The Passive Stance of the US on Karabakh Conflict Cannot Be in the Interest of the Very US

• 04.29.2016, 14:35
• Liana Hovhannisyan
•  America,  "Insight" Analytical Center ,  World,  NKR

The other day the US State Department Spokesman Mark Toner once more referred to the Karabakh conflict stressing the importance of preserving ceasefire regime and unacceptability of any kind of violence on the borders.  It is important to note that it was not the initiative of the spokesman to refer to the Karabakh conflict. He did it in response to the question of a journalist during a daily press briefing. This once more speaks of the fact that like the days of April four-day war, today as well the US continues to stay in the position of a passive observer in Karabakh conflict limiting itself to official statements or in the best case making official calls. How can one explain such kind of stance by the US and what consequences can it have?

Among various reasons we can speak of several objective ones. First, the campaign of presidential elections in the US is still continuing, which make the US authorities pay less attention to the problems that would otherwise get more attention by them. Second, there are active developments around the Ukrainian and Syrian crises, which in their turn take the attention of the US officials. The list of the reasons can surely be continued.

Those are the reasons that among others also caused the US to partially close eyes on the aggression unleashed by Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan, no doubt, also had its calculations.

Do those reasons justify the US such a stance on Karabakh conflict?  Of course, no. To prove this, it is just enough to mention, that the Azerbaijan started the aggression immediately after the meetings of Aliyev with high level officials in the US (the US Vise president Joe Biden and State Secretary John Kerry). To unleash aggression immediately after those meetings was "a slap in the US face" by Azerbaijan.  

This becomes even obvious, if one takes into consideration the fact that the US is an immediate mediator in the conflict acting as a Co-Chair in the Minsk group. It will be naïve to argue that it was not definite for the US, which side initiated the four-day war. In this case the US should at least react in an adequate way to save its face as an OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair.  

To sum up, it is also important to mention that such a stance by the US gives an opportunity to other Co-Chairs to monopolize the process of the Karabakh conflict settlement. This, first of all,  is not in the interests of the US, because it is a retreat from the policy employed by it after the collapse of the Soviet Union by which the US tried to strengthen their position in the region.