U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–285PDF 2015

AZERBAIJAN: U.S. ENERGY, SECURITY, AND

HUMAN RIGHTS INTERESTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND 

EMERGING THREATS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 12, 2015

Serial No. 114–6

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS

DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman 

TED POE, Texas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Audrey Altstadt, Ph.D., fellow, Kennan Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars ............................................................................... 6

Svante Cornell, Ph.D., director, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, School of 

Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University ........................... 21

The Honorable Richard Kauzlarich, adjunct professor, School of Public Policy, 

George Mason University (former American Ambassador to Azerbaijan) ....... 32

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Audrey Altstadt, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ........................................................ 9

Svante Cornell, Ph.D.: Prepared statement .......................................................... 24

The Honorable Richard Kauzlarich: Prepared statement .................................... 35

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 50

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 51

The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and chairman, Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and 

Emerging Threats: 

Prepared statement of the Honorable Michael R. Turner, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Ohio ................................................................. 52

Prepared statement of the Honorable Michael G. Fitzpatrick, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ......................... 53

(1)

AZERBAIJAN: U.S. ENERGY, SECURITY, AND 

HUMAN RIGHTS INTERESTS 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 o’clock p.m., in 

room 2200 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana Rohrabacher 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The subcommittee is called to order. 

This is the inaugural meeting of the Europe, Eurasia, and 

Emerging Threats Subcommittee for the 114th Congress. I am 

happy to introduce our new ranking member, Greg Meeks of New 

York. I am sure that we will have a very productive session together in these next 2 years. 

So, we are very happy to have you with us, Gregory. 

Before I go into my opening statement, I want to recognize that 

we are joined in the audience by Sarah Paulsworth—Sarah, where 

are you?—and Sarah’s husband Emin, and I am going to pronounce 

this, Heseynov, who helped to found the Azeri NGO dedicated to 

journalist safety. When it became clear that he was wanted by the 

authorities, he asked the United States Embassy for help. Our Embassy turned him away, but he was granted safe haven in the 

Swiss Embassy, where he is today. And again, I guess it is a sad 

day when the Swiss are more courageous than the Americans. 

Our topic for this afternoon is the U.S. relationship with Azerbaijan, a country of about 9 million people on the coast of the Caspian Sea, sandwiched between Iran, Russia, Armenia, Georgia, and 

Turkey, a pretty tough neighborhood. 

Our relationship with Azerbaijan is normally described as being 

comprised of three parts: Energy, security, and human rights. Azerbaijan is rich in oil and natural gas. Since the 1990s, it has grown 

into a notable exporter of oil, which is making Azerbaijan a relatively and notably wealthy country. 

Now, with the construction of the Southern Gas Corridor, Azerbaijan has the potential to play a key role in helping to provide the 

European Union with sources of natural gas that is not controlled 

by Russia. 

The Azerbaijani Government has been a source of irreplaceable 

support for the United States and NATO operations in Afghanistan. Azerbaijan is a key link in the northern distribution network 

which supplies and carries troops battling in Afghanistan. 

2

On this point, I would like to mention especially I want to thank 

the Azerbaijani Government for their cooperation in saving the 

lives of numerous U.S. military personnel. While acknowledging 

this important context, it is impossible to overlook Azerbaijan’s 

poor track record when it comes to civil liberties. Azerbaijan, as I 

say, is in a very tough neighborhood and borders on other countries—this is important—it borders on other countries that have far 

worse human rights records. But human rights violations in one 

country does not justify or excuse them in another country. So, we 

need to keep these in perspective on both sides of that argument. 

The disturbing reports of 90-plus political prisoners held by the 

Azerbaijani Government just can’t be ignored. It would be better 

for all concerned if the Azerbaijani Government, which has many 

attributes which we are putting into our calculation, but it would 

certainly be better for all of us—these attributes also include what, 

freedom of religion and other important elements. Of course, it 

would be a really good thing if the Azerbaijani government wasn’t 

so thin-skinned about criticism because that leads them to actions 

that really are unacceptable and unnecessary, causing all of us 

problems, including themselves. 

The purpose of this hearing is not—I repeat not—to unfairly 

bash Azerbaijan. But disregarding its shortcomings will not improve the situation, as was evident the other day when, after 

Christmas in Azerbaijan, the authorities raided and shut down the 

Baku Bureau of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. That was, 

of course, shutting Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe is just unacceptable. 

I, myself, have advocated, for example, that the same Azeri language service that we are talking about that was used in Radio 

Liberty and Radio Free Europe, that that same Azeri language 

service covered northern Iran and has serviced the Azeri people in 

Iran. The Baku Bureau and its employees should be released and 

be free to go about their work. 

Again, the purpose of this hearing is not to attack or bash Azerbaijan. It serves everyone’s interest to recognize the many positive 

aspects of our relationship with Azerbaijan and the great potential 

that Azerbaijan has to play a positive role, and it is already playing 

a positive regional role. This positive role in that region will have 

significance for the entire planet. 

There is a legitimate fear, for example, of radical Islamic’s subterfuge of Azeri society and Azeri government. Unfortunately, repressing democratic elements in any society increases the appeal 

that such radicals have. So, it is in no one’s best interest to being 

thin-skinned about criticism and to act against people who are 

criticizing your government for whatever reason. 

The people of Azerbaijan are not fanatics and neither is their 

government. They have much to be proud of, but flaws that should 

not be ignored. 

I look forward to hearing from the panel today and hope that 

their conversation with us will leave us with some constructive recommendations of how we can improve our relations with Azerbaijan and how Azerbaijan can improve their relations with us. 

3

I would hope that, without objection, all members will have at 

least 5 legislative days to submit additional questions or extraneous materials for the record. 

Before recognizing Mr. Meeks for his opening statement, I would 

like to recognize that we have a very special guest with us. We 

have one whose husband is, of course, being held in Azerbaijan. We 

wish him well and hope that maybe this hearing could say we are 

friends; let this guy go, please. 

We also have a wonderful other good friend, Dan Burton—there 

he is—Dan Burton, who actually chaired this committee a couple 

of years ago and has been a dear friend to all of us and one of the 

most hard-working and responsible Members of Congress that I 

met in my 26 years here. He is a fine man. 

Dan, we are very, very pleased that you have come here to observe what we are doing today. 

With that said, Mr. Meeks, please feel free to have your opening 

statement. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I look forward to working with you over the next 2 years. We 

have done some traveling together, and I think that we will be 

working collectively together to try to stay focused on the issues of 

this subcommittee. You know, I look forward to working with you 

and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle on the important 

issues that fall under the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. 

In this subcommittee it is up to us to ensure that American interests in Europe and Eurasia are protected and promoted, but also 

that the common ideals and interests that we share with our allies 

and partners in the region are held to the highest standards. It is 

an honor to take up the ranking member role during these trying 

times in the region. 

Azerbaijan has a remarkable and notable history. Well before 

Azerbaijan gained independence in 1991, it made an important and 

global distinction when it became, albeit briefly, one of the world’s 

first Muslim democratic republics. 

Since then, Azerbaijan has had significant success in navigating 

the difficult path to becoming an open-market economy. But success does not come without concern in other areas. 

I believe our witnesses today will highlight some of the areas of 

concern, including human rights and the lack of democratic governance. But I hope we can also discuss ways in which the United 

States can support progress. I hope we can talk about the broader 

scope of cooperation with the EU and OSCE on some of the challenges. 

Human rights and democracy advancements will not happen in 

a vacuum, and we must work in a multilateral way to support 

progress. The U.S.-Azerbaijan relationship is a partnership that we 

value. Azerbaijan is a critically-located partner in the South 

Caucasus Region. It is a secular nation that neighbors Iran and 

works closely with the United States. That is not an easy position 

to be in. It borders Russia and is the key to the EU on energy diversification. In short, our partnership is not one we can take for 

granted. 

Today’s hearing is for me an opportunity to examine the tough 

issues and potential for advancement in the nation that I believe 

4

has promise. Azerbaijan’s success is, of course, broadened by its 

natural resources. But I know that our Government is also committed to helping Azerbaijan grow the non-oil sectors of the economy to avoid overreliance. 

We are also committed to fostering a vibrant, open society and 

upholding democratic ideals as a part of the development process. 

We want to build on Azerbaijan’s success in using its resources, its 

resource wealth, to reduce poverty levels dramatically and grow its 

middle class and create jobs. 

Ensuring the continued success of Azerbaijan’s development and 

encouraging democratic progress is of strategic importance to the 

United States. Our interests on all fronts are critically linked. The 

energy and security cooperation we enjoy is important. But these 

things are not separate and apart from the equally-important need 

to ensure that we address civil society’s push for an open and 

democratic society. 

I hope to hear from our experts today on the recent setbacks in 

this area. President Aliyev and the Azerbaijan Government should 

know that we are concerned with the treatment of several members 

of the Azeri civil society. 

I know that progress is not always linear and not often 

as quick as we would like. In fact, right here in the United 

States we are still perfecting our democracy and our great nation. 

And we took too long, in my estimate, in this country to correct 

some of our own human rights mistakes. But what we want to do 

is work together to share methods to make sure all voices are respected. 

So, I look forward to a fruitful discussion where we can explore 

what we in Congress can offer and do to positive growth in Azerbaijan that includes all members of its society, for it is a very important ally, and we do need to work collectively together to make 

life better for all of our people and our citizens. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Meeks. 

If any other member of the hearing panel would like to—Mr. 

Sires, maybe a 1- or 2-minute opening statement—feel free. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for today’s hearing on 

Azerbaijan. Thank you for being here today. 

Since Azerbaijan broke free of the Soviet Union over two decades 

ago, the U.S. has had a concerted interest in strengthening democracy in Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is unique, as it is a bridge between 

the East and the West. A peaceful, democratic, and prosperous 

Azerbaijan is in the best interest of the United States and our European allies. 

Unfortunately, there have been many obstacles to a fully-recognized democracy in Azerbaijan, including ongoing government corruption and human rights abuses. I am deeply troubled by recent 

efforts by the government to crack down on civil society groups and 

independent media. As we all know, a democracy cannot exist without the ability of the citizens to freely exercise their voices. 

I look forward to hearing from our esteemed panel of witnesses 

on how Congress can shape policies that will assist in promoting 

democratic principles in Azerbaijan in order to strengthen our ties 

in the region. 

5

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. 

Mr. Deutch, do you have an opening statement? 

Mr. DEUTCH. I do. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Rohrabacher and Ranking Member Meeks. 

I am honored to rejoin this subcommittee which covers a region 

with significant value for our national security and one that is facing many new and significant threats, and Azerbaijan is no exception to this. It is easy to understand what risks the country faces 

just by looking at its precarious geographic location with Russia to 

its north, which has shown irredentist actions toward its neighbors. 

To its south is Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism with nuclear 

weapons ambitions and a significant Azeri population. And Azerbaijan also shares a border with Armenia, with the unresolved 

Nagorno-Karabakh region in between. 

Azerbaijan has built up a multifaceted partnership with European countries and the United States. Its access to offshore ore deposits and the plan to build a pipeline via Turkey to southern Europe is an appealing prospect for many European countries as an 

alternative source to Russia’s near monopoly as an energy provider 

to eastern Europe. 

Amid the list of threats coming out of Europe and the Middle 

East, our security and counterterrorism cooperation is of significant 

mutual value. That cooperation doesn’t prevent us, in fact, nothing 

should prevent us from speaking out for human rights. And the 

human rights situation in Azerbaijan cannot be overlooked. 

NGOs are being intimidated and shuttered. Free media and journalism is being inhibited, and pro-democracy leaders are being incarcerated at alarming rates. Last December, Security Forces raided and shut down the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty office in 

Baku, and other U.S. programs like Peace Corps are closing shop. 

Regressive human rights policies like these are concerning. When 

it gets to the point that international civil society groups which are 

active in countries, in order to improve the democratic and human 

rights climate, are forced to pull back their presence out of fear of 

oppression and incarceration, it should send a loud signal to the 

government that its policies are heading in the wrong direction. 

The LGBT community, in particular, experiences a tremendous 

amount of social stigma, often in the form of physical abuse and 

harassment. And with restricted registration policies for civil society organizations, Azerbaijan is left with zero groups promoting the 

rights of LGBT people in the form of legal protections and public 

acceptance. 

These are important questions for Congress to ask. I thank the 

chairman for holding this public hearing. 

And I hope you will accept my apologies. I have two other hearings taking place at exactly the same moment. So, I will be 

back——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. How is it possible that somebody has two 

hearings at the same time? It almost always happens, the one you 

really want to go to—and you have got to go to them—and then, 

all of a sudden, there are three others scheduled. 

Well, thank you for joining us and sharing your thoughts with 

us, at least to kick it off today. 

6

So, we have three great witnesses today. First is Dr. Audrey 

Altstadt. I think is that the pronunciation? I am sorry if I got it 

wrong. Dr. Altstadt is a professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and currently spending a year in Washington as a 

Fellow at the Wilson Center. 

She has authored dozens of articles on Azerbaijan and has been 

following the issues in that country since the 1980s. She earned 

her PhD from the University of Chicago and is currently writing 

a book about Azerbaijan. 

We also have with us Ambassador Richard Kauzlarich—okay, 

that is good enough?—the Director of the Center for Energy 

Science and Policy at George Mason University. He has held a 

number of high-level positions within the State Department, including formerly being our Ambassador to Azerbaijan and BosniaHerzegovina. He also served as the National Intelligence Officer for 

Europe on the National Intelligence Council. 

Finally, we have Dr. Svante Cornell. He is the Director of Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and the Silk Road Studies Program at 

Johns Hopkins University. He is the author of four books and 

many articles on security studies and international relations. He is 

an expert on the Caucasus and earned his PhD from the University 

of Uppsala in Sweden. 

I am really bad on some of these foreign names. But Uppsala, all 

right. 

Listen, we welcome our witnesses, and we thank you for sharing 

your expertise with us today. I would ask if you could keep it down 

to 5 minutes and the rest for the record. You are certainly welcome 

to submit as long a statement as you want for the record. And 

then, we will follow up with questions after you have all testified. 

So, Doctor, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF AUDREY ALTSTADT, PH.D., FELLOW, KENNAN 

INSTITUTE, WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER 

FOR SCHOLARS 

Ms. ALTSTADT. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. 

I appreciate the fact that we are having this meeting. 

Azerbaijan is the only country that borders both Russia and Iran. 

It was ruled by both and it bears the vestiges of both in its politics 

and its culture. Its oil and gas wealth have made Azerbaijan a significant contributor to European energy security and gives it the 

potential to be an important partner in this and other commercial 

dealings. 

The government has cooperated with the United States in the 

war on terror. At the same time, the Government of Azerbaijan 

must deal with pressures from its neighbors and near neighbors, 

and these are challenges that any government in Baku would have 

to face, by virtue of its location. 

Azerbaijan’s independence and internal stability are necessary, 

but not sufficient, for it to be a full and healthy functioning partner 

as a state or a society. Nor does stability alone make it a good partner. 

Azerbaijan today is not a democracy and its government does not 

respect human rights. The present government has been moving 

away from, and not closer to, pluralism, democratic elections, open 

7

discourse in society, freely-functioning media, and the observation 

of human rights. These restrictions have gradually increased over 

the last 10 years, but most radically so in the last 11⁄2 to 2 years, 

since the Presidential election campaign of 2013. It has become 

worst of all since the spring and summer of 2014. 

Ruling circles have shown intolerance of criticism and protests. 

Yet, the criticism and protests have continued, raising fears of a 

potential Baku Maidan, as we have seen in Ukraine. 

The government of President Ilham Aliyev has carried out a preemptive strike against regime critics of political groups and parties, 

especially youth movements, human rights defenders, journalists, 

and the lawyers that defend them. These people are not against 

Azerbaijan’s statehood, independence, or stability, but do oppose 

the ruling regime’s policies and, increasingly, the ruling regime 

itself. 

The crackdown of 2014 is counterproductive and dangerous. Public discourse in civil society is the life breath of the body politic. 

Constricting the space for freedom of speech, assembly, and press, 

as we have seen in Azerbaijan, is suffocating to that body. The 

loser is Azerbaijan society, which is deprived of political participation and peaceful redress of grievances. 

But the government also loses because it is deprived of new 

ideas, the purifying fire of public debate, and the legitimacy which 

transparency bestows. Such restrictions, moreover, can drive the 

populace toward radicalism in its effort to find a venue for social 

and economic change. 

The European Parliament, the United States Subcommittee on 

Human Rights, and a number of other international and non-governmental organizations have noted this disturbing trend in the 

last year and more. The Council of Europe Commissioner for 

Human Rights said, ‘‘All of my partners in Azerbaijan are in jail.’’

The rhetoric of these repressions has taken a decidedly antiAmerican tone. In December, an article was published by the Presidential Chief of Staff, Ramiz Mehtiyev, which accused the United 

States of instigating color revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, the 

Arab Spring, and the Maidan movement in Ukraine. He accused 

the U.S. of trying to destabilize the Aliyev government under the 

guise of protecting human rights. 

The alleged U.S. tools were NGOs and Azerbaijani citizens that 

Mehtiyev declared to be a fifth column within Azerbaijan. Such 

citizens, he added, were disloyal, and he named as one example Investigative Journalist Khadija Ismayilova who worked at Radio 

Liberty in Baku. Two days later, she was arrested, and by the end 

of the month, as we have noted here, the Radio Liberty, or Azadliq 

Radiosu, office in Baku was raided and closed, and its staff was 

questioned multiple times without an attorney being present. 

These statements and actions within Azerbaijan suggest that the 

Azerbaijani Government may be moving away from the West and 

increasingly toward Russia, which President Aliyev has recently 

called ‘‘a good friend.’’ It may be that a pro-Russian faction is in 

the ascendency, but it could not act without President Aliyev’s 

knowledge and approval. 

This does not mean, however, that Azerbaijan’s leaders are completely changing direction. It is more likely that they are seeking 

8

a new balance among neighbors and business partners. Baku’s ruling elites do not want to lose the benefits of commercial deals with 

the West and the lavish lifestyle options available in western countries, including real estate, education for their children, and bank 

accounts in stable currencies protected by law. 

Azerbaijan’s elites want to maintain these opportunities and 

privileges that the West offers and present themselves as western 

partners without actually fulfilling the obligations of a western 

state, a member of the OSCE and the Council of Europe, a country 

that observes human rights and holds free and fair elections. In 

short, they want to have it both ways. 

The United States should certainly evaluate Azerbaijan in a 

nuanced, holistic, and realistic light, but it is imperative that the 

United States not ignore or deny the Azerbaijan’s regimes failings 

in human rights, media freedom, civil society and democratization. 

The U.S. owes it to the pro-democracy forces within Azerbaijan 

to speak up clearly and consistently for the defense of the same 

rights that are the foundations of the United States. The argument 

that the U.S. should set aside these failings in the interests of commercial gain or so-called stability, which the regime advertises, 

would constitute a betrayal of U.S. values and would further diminish the image and the moral power of the United States in Azerbaijan and in the world. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Altstadt follows:]

9


93285a-1.eps
10


93285a-2.eps
11


93285a-3.eps
12


93285a-4.eps
13


93285a-5.eps
14


93285a-6.eps
15


93285a-7.eps
16


93285a-8.eps
17


93285a-9.eps
18


93285a-10.eps
19


93285a-11.eps
20


93285a-12.eps
21

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, thank you, Doctor. 

And Dr. Cornell? 

STATEMENT OF SVANTE CORNELL, PH.D., DIRECTOR, CENTRAL ASIA–CAUCASUS INSTITUTE, SCHOOL OF ADVANCED 

INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY 

Mr. CORNELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a longer written 

testimony for the record, and I will be summarizing some of the 

points here. 

I will start by saying that the U.S. relationship to Azerbaijan 

was once a well-functioning strategic partnership. Today it is dominated by tension and acrimony. In the next minutes, I will try to 

provide my perspective on why this is the case but, more importantly, what we can do about it. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Doctor, could you hold on for one moment? 

Mr. CORNELL. Sure. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is that a vote? Are those votes? No? 

You know, I have been here all these years; I can’t figure out 

those lights yet. [Laughter.] 

Recess? All right, good. 

All right, you may proceed. 

Mr. CORNELL. Thank you, sir. 

To start with, I would like to say a few words about why Azerbaijan in this region matters to the U.S. Several of the members 

here have mentioned these things. 

I will start by saying that, in a 1997 book, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski called Azerbaijan one of the five 

geopolitical pivot countries of Eurasia. Azerbaijan lies at the intersection of the key Eurasian powers, Russia, Iran, and Turkey. It 

is a bottleneck of the east-west corridor that connects Europe to 

Central Asia and beyond for the purposes of trade, for energy, but 

also for U.S. military access, as in Afghanistan. 

And I would say that in the present situation, where the two 

most acute challenges to the Trans-Atlantic Alliance are Russia’s 

aggressive expansionism as well as Islamic radicalism emanating 

from the Middle East, Azerbaijan and its neighbors are actually a 

bulwark against both. There is, indeed, an opportunity in the existence of Muslim majority states that reject Russian projects of coerced Eurasian integration, maintain the openness of the east-west 

corridor into Central Asia, and remain committed to secular statehood. And, of course, this is all the more crucial, given Iran’s continued jockeying for regional domination from Syria to Yemen and 

Turkey’s turn toward an Islamism and anti-Western 

authoritarianism. 

This is not just a theoretical point. Looking back to 9/11, America’s military response in Central Asia was made possible by the 

air corridor across Georgia and Azerbaijan, which you, Mr. Chairman, correctly characterized as irreplaceable. 

Now for most of the past decade, the broader regional picture is 

that America’s ability to affect the developments in Azerbaijan and 

the entire region has been in decline. I would even say that at no 

time since the collapse of the Soviet Union has the U.S. had less 

influence over regional matters than it does today. 

22

Now this is the context, of course, of the discussion we are having today, and it is customary to blame the Azerbaijani domestic 

evolution for the decline of the U.S.-Azerbaijani bilateral relationship. That is, indeed, a factor. But, a decade ago, it is important 

to note that the Azerbaijani Government was considerably more responsive to U.S. criticism and advice on its domestic affairs. 

So, the question is, what has changed in the past decade and 

why is it not today? Now the most obvious point has been already 

made, which is that oil and gas has brought wealth to Azerbaijan. 

Twenty years ago it was a failing state. Today it is wealthy. There 

is a growing reluctance to take advice from abroad. 

A more important factor, I would argue, is the worsening regional security environment. Only in the past few years, Russia 

has invaded Georgia, invaded Ukraine, contributed to orchestrating 

a coup in Kyrgyzstan, and forced Armenia to abstain from any form 

of European integration. 

Russian subversion is on the rise everywhere in the region, and 

the case of Azerbaijan there are also growing tendencies not only 

by Iran, but also by Turkey, of meddling in internal affairs. And 

all of this has grown a powerful inhibition liberalization. 

Unfortunately, I would say that U.S. policies have actually been 

an important contributing factor to this situation. In fact, for the 

past 20 years, the U.S. relationship with Azerbaijan was built on 

the understanding that the U.S. has interests in several diverse 

areas, which you have mentioned and which are in the title of this 

hearing. 

Human rights and democracy was one area. The second was engagement on energy issues, and the third, of course, was cooperation on security affairs, including America’s role in negotiating a 

solution to the Armenian and Azerbaijan conflict. 

If you will, these three areas formed a tripod that was the basis 

of U.S. policy, and the problem is that this tripod has faltered, because American engagement in energy issues and security issues 

over the past decade have declined, I would say, drastically. Now 

I want to be clear here. My argument is not that the U.S. has engaged too deeply in democracy promotion. The problem is that the 

U.S. has not provided enough attention to security——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is your microphone on? 

Mr. CORNELL. I believe so. 

So, I want to be clear that my argument is not that the U.S. has 

engaged too deeply in democracy promotion. The problem is that it 

has not provided enough attention to security issues and energy 

issues. And the important fact is that these were the issues that 

provided America with leverage in Azerbaijan. 

Now the U.S. also made a number of missteps after the Russian 

invasion of Georgia. I could discuss these in detail, including how 

the Russian Reset was handled, the fact that the Turkish-Armenian normalization process was prioritized over the NagornoKarabakh conflict, all of which alienated Azerbaijan and reduced 

the value of the U.S. for its national interests. 

Now the U.S. has also not properly understood, I would say, the 

effect of inter-regime politics in Azerbaijan in this, and Dr. Altstadt 

alluded to that. As the current policy is not working, what can be 

done looking forward? 

23

My Institute has newly released a paper on Western Strategy in 

the South Caucuses, which I am sure your staff will be made available, in which we propose a detailed outline of what a new U.S. 

strategy toward the region would look like. 

Now some have argued for a tougher approach; that is, a policy 

that would include punitive measures. Of course, that would, first 

of all, amount of singling out Azerbaijan since the U.S. does not 

apply such policies for countries that have worse human rights 

records, and it would also be counterproductive in a country where 

compact frustration which they see as the American indifference to 

the hundreds of thousands of displaced people from the Karabakh 

conflict. 

More importantly, such an approach would also be certain to fail. 

Since the ruling elite presently does not see much of a meaningful 

U.S. involvement in key matters of national security, the U.S. 

today simply does not have the leverage to influence Baku’s policies 

by the use of the proverbial stick. Instead, I feel that such steps 

would extinguish whatever influence the U.S. still has in the country. 

Instead, what I would call for and what we call for in our paper 

is a broad strategic re-engagement, not only of Azerbaijan, but of 

the entire region. I would say that in the past 20 years, whenever 

the U.S. has been strongly involved in the security issues and the 

energy issues of this region, the Azerbaijani Government has actually been responsive to criticism. When that has not been the case, 

like now, America’s leverage has declined. So, going forward, I 

would say that the U.S. cannot expect realistically to see any 

progress in governance and human rights issues without a clear 

engagement on the issues of security and energy. 

Similarly, I think Azerbaijan’s leaders should understand that 

they cannot expect U.S. support on security issues and energy 

issues without a commitment to reforms in governance and human 

rights. Again, this does not mean that a new policy should have 

less of an emphasis on human rights issues, but it does mean that 

the U.S. must engage the government on a broader front and do 

more to address the issues on which it worked effectively a decade 

ago. These are bolstering sovereignty and independence, addressing 

security issues, working seriously, which we have not done, to resolve the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict, and re-engaging on energy 

politics. All of these also happen to be in the U.S. national interest. 

So, in closing, for both Azerbaijan’s domestic situation and our 

bilateral relationship to improve, America’s presence must once 

again be felt in the region, which it is not today. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cornell follows:]

24


93285c-1.eps
25


93285c-2.eps
26


93285c-3.eps
27


93285c-4.eps
28


93285c-5.eps
29


93285c-6.eps
30


93285c-7.eps
31


93285c-8.eps
32

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

And we have been joined, also, by Congressman Keating. Do you 

have an opening statement that you would like to make before our 

next witness? 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to be back 

here with yourself and Ranking Member Meeks. 

Like so many on the panel, I have had many discussions focused 

on Azerbaijan’s strategic relevance and geopolitical importance. Its 

potential can’t be underestimated. Yet, the potential alone of that 

cannot bear fruit in the global arena without adequate rule of law 

and basic protections and freedoms. 

Unfortunately, we have seen a drastic regression in the rule of 

law, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, transparency, and 

other basic rights in Azerbaijan. And I am particularly concerned 

over the deliberate targeting of American and international NGOs 

and media. These organizations that have been able to provide 

vital assistance to local citizens have already been forced to close. 

They include IREX, the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, the U.S. Peace Corps, Transparency 

International, and Oxfam. 

Last month I spoke out in regard to the latest scapegoat of Azerbaijan authorities, Radio Free Europe. The government-sponsored 

raid on Baku Bureau and the arrest of and continued detention of 

Khadija Ismayilova, as well as others, raise serious questions and 

concerns over the intentions of the Azerbaijan leadership and the 

desire to partner with the U.S. and the West as a whole. 

It should be noted that the regular conspiratorial pronouncements of Azeri officials against the U.S. and the West raise similar 

concerns. Yet, many of us who watch Azerbaijan continue to hope 

to see a change in the course of Azerbaijan. In this way, I urge the 

U.S. administration to prioritize these concerns when addressing 

Azerbaijan leadership. In particular, I hope that our Government 

will work to reopen Radio Free Europe in Baku and ensure a safe 

passage of Emin Heseynov, the husband of a U.S. Army servicewoman who spent the last 6 months sheltered in the Swiss Embassy in Baku. 

Again, I thank you for holding this important hearing and look 

forward to working with you on this important issue, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. KEATING. I yield back. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And now, for our last witness, Mr. 

Kauzlarich, go right ahead. Or, Ambassador, I should say. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RICHARD KAUZLARICH, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY, GEORGE 

MASON UNIVERSITY (FORMER AMERICAN AMBASSADOR TO 

AZERBAIJAN) 

Ambassador KAUZLARICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you and the committee for holding these hearings and giving me 

the opportunity to testify. 

I have submitted a written statement for the record and, with 

your permission, I will summarize that statement now. 

33

I agree with the previous speakers that we are at a critical point 

in U.S.-Azerbaijani relations, though I take a little more positive 

view of what we have accomplished in two decades of successful 

diplomatic engagement. This engagement has been based on a 

clear set of bipartisan objectives. Despite the restrictions of Section 

907 of the Freedom Support Act, which tied our hands in the early 

days in Azerbaijan, as well as the tragic war between Azerbaijan 

and Armenia regarding Nagorno-Karabakh, we have through those 

two decades supported the development and transportation of Azerbaijani energy resources. Through co-chairmanship of the OSCE 

Minsk Group, we have provided an opportunity for Armenia and 

Azerbaijan to pursue a peaceful settlement of the conflict on 

Nagorno-Karabakh. And we have, especially since 9/11, engaged 

Azerbaijan in NATO and other international peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan and Kosovo. 

I am not saying this has been easy, especially when the United 

States has pressed Azerbaijan on democracy and human rights 

issues, but we are in a different place today. There has been a deterioration in U.S.-Azerbaijani relations. Part of this is due to external factors. The changing global energy situation means that Azerbaijan energy resources are less important today than they were in 

the 1990s, when I was Ambassador. Unfortunately, the Minsk 

Group has not led to Yerevan and Baku finding the political support to produce a peaceful settlement to the Nagorno-Karabakh situation. And as the U.S. and NATO presence draws down in Afghanistan, Azerbaijan’s strategic role in protecting that northern 

supply route will be less over time. And finally, there has been increased international, not just U.S., focus on human rights and democracy in Azerbaijan. 

I think the far more important reasons for the deterioration are 

internal. There has been an attack on the double-standard the U.S. 

uses in its approach to the Ukrainian crisis compared to NagornoKarabakh. There has been a continued stress of unfairness of U.S. 

policy with sanctions under 907 of the Freedom Support Act compared to the assistance that we give to Armenia and to the regime 

in Stepanakert, Nagorno-Karabakh. There is a belief that the U.S. 

and Europe need Azerbaijani energy more today than Azerbaijan 

needs the kind of political support we provided in the 1990s and 

early 2000s to transporting these resources to market. 

Our continued support for U.S. NGOs in has increasingly been 

seen as a negative and led, I think, to this wave of over 90 arrests 

and detention of Azerbaijanis who are opposing the regime. 

Global attacks, unprecedented during my time, on U.S. Government officials, including Ambassadors and the President of the 

United States have intensified. And we have mentioned the closure 

of the RFE/RL offices. 

As Dr. Altstadt pointed out, I am focused on the December 3 

statement by Ramiz Mehtiyev as indicating an end of the era of cooperation between the United States that was established during 

the presidency of Heydar Aliyev. Accusing the United States of fomenting color revolutions or creating PIF columns is not positive 

grounds for a good relationship. 

So, what can we do under these circumstances? I think it is time 

to set not a strategic partnership, but a limited set of attainable 

34

goals, support serious engagement by both Yerevan and Baku in 

reaching a negotiated settlement to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, 

support stability in Azerbaijan by all means, but only through 

greater democracy and observance of international human rights 

standards, and release the political prisoners. Only then is it possible to talk about a strategic partnership. 

If we do not have progress in these areas, then I think it is time 

to consider sanctions, including travel and other sanctions on officials who are responsible for the arrest and detention of political 

prisoners, and consider a travel warning to Americans contemplating travel to Azerbaijan. 

I think we have reached the point in our relationship that it is 

time to be concerned about the people. That is why the release of 

the political prisoners is so important. These prisoners and their 

families and the American citizens, some of whom are here today, 

and their families deserve that kind of attention in our relationship 

that we have not given up to this point. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Kauzlarich follows:]

35


93285b-1.eps
36


93285b-2.eps
37


93285b-3.eps
38


93285b-4.eps
39


93285b-5.eps
40


93285b-6.eps
41

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I thank all the witnesses. 

I will just lead off on the questions. I will try to keep it to 5 minutes, so we all should have a chance before the votes that come up. 

Let me just note, as a former journalist, I am fully aware that, 

when you restrict people’s right to criticize the government, it encourages corruption and it makes it more difficult to solve the problems that exist. So, there is an actual, besides just a principle of 

believing in freedom of speech, it serves the country which respects 

freedom of speech and freedom of the press. And I hope our friends 

in Azerbaijan understand that, can come to understand that, and 

especially because I am sure that there are people who are patriots 

in that country who are both in the government and outside the 

government that want what is best for their country. 

The criticism that has been leveled, even here today, was not leveled at trying to say that we don’t like Azerbaijan and we think 

of them as an enemy. No, it is just the opposite. We want to create 

a pathway, so that 10 years from now we could have had a great 

relationship with a great country that is serving the purpose of 

peace and stability as well as protecting the rights of their own 

people. 

Let me ask a little bit about this. We know how Azerbaijan compares to the United States or Great Britain. How does it compare 

in human rights to Iran, its neighbor? Anybody want to answer 

that? 

[No response.] 

Don’t all jump in at once. I mean, are there more human rights 

in Azerbaijan than in Iran, respect for the human rights there? Are 

there more——

Mr. CORNELL. Well, I think one way of answering that is seeing 

if people from Azerbaijan go to Iran, or vice versa, to get a breather. And as you know, a lot of people from Iran are buying apartments and the like in Azerbaijan in order to get out of Iran. 

I think it also depends on exactly what rights are talking about. 

Especially if you talk about religious rights, there is absolutely no 

comparison since Azerbaijan actually protects its people from religious extremism; whereas, Iran does the opposite. 

If you talk about other types of rights, you could have less of 

a——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. When I take a look, and as I mentioned in 

the opening statement, at the countries, the neighborhood that 

Azerbaijan is in, this is a very tough neighborhood, and I don’t believe that any of those countries demonstrably have more respect 

for human rights than the Azeris have. That is not an excuse for 

it, but that is putting it in perspective. 

And we should not be singling out Azerbaijan. If we are going to 

have a solid commitment on human rights, which I believe in, we 

have to make sure that the people in the Azerbaijani Government 

know that they are not being singled out with a double-standard. 

And so, what about Armenia? It is my understanding that that 

is still a very repressive government in Armenia. How would you 

compare the human rights in Azerbaijan with Armenia? Anyone 

want to jump into that? 

Ambassador KAUZLARICH. I have a little problem in comparing, 

you know, what about some other country. I mean, you can say 

42

that there are more political prisoners in Azerbaijan than there are 

in Russia and Belarus together. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. But the reason that comparison is 

made is because, without doing it, comparing it to its neighbors, it 

is automatically being compared to western Europe and the United 

States. I mean, automatically, that is our standard. And that may 

not be fair, unless we are willing to make sure that what we are 

demanding is of each and every one of those countries in the neighborhood. 

Ambassador KAUZLARICH. And are we comparing it in terms of 

numbers of political prisoners, in numbers of opposition newspapers? I mean, these kinds of comparisons, there is not a recognized factor. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. There is not just one factor. Yes, there is a 

bunch of factors that play into that. 

Did you want to jump into that? 

Ms. ALTSTADT. Azerbaijan did join the Council of Europe and has 

been a signatory to other organizations which entailed that it commit itself to upholding human rights and democratization. And 

Iran, for example, has not done that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Of course. 

Ms. ALTSTADT. And so, it is important to note that Azerbaijan 

made these commitments and has not fulfilled them. That is at the 

most basic level. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is not really better to have a country that 

just thumbs their nose at anything in the West saying that we 

don’t even respect your basic values that you’re trying to push 

versus another country that says, well, we really believe in those, 

but, then, they fall far short of reaching the standard. Now those 

are the two things we face. 

Ms. ALTSTADT. That assumes that their signing it says that they 

are committed to those rights. I don’t think we are seeing that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Well, I honestly believe we need to 

make sure human rights is a major part of our policy, but we have 

to make sure that governments like Azerbaijan, which have not 

reached that stage, don’t think that we are singling them out because we don’t like them for one reason or our Government is being 

manipulated by somebody who doesn’t like them. 

About the OSCE, has Azerbaijan agreed or has there been an 

agreement with Azerbaijan with the OSCE about solving the 

Nagorno-Karabakh dispute? Have they agreed to allow the OSCE 

to try to find a solution? And has Armenia done that? 

Mr. Ambassador? 

Ambassador KAUZLARICH. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the OSCE Minsk 

Group process, not to be confused with the one we are writing to 

Ukraine, has been in place for several decades. The United States, 

France, and Russia are co-chairs as mediators. And I think it is a 

misunderstanding that sometimes both Armenia and Azerbaijan 

engage in, as if the Minsk Group itself or the mediators are going 

to provide a solution. It is really they are providing the mechanism 

where Azerbaijan and Armenia can engage together in trying to 

find a peaceful solution to the conflict. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But both have agreed to that? 

43

Ambassador KAUZLARICH. Both have agreed to the process, but 

both have also agreed not to really made the political commitment 

necessary to solve the N–K problem. And that is why there is an 

impasse today. Neither Baku nor Yerevan have made the kind of 

commitment to solve the problem. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have used up my time. 

Mr. Meeks? 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you. 

So, we have various diplomats on the ground, as you once were, 

Mr. Ambassador. They have a wide variety of issues because of 

what they are focusing on today. We just had a newly-appointed, 

a newly-confirmed Ambassador last week who should arrive in 

Baku very shortly. 

I will start with asking all of you, what would you say our Embassy needs to do on the ground to help (a) improve the relationship and move things forward, as well as help and move things forward on the human rights front? Because the other concern is, how 

do the regional dynamics help or hurt the democratic principles of 

Azerbaijan, as indicated? You know, I don’t know whether there 

has been some influence because of what has taken place in the 

Ukraine, for example. Does that play a role in it or not? What effect do Azerbaijan’s calculations in balancing their positions because of their geographic proximity to Iran and Russian—how do 

these things play? 

Let’s start with you, Ambassador. 

Ambassador KAUZLARICH. Well, I am not going to say what the 

new Ambassador should do. [Laughter.] 

But I think this tripod that Dr. Cornell described, whatever your 

judgment is on the effectiveness, has to be in place for U.S. and Azerbaijani relations to go forward. What makes it so difficult for Ambassador Cekuta going in is that, unlike when I went to Azerbaijan, he is facing a less-favorable leadership toward strengthening U.S.-Azerbaijani relations. This Ramiz Mehtiyev piece was 

very telling in rejecting a lot of the values that President Aliyev 

has said that he endorsed. So, we are really in a very, very difficult 

place. 

And the regional balance question is not going away. I think they 

look at Ukraine and say, ‘‘Well, you are trying to convince the Russians to give Ukraine back to—or give Crimea back to Ukraine. 

Why aren’t you forcing Armenia to give Nagorno-Karabakh back to 

Azerbaijan?’’ So, there is an issue, when they look at the world, of 

a double-standard. 

But, you know, the question of balance is going to be there, whatever the leadership, whatever the attitude toward human rights. It 

is just the neighborhood. 

Mr. MEEKS. Dr. Cornell, anything else? 

Mr. CORNELL. Yes, thank you for your question. 

I would say, first of all, that the problem is not with the Embassy, but with the fact that they don’t have the backing from the 

higher levels of the U.S. Government in making this tripod work. 

The Embassy cannot do that by itself. The Embassy is not even involved in the talks over Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia. That is 

a separate office in the U.S. Government, which is held by a very 

distinguished but mid-career diplomat. This is not a conflict that 

44

has been given the attention it deserves from the higher levels of 

the U.S. Government, especially if we know that the Russians are 

constantly involved and really don’t want a solution to this. 

What I think the Embassy could do is to be more active in understanding the intra-regime politics of Azerbaijan. Dr. Altstadt referred to a pro-Moscow faction in ascendency. There are various 

parts of the Azerbaijani Government that have different ideas 

about where the country should go. 

The parts of the government, and not only government, but business and society, that don’t necessarily want a western orientation 

very often are the ones that are involved in acts that we disagree 

with and that are not in conformity with Azerbaijan’s international 

commitments. And sometimes it is done for exactly that purpose. 

So, we have to know why something is being done if we are going 

to find a way to respond to it. 

Mr. MEEKS. Go ahead, Dr. Altstadt. Go ahead. 

Ms. ALTSTADT. Thank you. 

I have to say that in the many years I have seen the U.S. Embassy in Baku function, I have continually been impressed by the 

way that they have paid attention to what is going on inside Azerbaijan, the degree to which Ambassadors have tried to learn and 

use the Azerbaijani language publicly. And in terms of supporting 

human rights, many of the Ambassadors have actually visited the 

families of journalists that are being held in prison, and so on. And 

so, they have many, many tasks to perform, but I have been really 

impressed with how well they have functioned in the meantime. 

And I think that it is very important to note that, not only the 

government, but the public in Azerbaijan is extremely sensitive to 

the way the United States treats Azerbaijan and the other governments in the region and elsewhere. I think the reason for that is 

that they hold the United States to a higher standard. They expect 

more of us, and I think that is appropriate and we should live up 

to that. 

Mr. MEEKS. Well, my other question was going to back to Dr. 

Altstadt also, but I am going to be brief because I know we have 

got votes coming up. 

Because I was wondering about it. I mean, should I take anything out of that 2 weeks ago the Azerbaijani delegation to the Parliamentarian Assembly of the Council of Europe, of course, spoke 

out for Russia and voted against sanctions for Russia. So, it does 

seem that Russia and Azerbaijan have exchanged a high-level delegation and launched out to venture to explore oil and gas. 

Now is that something that we should look at as far strained relations with the United States? Should that be something that we 

are concerned with? Or is that just being strategically trying to figure out where that balance is because they live next to this other 

big country? 

Ms. ALTSTADT. I believe in the case of Ilham Aliyev, like with his 

father Heydar Aliyev, whom he succeeded, that they are striving to 

find a balance. And at some point they need to do more things to 

accommodate Russian interests. And so, I find it worrying, on the 

one hand, that they are doing that. They also applied to join, as 

observers, to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. But, in 

45

the larger picture, I think it is part of a tilt toward Russia, but I 

don’t see it as a radical change in direction over the long run. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Brooks? 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have been looking at on the internet stats about Azerbaijan. As 

I understand it, it is roughly a 9.4 million population, of which 95 

percent is Islam of one kind or another. As I also understand, its 

leaders are elected. Is that correct? 

Ms. ALTSTADT. There are elections. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BROOKS. There are elections? Okay. The way you answered 

that, what do you mean by ‘‘There are elections.’’? Are you telling 

me that there is a lot of fraud or that there is no competition or 

there is not more than one party? What do you mean? 

Ms. ALTSTADT. All of the international observers that have observed Azerbaijani elections have declared them to be not free and 

fair, for all of the reasons you suggested: The runup to the election, 

restrictions on opposition parties, carousel voting, and ballot stuffing during the polling itself, falsifications of every kind. 

Mr. BROOKS. Is Azerbaijan now a threat to any other nation? 

Please. 

Ambassador KAUZLARICH. Because of this unresolved conflict regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh region, there is the great threat of 

a military conflict resuming again with Armenia. 

Mr. BROOKS. When was the last time there was a military conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan? 

Ambassador KAUZLARICH. There has been a ceasefire in effect 

since 1994, Russian-imposed, by the way. But, in recent months, 

there has been an increase in military action from both the Armenian and the Azeri side, resulting in deaths of military and civilians on both sides. 

Mr. BROOKS. And are there any other countries that are threats 

to, in your judgment, Azerbaijan? 

Ms. ALTSTADT. I think Russia is potentially a threat. I think that 

in more subtle ways Iran is potentially a threat. 

But I do want to emphasize, sir, that even though they are a 

Muslim-majority country, it is highly-secular society, and it has 

been secular because of indigenous secular movements since the 

19th century. 

Mr. BROOKS. What do you mean by the phrase ‘‘highly-secular’’? 

Ms. ALTSTADT. In other words, the degrees to which the people 

adhere to Islam, the forms that it takes, and the public practice, 

all are on a very wide range, as we might find in the United States 

in terms of people who adhere to particular religions, and some go 

to church every Sunday and some show up faithfully on Christmas 

Eve. So, there are those kinds of differences. 

But the real, I think, politically-important question is political 

Islam and whether there is a political use of Islam, and that is 

much less. And even for those situations, the degree to which it is 

radical is an even smaller amount. It is very difficult to measure, 

however, because research on that topic is, of course, very sensitive, and it is very difficult for anyone to do. 

Mr. BROOKS. My next question may be a little bit difficult for 

you. But I am from a community that has the highest number of 

46

engineers per capita in the United States, a lot of scientists, physicists, highly-educated people who like numbers. And so, I am going 

to ask you to try to rank on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is no substantive relationship to 10 is a great relationship. Now how would 

you rate today the relations between America and Azerbaijan? 

Dr. Altstadt, we will start with you first. On a 1-to-10 scale, give 

us a feel. 

Ms. ALTSTADT. So, 1 is no meaningful relationship and 10——

Mr. BROOKS. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. ALTSTADT [continuing]. Is wonderful relationship? 

Mr. BROOKS. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. ALTSTADT. For quality or quantity? 

Mr. BROOKS. Quality. 

Ms. ALTSTADT. 7, 6. 

Mr. BROOKS. A 7. So, it is pretty good? Better than average, in 

your judgment, the relations between America and Azerbaijan? 

Five would be average. 

Ms. ALTSTADT. Well, let me revise that and say 5. 

Mr. BROOKS. 5? Okay, about average. 

Dr. Cornell? 

Mr. CORNELL. 5. 

Ambassador KAUZLARICH. 31⁄2. Mr. CORNELL. 31⁄2? Why do you say 31⁄2 versus these others who 

suggest that it is about a normal American versus another country 

relationship? 

Ambassador KAUZLARICH. Because in my two decades’ experience 

there has been no senior Azerbaijani political figure who has written a document that attacks the United States and its leadership. 

That is not a sign along with accusing us of being involved in fomenting yellow or color revolutions. 

Mr. BROOKS. I caught on a comment by Dr. Cornell that America’s presence must once again be felt in the region. And as we all 

know, America has limited resources. We have limited money, limited military. We have engagements all over the world, relationships all over the world. 

Why should America divert our limited resources from other 

hotspots in the world or from other places where we want to have 

relationships to Azerbaijan? What is our national interest? 

Mr. CORNELL. Let me answer that very briefly. I think the first 

part of the answer is that this is not about money. This is about 

political leadership and attention, which we used to have, which we 

don’t anymore. 

The second part is that the reason is, as I described initially, 

that you have a country and a region which is a factor in both of 

the major issues facing the Transatlantic Alliance, which is the expansionism of Russia and the Islamic radicalism of the Middle 

East. And Azerbaijan and the whole region of the Caucuses in Central Asia is a potential bulwark against both of those. 

I will end by saying that the experience of 9/11 showed that cultivating relations with these countries became a crucial asset in 

prosecuting the war in Afghanistan. Mr. Chairman himself used 

the word ‘‘irreplaceable’’ for that, the level of support, the air corridor through Azerbaijan, which enabled the U.S. to deploy military 

resources in Central Asia and Afghanistan. 

47

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Now we have a vote coming. It is my intent 

to have the ranking member have his closing statement and, then, 

the chairman—that’s me—will have a closing statement. 

Mr. MEEKS. I just want to, you know, because I am trying to be 

as balanced as we can, because the flip side, I had asked the question about Russia. 

Had we had more time, I wanted to ask a question about Iran 

because the relations between Azerbaijan and Iran have been 

tough also, and Islamic Republic, they have been capriciously unhappy, I believe, with the secular Azerbaijan and have not spared 

any effort to undermine its very foundations of Azerbaijan society. 

And Azerbaijan’s close ties with Israel—they have close ties with 

Israel—and the West have been met with hostility, too, by Iran. 

So, as the administration talks to Iran over its nuclear program, 

you know, if we had time, the question is, how does this engagement influence regional dynamics in the South Caucuses and, in 

particular, the Iranian policies vis-a`-vis Azerbaijan? 

Because what I really, if we had time to highlight it, there is 

pressure. The reason I asked the Russian question is because sometimes in the region, they are a big country in the region, so they 

have got to figure out how to work with Russia and not just say, 

‘‘We are not going to work with them at all.’’

On the other side they have got Iran who does not like their relationship. So, they have got to figure out how to live in that world. 

So, Azerbaijan is kind of squeezed, you know, in the middle there 

in trying to determine how they can survive in the middle of these 

two and, yet, still be a great friend or, as you have said, most of 

you, an average friend to the United States. 

So, I conclude just by saying that we have got to work together. 

It is important that we work together, that we improve the relationship. And when you are friends and allies, you know, I don’t 

want folks to think that is when you just say, ‘‘Look,’’ to your 

friend, ‘‘I want to help you with whatever deficiencies you have.’’ 

Because I understand, from my perspective, we in the United 

States still are trying to improve also with reference to our human 

rights issues that we still have in this country. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Meeks. 

We will be going down to the Floor to demonstrate how people 

with different views can work together. 

Well, that was a joke, actually. [Laughter.] 

With that said, I think that Azerbaijan is a very significant country to the well-being of the United States and the stability of the 

world. We wish them well. We think it would be better for them 

and everybody if they would be, as I say, a little less thin-skinned 

about criticism and wouldn’t go after people because they are criticizing. We recognize that in America as something that helps us 

perfect ourselves, helps us solve the problems by knowing about 

them. 

But Azerbaijan, we have to make sure that we are not singling 

out a friendly country which is surrounded by basically countries 

that aren’t necessarily friendly to our interest and friendly to the 

United States, singling them out to try to attack their flaws in a 

way that will weaken them in relationship to the others in their 

48

neighborhood. This is something that requires a great deal of soulsearching as to where to draw the line. 

We appreciate your guidance today from the witnesses on helping us make that decision as to how we will draw that line and set 

the policy that will stay true to our principles of liberty and justice 

while still watching out for our national interest to keep a stable 

part of the world right there. Because if Azerbaijan would go the 

direction of Iran, and if radical Islam would sweep into Central 

Asia, the world would not be a decent place to live in 30 years from 

now or even 20 years from now. 

We saw that happen when little nut-cases in Germany took over 

the government and we ended up in a conflagration. Well, radical 

Islam poses that same kind of—you know, these are fanatic people, 

and if they get control of Central Asia as well as perhaps the Middle East, it will be a totally different world, and not a good world. 

So, let’s work with those people who will work with us. Hopefully, we can nudge our friends to go in the right direction. 

So, thank you all for your advice on how to draw that line and 

achieve that goal. 

This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:03 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.] 

(49)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

50

f


93285n.eps
51

f


93285m.eps
52

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DANA ROHRABACHER, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS

f


93285d.eps
53

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DANA ROHRABACHER, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS

Æ


93285e.eps