice. Secondly, in the end, it would be insufficient. What is needed is what I have just said: so that a side, so that Azerbaijan or Armenia, or both, would take some concrete step. And say that we, as presidents, are ready for direct negotiations between each other. Then it would be a positive fuss, I can say, which would draw the attention of the bigwigs in America.

More about: