Why is Brad Sherman pursuing an election adventure with 'Armenian prisoners' in Baku?
They say that if someone on Capitol Hill loudly starts singing a song about human rights, then somewhere in the corridors of the House of Representatives, another tranche of ethnic fundraising has simply opened up.
Political theater in Washington has long accustomed the international community to the fact that the principles of freedom and justice on the American stage have a very specific price tag, convertible into electoral ballots from diaspora enclaves in California and checks from narrow-profile lobbyist groups.
When the House Foreign Affairs Committee approves Brad Sherman’s amendment to the bill calling for the “immediate release of persons held in Baku” by a vote of 44 to 7, a sensible observer feels not respect for American democracy but only a persistent sense of déjà vu. What unfolds before us is another act in a protracted tragicomedy in which American legislators, with the pathos of biblical prophets, try to sell the international community fake indulgences for war criminals and leaders of the former separatist regime. What is happening on Capitol Hill strikingly resembles the methods of Bobby Menendez, whose corruption schemes, criminal case, and gold bars became a vivid illustration of how banal influence-peddling coexists behind the scenes of Capitol politics with the promotion of orders from ethnic lobbies. Watching Congressman Brad Sherman, accompanied by the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) and with the backing of committee chairman Brian Mast, try to insert an anti-Azerbaijani amendment into the basic State Department bill, it is impossible to shake the thought that the American legislative body is once again being used as a platform to serve outdated Armenian separatist illusions.
The semantic and legal blindness of the authors of such initiatives is striking in its deep detachment from reality. From the rostrum in Washington, we are again being forced to accept terminology that directly insults international law. The persons now serving long prison terms by court decision in Baku are not “prisoners” or “hostages,” as ANCA functionaries and their servants in Congress would like. They are figures found guilty by the court of committing the gravest crimes under the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan: from financing terrorism and organizing illegal armed formations to crimes against peace, humanity, and direct participation in ethnic cleansing.
Turning convicted leaders of the junta, who for decades held Azerbaijani lands under occupation, into “prisoners of conscience” is not just political cynicism; it is a direct attempt to whitewash terrorism. If Mr. Sherman or his colleagues in the “Armenian caucus” believe that a sovereign state that has restored its territorial integrity in full accordance with the UN Charter and UN Security Council resolutions will ask Capitol Hill for permission to administer justice and carry out lawful sentences against war criminals, then they have confused Azerbaijan with some other country. Azerbaijan’s judicial and legal system has operated and continues to operate exclusively within the framework of national legislation and international legal norms, and no votes in the relevant committees of the House of Representatives can cancel the principle of the inevitability of punishment for committed atrocities.
Particular attention should be paid to the fact that this legislative activity by Sherman and Co. is unfolding precisely at the moment when Baku and Yerevan are on the threshold of a historic finale—the coordination and signing of a peace treaty. When direct negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia show real progress, and without any intermediaries or guarantors, someone across the ocean begins to feel uneasy. And this is absolutely logical, because for diaspora radical structures like ANCA and their well-fed lobbyists in Washington, the establishment of a lasting peace in the South Caucasus is tantamount to complete political and financial death. In the run-up to the midterm elections, when the re-election of the entire House of Representatives is at stake, the activity of members of the “American caucus” acquires a very specific electoral logic. Representing a district in California with a high concentration of Armenian population, Brad Sherman desperately needs to mobilize the diaspora voter and secure financial support from ethnic lobbyist structures like ANCA. By introducing such initiatives into the legislative field, he is effectively running his election campaign, converting foreign-policy adventures into votes and donations for the upcoming elections. What will Brad Sherman build his election campaign in California on if the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict finally becomes history? What will ANCA functionaries collect millions in donations for if Yerevan and Baku open borders and launch joint economic projects? Obviously, the radical lobby and its American patrons are torpedoing the peace process not out of love for the Armenian people but out of a banal desire to preserve their own business project based on revanchism, national enmity, and endless fundraising. The openly adventurous statement by ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian that the release of criminals and the return of past statuses are “non-negotiable preconditions for peace” openly demonstrates this parasitic logic. In Washington they are trying to dictate terms to the victors, ignoring the real situation on the ground and naively believing that paper resolutions can change the geopolitical landscape of the South Caucasus.
The heirs of the Menendez school of political lobbying in the U.S. Congress show astonishing persistence in stepping on the same rake. Recall how in recent years attempts were made to revive the anti-Azerbaijani Section 907 amendment to the Freedom Support Act, how show hearings were held, and non-binding resolutions were adopted. It should be noted that under the Biden administration, pro-Armenian forces managed to activate the ill-fated amendment. But did this change Baku’s position? Did it stop the restoration of historical justice? The answer is obvious: no. Moreover, such steps only finally discredit the United States as a potentially honest and impartial moderator of any processes in the region. American foreign policy once again finds itself hostage to the narrow-group, parochial interests of legislators willing to sacrifice the strategic interests of their own state for votes in local elections. Capitol Hill should remember that Azerbaijan is one of the key links in European energy security, the largest logistics hub of the Middle Corridor, and a state pursuing an absolutely independent foreign policy. Attempts to speak to Baku in the language of blackmail, resolutions, and lobbyist amendments are not only pointless—they damage the image of the United States itself, turning American diplomacy into a laughingstock.
The irony of the situation also lies in the fact that legislators voting for such amendments demonstratively turn a blind eye to the monstrous internal problems in their own states and in the country as a whole. While Congressman Sherman spends working time defending the top of the Armenian separatists, crises of homelessness, crime, and the drug epidemic are growing in his native California. Instead of solving these problems, the congressman prefers to work off grants and political advances from ethnic radicals. To call things by their proper names, the adopted amendment is not about human rights, not about international law, and certainly not about concern for the future of Armenia. It is the purest product of the Capitol political market, where principles are exchanged for lobby support and real prospects for peace in the South Caucasus are sacrificed to the personal ambitions of individual politicians.
Azerbaijan has already proved that it knows how to defend its sovereignty both on the battlefield and on the diplomatic front. No votes in Washington, no matter how loud the numbers they are framed with, can reverse historical processes, restore separatist illusions, or force Baku to abandon the defense of its national interests. It is time for congressmen to learn this lesson before their resolutions finally turn into waste paper of interest only to historians of political corruption.
