The reasons for dissatisfaction with Bryza lie in the home policy of the U.S.

PanARMENIAN.Net - However, it was not “the pressure of the Armenian lobby” so often pleaded by the Baku media. The reasons for dissatisfaction with Bryza lie in the internal political field of the U.S., where midterm elections to Congress are expected. The condition of the Democrats is rather precarious, and one more odious ambassador would not add to their reputation. Admittedly, the home policy of Barack Obama is not what the Americans expected. That is why the Democrats are rapidly losing their rating. Armenian-Americans, traditionally voting for the Democrats, in some way could save the situation, and therefore they shouldn’t be sneezed at for the sake of Bryza. In this case the parties evidently share the same position. It’s true that the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) requires too much from the ambassadors, but it obviously follows the principle “Ask for the maximum to get at least the minimum”. And it is not so terrible that Baku has no ambassador yet: not long before Armenia experienced the same situation.

However, Official Baku needs an ambassador right now, before the parliamentary elections on November 7. Moreover, she needs her “own” ambassador, who would cover up all the violations that are inevitable in the Azerbaijani elections. Unlike Armenia, the U.S. ambassador to Tbilisi and Baku is a very significant figure, and a lot depends on him. One doesn't have to look far for examples. A brilliant example of this was the “Revolution of Roses” in Georgia. The facts that Matthew Bryza is associated with the Azeri establishment, that he has his own interests in the oil sector and, finally, that his wife is a Turk are not very important factors influencing the senators’ decision. Simply, most likely, the U.S. does not want to be drawn into another adventure for oil. She has already lost one, when she believed that invading Iraq would be a cakewalk, and then Vice-President Dick Cheney would be able to safely use the oil profits. But it did not work and could not work, like it is now the case with the possible attack on Iran. No matter what Obama may say about Israel’s security, everything, as always, comes to energy resources, which Iran has more than enough. Roughly speaking, since the U.S. was hooked on “the oil needle” in the 70’s of the past century, its foreign policy has been set exceptionally based on oil. This policy is too dangerous and may lead to unpredictable consequences for Washington. By the way the consequences are already visible: the U.S. has almost lost her position in the Caucasus; the Middle East and Central Asia are on the horizon. The global financial and economic crisis did its bit too in this issue.

It is quite likely that Matthew Bryza will yet become the ambassador to Azerbaijan and, strange as it may sound, it will be good for Armenia. The diplomat is so “famous” for his “incomprehensible” and “poorly translated” statements that he could find his place only in Baku.

But let us say that it will happen no sooner than in six weeks. It is unlikely that something so extraordinary happens in the U.S. that she accelerates the process of appointment of an ambassador to a minor country like Azerbaijan, despite the Azeri officials’ assurances that the United States cannot simply do without them. Well, in this case, blessed are those who believe. Moreover, Azerbaijan awaits elections too. But one, most important fact must be added to all the above said: perhaps the only accurate choice of Barack Obama was the appointment of Hillary Clinton to the post of the Secretary of State.