von George Danielidze
Statistik und Sichtungsnachweis dieser Seite findet sich am Artikelende
| [1.] Gd/Fragment 039 10 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-12-16 22:18:56 Guckar | BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gd, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Shaffer 2003 |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 39, Zeilen: 10-33 |
Quelle: Shaffer 2003 Seite(n): 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, Zeilen: 53:4-10.28-33; 54:19-25; 55:3-6; 58:7-9.12-15; 59:21-31 |
|---|---|
| As Brenda Schaffer (Diplomatic Academy Vienna) declares, Washington views the US presence and policy in the South Caucasus as a component of its larger Middle East and anti-terrorism policies. Washington has viewed the energy resources of Azerbaijan in two ways: firstly, as a contributor to global oil supply diversification, and secondly, as oil in the margins (an effective tool for lowering oil prices). As to the Armenia-Azeri case, she argues that domestic interest groups, especially the Armenian-American lobby, through influence over Congressional decisions have had a large impact on the formation of current US policy towards the region. At the urging of the American-Armenian lobby, Congress imposed sanctions on Azerbaijan in 1992 in the form of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act that barred direct government-to-government assistance. Following the September 11th, the US administration has waived the Congressional sanctions on Azerbaijan. Many in Azerbaijan felt that the sanctions were waived by the US only in order to take advantage of Azeri airspace and bases concerning the Iraqi crisis and confrontations with Iran.
Here would be also worth to mention that despite the increased activism, US policy towards the region continues to be contradictory and inconsistent due to the often conflicting policy directions of different arms of the US government - mainly the congressional versus the executive branch. For instance, despite the long-standing promotion by US officials of the BTC pipeline, Congressional members who receive considerable support from the American-Armenian community tried to frustrate this project. Moreover, congressionally allocated aid to Armenia is still the highest per capita of all the former Soviet states despite Yerevan’s strong cooperation with states of concern to the United States such as Iran and Syria not to mention the latter’s close relations with Russia. At the same time, the United States joined efforts in the OSCE Minsk Group, which has led the external efforts aimed at resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.57 57 Baev, Cornell – The South Caucasus. ISS, Dec. 2003. pp.53-59 |
[Seite 53]
As a whole, Washington now views the US presence and policy in this region as a component of its larger Middle East and anti-terrorism policies. In addition, since the late 1990s – especially in the post-11 September 2001 era – the United States has viewed the energy resources of Azerbaijan in two ways: first, as a contributor to global oil supply diversification and second, as oil in the margins (an effective tool for lowering oil prices). [...] Domestic interest groups, especially the Armenian-American lobby, through influence over Congressional decisions have had a large impact on the formation of current US policy towards the region, often in contradiction to policies articulated by agencies of the US executive branch. [Seite 54] At the urging of the American-Armenian lobby, Congress imposed sanctions on Azerbaijan in 1992 in the form of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. Up until the presidential waiver in 2002, this legislation barred direct government-to-government aid between Washington and Baky and constituted a major constraint on US policy options towards the region.1 [Seite 55] Additionally, the United States joined efforts in the OSCE Minsk Group, which has led the external efforts aimed at resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. [Seite 58] Washington’s shift in priorities following 11 September gave the Administration the political will and power to waive the Congressional sanctions on Azerbaijan. [...] Many in Azerbaijan felt that the sanctions were waived only in order for the United States to take advantage of Azerbaijan’s airspace and bases – not as a reflection of a true policy shift. [Seite 59] Despite the increased activism, US policy towards the region continues to be contradictory and inconsistent due to the often conflicting policy directions of different arms of the US government – mainly the congressional versus the executive branch. For instance, despite the long-standing promotion by US officials of the BTC pipeline, Congressional members who receive considerable support from the American-Armenian community still try to frustrate this project. Moreover, congressionally allocated aid to Armenia is still the highest per capita of all the former Soviet states, despite Yerevan’s strong cooperation with states of concern to the United States, such as Iran and Syria. 1. Section 907 prohibits US assistance (with the exception of humanitarian assistance and assistance for non-proliferation and disarmament programmes) to the government of Azerbaijan under the Freedom for Russia and Emerging Eurasian Democracies and Open Markets Support Act of 1992 (also known as the Freedom Support Act) ‘until the President determines, and so reports to the Congress, that the Government of Azerbaijan is taking demonstrable steps to cease all blockades and other offensive uses of force against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.’ The legislation imposes sanctions only on Azerbaijan, despite the fact that both Armenia and Azerbaijan waged a war over the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. |
Art und Umfang der weitgehend wörtlichen Übernahme bleiben ungekennzeichnet. |
|
Letzte Bearbeitung dieser Seite: durch Benutzer:Guckar, Zeitstempel: 20131216221910