PSCRP-BESA Reports No 86 (Sept 24, 2024)
Recently, there has been more and more talk about a multipolar world: the U.S. hegemony established after the Cold War is allegedly over, and the country can no longer claim global domination. This is a delusion— the U.S. still surpasses all other countries in terms of resources, finance, technology and military power. However, to maintain this leadership, it must hold its ground in all these areas.
Without leadership, the very existence of the U.S., as well as the global financial and security system, will be jeopardized. However, U.S. resources are limited and it has to choose its priorities, although many believe it is making wrong choices. The American political elite is not a monolithic entity, but rather a conglomerate of competing groups, each of which puts its own agenda above national interests. The so-called “deep state,” that is, the bureaucracy, defines the boundaries of national interests. Thus, U.S. foreign policy is a compromise between different political groups and the worldview of the “deep state.”
I will put forward a thesis that many may disagree with: today no one is seriously challenging the United States except marginal forces acting as proxies for other systemic players. Anti-Americanism is an attempt to negotiate with Washington on their own terms, and the success of such negotiations depends not only on a country’s resources, but also on its influence on the American domestic political landscape. This is true for other countries as well, but the U.S. remains the most powerful nation.
This is important for understanding the hopes of the political elites in the South Caucasus for the U.S. elections. Although the countries of this region are geographically close, they differ significantly. The expectations of Baku and Yerevan cannot be viewed in isolation, and in terms of influencing American political factions, Armenia has an advantage over Azerbaijan.
The public opinion formed about 150 years ago at the Berlin Congress of 1878 on the “Armenian question in the Ottoman Empire” created a powerful Armenian lobby in Western countries, particularly the United States. It has a well-developed infrastructure aimed at protecting Armenian interests and countering “Turkish” influence in a broad sense, including Azerbaijan. This structure, which includes political, financial and media resources, operates autonomously. Any reconciliation between Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey would deal a fatal blow to it, as the very basis for protecting Armenia from the “threat” posed by Turkey would vanish. It is not a single organization, but rather a conglomerate of groups and political traditions that have developed over the last 150 years.
Add to the mix the ideological dimension of the Democratic Party, the leader of modern liberalism. Many in this camp consider Erdoğan a dictator, and their position is non-negotiable. In addition, the Armenian diaspora in the U.S. is traditionally more organized and can exert more influence, especially on Democrats, than Azerbaijanis. The Armenian lobby is traditionally supported by the Greek and Assyrian lobbies, and its main instrument of influence is the U.S. Congress.
Democratic candidate Kamala Harris actively supports the interests of the Armenian community and recognizes the Armenian Genocide, which is important for the lobby. She opposed the use of force by Azerbaijan against the territorial integrity of Armenia, although Karabakh belongs to Azerbaijan. While the support of the Armenian lobby is not decisive for Harris, Democrats do not want to lose the Armenian vote. The lobby takes advantage of this and pressures Harris to increase her support.
Unlike Harris, Donald Trump is not connected to the Armenian lobby, and the majority of American Armenians are not his voters, so he has no obligations to them. Moreover, under Trump, the position of the Armenian lobby in the U.S. has weakened. Although Trump has no particular sympathy for Azerbaijan, his neutral stance is more favorable for Baku than the Democrats with their close ties with Azerbaijan’s opponents.
Armenia benefits from Harris’ victory, while Azerbaijan would very much prefer Trump. However, there is a nuance: Azerbaijan has a clear advantage in its relationship with the “deep state.” The influence of the Armenian lobby extends to the State Department: first, it is the Congress that approves ambassadors, and second, high-ranking State Department employees often have to deal with uncomfortable questions from the House Foreign Affairs Committee. However, for the Pentagon, the Department of Energy, and the U.S. intelligence agencies, Azerbaijan is much more important than Armenia because of its role in the Middle East, especially with regard to Iran.
Can the victory of a particular candidate radically change the situation in the South Caucasus? No, but politics is a process of creating new realities. Important topics for the region include the strengthening of Russian influence, the implementation of the Trans-Caspian transport and energy corridors with the EU, and the integration of the Caucasus and Central Asia (the Turkic project). The success of these projects requires political stability, which is impossible without a peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The success of this process largely depends on U.S. policy.
Unlike Armenia and Azerbaijan, Georgia doesn’t have a powerful lobby, strategic geopolitical position or natural resources to sustain U.S. interest. The neoconservative political group that supported Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations is now weak. Obama’s attempt to reset relations with Russia, which brought Ivanishvili to power, has shifted Georgia’s foreign policy toward the “Russian world.” It is still an open question as to which of the American candidates will challenge this.
The ruling circles believe that Trump is more favorable to the current government than Harris, based on his isolationism and ties to Viktor Orbán, who supports the “Georgian Dream” in the West. However, this approach is quite simplistic. It is more important to ask which American administration is willing to cede the South Caucasus to Russia and increase Moscow’s influence over Turkey and the Middle East. The effectiveness of the Democrats in this matter is evident from the current situation in Georgia. The upcoming elections in Georgia will show whether the current or future administration (if the Democrats win) is ready to take real steps to prevent the country from falling into the “Russian world.”
What the Trump administration will do if he wins remains an open question. Will it ignore Georgia’s integration into Russia’s economic and political system while maintaining the illusion of a Euro-Atlantic course? Most likely, no. There are no serious political groups in the U.S. that support the current Georgian government, and the “deep state” understands the real balance of forces in the region.
For the U.S., it is also important to redirect Turkey’s geopolitical interests from the Middle East to Central Asia. West-East projects (Trans-Caspian transport corridor, energy corridor, Turkic initiatives) are impossible without the participation of Turkey and Georgia. This requires the U.S. to improve relations with Ankara and prevent Russia from increasing its influence in Georgia. Which administration will be more successful on this issue remains unclear.
In conclusion, supporting candidates in U.S. elections is like rooting for a sports team. Not only is it uncertain who will win, but it is also unclear how the new U.S. administration will act in the Caucasus region.