US Sanctions On Armenia And Azerbaijan Were There Any?

Hey guys! Ever wondered about the United States' involvement with Armenia and Azerbaijan, specifically concerning sanctions? It's a pretty complex topic, especially with the recent tripartite declaration mentioning the end of 33 years of sanctions, thanks to President Trump. Let's dive into this and break it down, shall we?

Understanding US Sanctions Policy

Before we get into the specifics of Armenia and Azerbaijan, it's important to understand the United States' sanctions policy in general. The US uses sanctions as a foreign policy tool to address a variety of national security and foreign policy concerns. These can range from countering terrorism and drug trafficking to promoting democracy and human rights. Sanctions can take many forms, including:

• Trade embargoes: These restrict or prohibit trade with a particular country.
• Asset freezes: These block access to assets held in the US or by US persons.
• Visa restrictions: These prevent individuals from entering the US.
• Arms embargoes: These prohibit the sale of weapons to a particular country.

The US sanctions policy is implemented through various legal frameworks, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. These laws give the President the authority to impose sanctions on individuals, entities, and even entire countries. The decision to impose sanctions is often based on a complex assessment of various factors, including the target's behavior, the potential impact on US interests, and the availability of alternative policy tools.

The application of sanctions is a dynamic process, and they can be modified, lifted, or reimposed depending on the circumstances. The US government regularly reviews its sanctions programs to ensure they are effective and aligned with its foreign policy objectives. This ongoing evaluation is crucial for maintaining the relevance and impact of sanctions as a tool of statecraft. Moreover, the US often coordinates its sanctions efforts with other countries and international organizations to maximize their effectiveness and avoid unintended consequences. This collaborative approach strengthens the international pressure on targeted entities and promotes a unified response to global challenges. Understanding the broader context of US sanctions policy is essential for grasping the nuances of its application in specific cases, such as those involving Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The Tripartite Declaration and Sanctions

So, what's this tripartite declaration we mentioned? It refers to the agreement signed between Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Russia in November 2020, which ended the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. During the signing, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev stated that this marked the end of 33 years of sanctions, thanks to President Trump. This statement is quite intriguing and needs some unpacking.

It's important to note that there weren't direct, comprehensive US sanctions imposed on either Armenia or Azerbaijan in the same vein as, say, those against Iran or North Korea. However, there was Section 907 of the US Freedom Support Act, which was enacted in 1992. This section restricted US assistance to the government of Azerbaijan due to its conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh. The aim of Section 907 was to promote a peaceful resolution to the conflict and ensure that US assistance wasn't used in a way that could exacerbate the situation.

The restrictions imposed by Section 907 were significant, as they limited the types of aid the US could provide to Azerbaijan. This included restrictions on military assistance and certain types of economic aid. However, it's crucial to understand that Section 907 wasn't a blanket embargo. There were waivers included in the legislation, allowing the President to waive the restrictions under certain circumstances. These waivers were often invoked, particularly after the September 11th attacks, as Azerbaijan became an important partner in the US-led counter-terrorism efforts. The waivers allowed the US to provide assistance to Azerbaijan for specific purposes, such as border security and counter-narcotics efforts.

Aliyev's statement likely refers to the impact and perception of Section 907. While waivers were frequently used, the existence of the restriction created a sense of limitation and potential vulnerability in Azerbaijan's relationship with the US. The perception that sanctions were in place, even if partially lifted, could have influenced Azerbaijan's foreign policy decisions and its relationship with other countries. The signing of the tripartite declaration, which brought an end to the active conflict phase, created a new context for US-Azerbaijan relations. With the conflict largely resolved, there was a renewed opportunity to reassess the need for Section 907 restrictions and explore ways to enhance cooperation between the two countries. The potential lifting or further easing of these restrictions could pave the way for increased US investment, trade, and diplomatic engagement with Azerbaijan, further solidifying the strategic partnership between the two nations.

Section 907 of the US Freedom Support Act

Let's dig deeper into Section 907. As mentioned, it was enacted in 1992 amidst the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The key provision restricted assistance to the Azerbaijani government, stating that the US would not provide aid that could be used to further the conflict. This was a significant move, reflecting US concerns about the escalating violence and the potential for further instability in the region.

The main reasons behind the enactment of Section 907 were twofold. First, there were credible reports of Azerbaijan using force against Armenian civilians in Nagorno-Karabakh. The US Congress wanted to ensure that US assistance wasn't contributing to human rights abuses or the continuation of the conflict. Second, there was a broader concern about the potential for the conflict to destabilize the entire region. The US sought to encourage a peaceful resolution and prevent the conflict from escalating into a wider regional war. Section 907 was seen as a tool to exert pressure on Azerbaijan to engage in meaningful negotiations and refrain from using force.

However, the legislation included a presidential waiver, which allowed the President to bypass the restrictions under certain circumstances. This waiver was invoked numerous times, particularly after 9/11, due to Azerbaijan's support for US counter-terrorism efforts. Azerbaijan provided valuable assistance to the US military in Afghanistan, including access to its airspace and logistical support. This cooperation led to a reassessment of the US-Azerbaijan relationship, and the waivers became a regular feature of the policy. Despite the waivers, Section 907 remained a point of contention in the relationship. The Azerbaijani government consistently called for its repeal, arguing that it unfairly singled out Azerbaijan and hindered the development of a stronger partnership with the US. They argued that the waivers were a temporary fix and that a permanent removal of the restrictions was necessary to create a truly equal and cooperative relationship.

Impact on Armenia and Azerbaijan

So, how did Section 907 and the broader sanctions landscape impact Armenia and Azerbaijan? For Azerbaijan, the restrictions, even with waivers, created a perception of unequal treatment compared to Armenia, which didn't face similar restrictions. This affected the overall dynamics of US-Azerbaijan relations.

The economic impact of Section 907 on Azerbaijan was complex. While the restrictions limited certain types of US assistance, particularly military aid, they didn't completely cripple the Azerbaijani economy. Azerbaijan's oil and gas resources provided a significant source of revenue, which helped to mitigate the impact of the restrictions. However, the restrictions may have deterred some US investment and limited opportunities for broader economic cooperation. The perceived risk associated with doing business in Azerbaijan, due to the uncertainty surrounding Section 907, could have influenced investment decisions. Moreover, the limitations on military aid may have impacted Azerbaijan's defense capabilities and its ability to modernize its armed forces. The Azerbaijani government consistently highlighted these economic and security implications as reasons for repealing Section 907.

For Armenia, the situation was different. While not directly subject to Section 907-like restrictions, Armenia's relationship with the US was also influenced by the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and regional dynamics. The US provided assistance to Armenia, but the overall level of engagement was often overshadowed by the conflict and the US focus on Azerbaijan's role in counter-terrorism efforts. Armenia's economy, which is less diversified and lacks significant natural resources compared to Azerbaijan, may have been indirectly affected by the regional instability caused by the conflict. The ongoing tensions and the lack of a lasting peace agreement could have deterred foreign investment and hindered economic development. Moreover, the unresolved status of Nagorno-Karabakh continued to pose a significant security challenge for Armenia, requiring the allocation of resources to defense and potentially diverting funds from other sectors of the economy. The US policy toward Armenia has generally aimed to support its democratic development, economic reforms, and regional security. However, the limitations imposed by regional dynamics and the US focus on other strategic priorities have sometimes constrained the scope and impact of this engagement.

Current Status and Future Outlook

Where do things stand now? With the end of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, there's a renewed discussion about the future of US policy in the region. The Biden administration has signaled a commitment to promoting regional stability and finding a lasting resolution to the conflict.

One of the key questions is whether Section 907 will be further eased or potentially repealed. The Azerbaijani government continues to lobby for its repeal, arguing that it's an outdated restriction that no longer reflects the current realities. Supporters of repeal point to Azerbaijan's continued cooperation with the US on counter-terrorism and energy security, as well as the need to foster a stronger bilateral relationship. They argue that removing the restriction would send a positive signal and create new opportunities for cooperation in various fields, including trade, investment, and security. However, there are also opponents of repeal, who argue that it's important to maintain pressure on Azerbaijan to ensure it adheres to international norms and respects human rights. They emphasize the need to hold Azerbaijan accountable for its actions during the conflict and to ensure that any future settlement is just and sustainable. Concerns about democratic governance and human rights in Azerbaijan also play a role in this debate. The US Congress is likely to play a significant role in shaping the future of Section 907. Any decision to repeal or further ease the restrictions would likely require congressional action. The debate in Congress is expected to be robust, with various perspectives and interests being considered. The outcome will ultimately depend on a complex assessment of US strategic interests, regional dynamics, and human rights considerations.

For Armenia, the US commitment to supporting its democratic and economic development remains important. The US has provided assistance to Armenia in various areas, including democracy promotion, economic reform, and security cooperation. This support is likely to continue under the Biden administration, with a focus on strengthening democratic institutions, promoting good governance, and fostering economic growth. The US also plays a role in international efforts to address humanitarian needs in the region, including providing assistance to refugees and displaced persons affected by the conflict. Looking ahead, the US role in the South Caucasus is likely to be shaped by a number of factors, including the evolving regional dynamics, the relationship between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the broader geopolitical context. The US will continue to balance its strategic interests in the region with its commitment to promoting democracy, human rights, and regional stability. The challenge will be to navigate these competing priorities effectively and to contribute to a peaceful and prosperous future for the South Caucasus.

Conclusion

So, were Armenia and Azerbaijan subject to US sanctions? The answer is nuanced. While not facing comprehensive sanctions like some other countries, Azerbaijan was subject to restrictions under Section 907, which impacted the relationship. The future of US policy in the region will depend on ongoing discussions and assessments. It's a complex situation, but hopefully, this breakdown helps you understand the key aspects! What do you guys think the future holds for US relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan? Let's discuss!