In the tumultuous year of 1992, amidst the raging conflict in Karabakh, global sentiments weighed heavily against Azerbaijan. Facilitated by the Armenian lobby, the Armenian community in Nagorno-Karabakh successfully propagated a narrative asserting that Muslim Azerbaijanis intended to establish a blockade and inflict harm upon Christian Armenians. Remarkably, echoes of a comparable narrative persist to this day. However, the absence of internet and social media platforms during that era severely restricted the dissemination of Azerbaijan’s counter-narrative. Even in today’s digital age, Azerbaijan grapples with overcoming the persistent Armenian propaganda machine. As a direct outcome of the tireless efforts of the Armenian lobby, the 907th Amendment was ratified on October 24, 1992, leading to the imposition of sanctions by the United States on Azerbaijan.
Initially supported by Senator John McCain, the amendment aimed to cease Azerbaijan’s perceived “occupation” of Nagorno-Karabakh and the blockade imposed on Armenia. However, the amendment was later retracted without specific justification. Subsequently, with endorsements from John Kerry and Armenian lobby groups, Congressman Wayne Owens from Utah introduced the amendment in Congress. This move faced opposition from Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana. Nonetheless, bowing to the considerable pressure exerted by Armenian lobby organizations, Congress eventually sanctioned the amendment.
The “Freedom Support Act,” submitted to Congress in the mid-1992 by the Bush administration, encountered formidable resistance from the Armenian lobby. These lobbyists sought sponsorship from Senator John Kerry, leveraging the substantial Armenian electorate in Massachusetts, in an attempt to sever US aid to Azerbaijan. In their efforts, they also engaged pro-Armenian members of the House of Representatives, particularly those from California. In the absence of opposing voices, the Armenian lobbyists succeeded in achieving their objective, adding the unique “Section 907” amendment to the Freedom Support Act.
Subsequently, this amendment resulted in Azerbaijan’s exclusion from the aid extended by the United States to the former Soviet republics. This decision unfolded during a time when Azerbaijan lacked a diplomatic mission in the US. Notably, US President Joseph Biden played a pivotal role in the passage of this amendment and consistently resisted its repeal.
Following the momentous events of September 11, 2001, the US Congress authorized the President to temporarily suspend the legal ramifications of the amendment, with the objective of rallying Azerbaijan’s support in the global war on terrorism.
In the years since 2001, US presidents have annually waived this amendment, providing aid to Azerbaijan. However, this year, the waiver’s issuance is experiencing a delay. Of significance is the fact that the current US president is an advocate of the 907th amendment. His stance before his presidency underscores his opposition to the amendment’s cancellation. Additionally, President Biden’s amicable rapport with Greek and Armenian lobby organizations is well-documented. This year’s delay deviates from past practice, where the waiver was typically issued before summer. The rationale for this delay remains unclear.
Hikmet Hajiyev, the foreign policy adviser to President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan, expressed his belief that the attempts to limit military assistance to Azerbaijan were being coordinated by “Congress members who are aligned with the Armenian lobby and are not considering their own national interests.” He indicated that these actions might have a negative impact on the endeavors of the United States and its allies to establish a sustainable and enduring peace.
Representatives from both the State Department and the National Security Council acknowledged that the assessment of the military assistance waiver is still in progress. However, they refuted the notion that the ongoing status of peace negotiations or recent developments in Nagorno-Karabakh are influencing the timing of its renewal. A spokesperson from the State Department emphasized that the United States’ stance towards Azerbaijan remains consistent, stating, “Our policy on Azerbaijan remains unchanged.” The spokesperson further stressed that the United States holds the strategic partnership with Azerbaijan in high regard.
Furthermore, it’s crucial to acknowledge that the differences between the American Democratic Party and the Republicans extend beyond domestic policies and are notably evident in their respective approaches to foreign policy. Critics often point out that the foreign policy decisions made by Democrats have frequently deviated from the principles of realism that guide international relations. A prominent example of this deviation can be observed during the tenure of the Obama administration. Despite Russia’s military intervention in Georgia and subsequent geopolitical tensions, the administration pursued a policy of “reset” with Russia. Additionally, the Democratic administration was instrumental in the negotiation and implementation of the nuclear deal with Iran, reflecting a distinct approach to international diplomacy.
Turning to the current landscape, the situation in the Karabakh region continues to be marked by intricate complexities. While the possibility of finding common ground with Armenia may seem plausible, the Karabakh Armenians remain cautious and hesitant when it comes to the prospect of integration with Azerbaijan. As Azerbaijan exerts its legitimate pressures, it also finds itself subject to international scrutiny, particularly in terms of its actions and intentions.
In this situation, the Biden administration’s careful consideration of the possibility to waive the Section 907 carries noteworthy importance. This deliberation can be seen as a calculated strategic maneuver with the goal of applying pressure on Azerbaijan. It can be contended that the administration’s underlying intent behind this action is to discourage Azerbaijan from independently imposing the conditions for potential agreements with Armenia and the Karabakh Armenians.
While the United States could potentially assume a role as a mediator in peace talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan, it’s likely that their intentions are focused on assisting Armenia. In any future negotiations, the U.S. might advocate for guarantees and rights for both Armenia and the Karabakh Armenians, negotiated directly with Azerbaijan. These negotiations could be motivated by the U.S.’s aspiration to shift Armenia’s allegiances away from Russia’s sphere of influence and toward closer ties with itself. In pursuing this objective, the U.S. may see value in preventing Armenia from standing alone against the pressures exerted by Azerbaijan.
Nevertheless, it’s important to take into account that while strategic and geopolitical interests play a significant role in shaping foreign policy decisions, ideological factors also have their place. Armenia’s image as a democratic nation factors into these considerations. The U.S. might view supporting Armenia as consistent with its broader values of promoting democracy, human rights.
