It is a distinct pleasure to appear before you all. No doubt, today’s event is a very touching for me because it is most likely going to be my last public presentation in the capacity of Azerbaijan’s Ambassador to the United States. Besides that, there is an important symbolism for me in the fact that I give this speech at the Central Asia and Caucasus Institute, here at the Johns Hopkins University. On October 23, 1996 I became the first invited speaker at the Institute just two days after it had been inaugurated, initially as the Central Asia Institute. Back then, in my introductory remarks I mentioned and, I quote: “One thing amongst others that has most impressed me about the United States is the large number of private and University-affiliated foreign policy think-tanks, and the diversity and outstanding quality of scholarship produced there. Support of the international community is crucial for the independence of the Central Asian and Caucasus countries, and institutions like yours create awareness of these countries and bring attention to their problems.”

Now, after ten years with full confidence I can say that the role of this Institute was indispensable in raising awareness about countries in our region, and in helping to promote their independence. All major issues and problems related to the region were under very careful and comprehensive research here. I highly appreciate the contribution the Institute has made with regards to Azerbaijan. Highest ranking officials from my country, including the late President Heydar Aliyev spoke at SAIS, presenting the country’s position on conflict resolution, energy development, political and economic reforms. Your Institute played an important role in the promotion of the globally important project - the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. Today we all can be proud of the great accomplishment: exactly a month ago, on May 28 first oil from the Azerbaijani sector of the Caspian Sea reached the port of Ceyhan.

Standing on this podium today inevitably brings back a lot of memories, endearing and funny at times, of my tenure in Washington. We started back in 1993, when Azerbaijan was merely a “country of interest” for the US, a new element on your political radar screen and a total “great unknown” for the overwhelming majority of average Americans. I remember stories told to me by consul about confusions with people wanting to get visas to go to places ranging from Abidjan to Abuja. All sorts of unexpected questions were asked including “are there any McDonalds in your African nation ?”

Hardly anybody remembers the Doonsbury cartoon related to Azerbaijan published in the Washington Post in 1993. But for me it was very revealing of realities we found ourselves. The cartoonist described the situation in the White House, where the boss calls the so called “leading expert” on Azerbaijan to get his advice to deal with trouble emerged in Azerbaijan. At the same moment the “expert” gets a phone call from his wife, who invites him to come home for dinner. Using this opportunity, the “expert”-in confusion- asks her “do you know where Azerbaijan is?”

As Americans always admit, their knowledge of geography has never been strong. I remember, during my first visit to the United States in 1975, when I spent 10 months in California, I was once stopped by a policeman. He looked at my driver license which had the name and state emblem of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and asked: where is that? I tried to explane as best as I could, intentionally avoiding the word “Russia”, but naming Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moscow, Kiev, Leningrad, Baku. Only after I mentioned Russia he said, yes, I know where it is, but you don’t look Russian to me.

It is funny coincidence, but 25 years later, another Californian, this time a member of the U.S. Congress, Mr. Martinez was surprised to learn in a meeting with me that Armenia was not surrounded by Azerbaijan. He said that he would have never voted for the sanctions against Azerbaijan had he known at the time. As a matter of fact, even after quarter a century many Americans, including members of the U.S. Congress, only partially aware of the realities in our region region.

As the relationship progressed and Azerbaijan was transformed into a “country of importance” the Embassy started to encounter other road-blocks, which seemed to be insurmountable at times. Some discussions with members of Congress and their staffers are going to stay forever in my memory because of  their peculiarities. Of course, the substance of those meetings was mainly related to the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict and Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. You would come again and again to the same office and to the same person just to see how useless your efforts are. You would hear “it is nice to see you again, Mr. Ambassador”, “we will definitely try to address your concerns, Mr. Ambassador”, “let me see what we can do to improve humanitarian situation in your country” and so on. In short, I got nothing beyond politeness.

 I always will remember an episode when a member of our parliament, Etibar Mammadov was meeting with prominent Congressman from New-York. A few minutes into the meeting the Congressman simply fell asleep. As we were leaving the office Mr. Mammadov told me: It should be tough for you to deal with Congress,  I can see that you do not have an easy job.

No, my job has not been an easy one. It is a fact that to represent a country in the United States is the most challenging and responsible job for any diplomat. It was even more so in the case of Azerbaijan which from the very first day of its independence was confronted with tremendous difficulties of internal and external character. But it is also true that to be an Ambassador in the United States of America  brings great deal of honor and pride. I am proud that I served Azerbaijan during the most important time in its history.

As I reflect on the last thirteen plus years of my life in the United States as Ambassador, I can say that we have achieved a lot in advancing US-Azerbaijan relations. During these years my primary goal was to be an “Ambassador” for Azerbaijan. In other words, not just representing my country but conveying the hopes, aspirations, dreams, and fears of my people to Americans from all walks of life. It was to convey the culture, history and heritage of Azerbaijan, in addition to the daily routine of briefing Congressmen and Senators about the importance of my country and why it was critical for them to reconsider legislation such as Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. On this particular issue , we made a considerable progress. We convinced many members of Congress that Section 907 is unproductive and a wrong foreign policy act. Although since 2002 President Bush has been signing a waiver each year that allows for direct assistance to Azerbaijan, this provision is still on the books. In this regard let me tell you another anecdote. It was mid-1990’s when Madam Albright, then member of the Cabinet and US Ambassador to the United Nations, visited Baku. During the meeting with Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister Madam Albright while wrapping up discussion said some polite words about my work in Washington. The Minister looked at me and then turned to her saying: “We will make a judgment about his work in Washington after Section 907 will be repealed”. Madam Albright immediately reacted to that saying, “poor, Mr. Ambassador, you might stay in Washington for the rest of your life”.  You see, she was not so far away from the truth.

I have to say, though the issue of Section 907 always remained as a major hurdle to more rapidly strengthening our bilateral ties, there was a positive side to it. Namely, we at the Embassy were obliged to be fast learners of the US political system. Section 907 was a major case study for Azerbaijani diplomats to graduate from the course of U.S. politics.  Our Embassy became an incubator for understanding intricacies of Washington: other Embassies and some colleagues would come to us for advice on how to deal with Congress.

Looking back to accomplishments I can name many in all areas of our cooperation. As with many other former Soviet Republics, the US had well defined priorities regarding Azerbaijan. There were four major US policy goals: support  for the independence; support for transformation to democracy and market-oriented society; support of energy development; and, finally, efforts aimed at the resolution of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.

Let me start with the conflict. The Caucasus states have a choice to make, because the outcome is not historically inevitable. We and our neighbors can continue to dwell on the animosities, hatreds and conflicts of the past – in which case we will continue the cycle of violence, death and poverty. If we do not solve our problems, others will attempt to solve them for us in expense of our independence. There is one historical principle in which I believe : those who remaine preoccupied with the past will lose the hope for the future. Put another way, those who always look backward can never see the future. Preoccupation with the past, and territorial expansion, have caused the conflict associated with Nagorno Karabagh, and we see devastating results of it for the whole region. By contrast, look at five decades long cooperation between Western powers and Japan and Germany after World War II. You would have never geussed that these allies fought devastating war against each other.

We appreciate role the United States play as the Minsk Group co-chair in mediation process. But, as recent round of talks between the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan indicates, difficult and important task is ahead of us. Azerbaijan will never cease to defend its national interests, its territorial integrity. We do not want the resumption of war, but Armenian forces must  withdraw from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. Armenia and the separatists in Nagorno-Karabakh should understand that Azerbaijan has no room for compromise on issues of sovereignty and territorial integrity. I believe that strong American leadership in the mediation process is essential for a peaceful resolution of this conflict.

Working towards mutual goals over more than decade, the United States and Azerbaijan developed strong and reliable relationship. Most impressive results were achieved in energy development which helped us in all other areas of our cooperation. The energy projects played a significant role in shaping the geopolitical image of the whole region. It is obvious that Azerbaijan’s oil and gas development was not and is not merely an issue of energy production and delivery. Azerbaijan has developed and persistently implemented its own oil strategy with a major goal of strengthening its independence and integrating with the international community. Azerbaijan’s well designed and well managed oil strategy, combined with political support from the United States, and with multi-billion investments are dramatically changing Azerbaijan’s future.

While in the 1990’s relations between Baku and Washington were strengthened, I also witnessed the transformation of both American and Azerbaijan societies. While Monica Lewinsky became a household name in America, the people of Azerbaijan became even more interested in the world around them, including life in America. We were both puzzled and amused by the whole affair. But in the end it offered not just a window into the complex life of politics in America, it also pointed out the strength of the American political system: that one can indeed question authority without resorting to violence and mayhem. The lesson learned was that the President of the most powerful country on earth could be held accountable. Not surprisingly, good governance, democracy and human rights started to creep into the lexicon of Azerbaijanis’ political culture.

With the beginning of the global war on terror, our bilateral relations with the United States progressed further, especially in the area of security cooperation, and strategic cooperation was reached. This period of our alliance’s evolution is much less prolific in terms of anecdotes than the previous stages, mostly due to the fact that at this time Azerbaijan had already transformed into a country capable of addressing the immediate security concerns of an average American, from energy security to physical safety.

President Ilham Aliyev’s visit to Washington two month ago, his meeting with President Bush at the White House highlighted the geopolitical importance of Azerbaijan and gave a new and strong impetus to relations between Baku and Washington. The broad spectrum of issues was discussed during that meeting, including energy development, regional security, nonproliferation of WMD, conflict resolution, and democratic reforms. Let me talk about democracy promotion issues in the context of recent parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan. Despite the fact that  November 2005 elections had many novelties that were implemented for the first time such as the allocation of free airtime on state television to all candidates, the marking of fingers with invisible ink and conducting of exit polls, opposition parties and some members of the Western media were preparing themselves for an Azerbaijani “color revolution.” I was therefore not at all surprised to read articles published in some US media outlets that expressed disappointment over the fact that they did not see a “color revolution” in Azerbaijan. I also could not stop wondering about the whole idea of “democracy promotion”, as the US Administration was propounding.

The idea of spreading democracy and freedom in today’s world is a genuine and natural thing. I could not agree more with President Bush’s remarks at his meeting with President Aliyev at the White House, when he said that “democracy is the wave of the future”. I share and applaud his personal commitment and desire to see the rest of the world free and democratic. However, the US President’s current “democracy promotion doctrine” and the way it is pursued around the globe sometimes remind me of Leonid Brezhnev’s doctrine of spreading communism. Too often we forget that democracy building is a gradual process that requires time. Revolutions will not resolve the chronic problems of a country if that country lacks a strong institutional foundation or basic understanding about democracy itself. Honestly, even after so many years in Washington I still don’t understand many aspects of the American democracy, especially, dangerously growing role of money in it. Or how to justify exceeding influence of ethnic politics on American foreign policy. I think many staunch “color revolution” supporters began to have second thoughts about this method of change, after seeing that the situation in some “revolutionized” countries had not changed much, and had even worsened in some cases.

I am glad that President Aliyev’s April 2006 visit to the United States convinced Washington that he genuinely shares the same values and aspirations for freedom and democracy and sees the future of Azerbaijan, in his own words, “as a modern, secular, democratic country”. It was confirmed that our future lies with global integration and global standards like rule of law, a modern economy, transparency. In that sense, the President’s visit was a significant step in gaining US support for further democratic reforms in our country. I believe that we would have made more progress in this area, had he been invited to visit Washington earlier. I am also very pleased that President Aliyev’s successful visit  was my “last accord” as an Ambassador of Azerbaijan to the United States. And it was, by the way, the 8-th Presidential visit to the United States during my tenure in Washington. 

For me, personally, this decade-plus long posting in DC has been extremely productive and spiritually enlightening. Along the way in my uphill battle to establish a strong, deep-seated relationship between the United States and Azerbaijan, the single most important satisfaction has been the friends that I have made here. Many of them are present here. I met unique personalities, like great jazzmen, including Joe Williams, Pete Fountain, Grover Washington Jr. and many others. It is not by chance that I started with jazz musicians, since political science and diplomacy in particular are very much akin to the art of jazz, requiring both the knowledge of basics and the ability  to improvise. And I have to say, a vivid example of that is Dr. Fred Starr himself.

I have especially fond memories of my meetings and discussions with outstanding public and political figures of the foreign policy world, such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, Richard Armitage and others, the true virtuosi of the game.

These memories I will treasure forever. Just like I will treasure the achievements that we accomplished together in these years, including the signing of Contract of the Century, undertaking the long and perilous road that led to the successful completion of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan main export pipeline, the formation of GUAM and strengthening of its international role, forging close relations between Azerbaijan and NATO.

I appreciate friendship and cooperation of countless government officials from the White House, Department of State and Pentagon with whom I interacted so many years. During my tenure here many of them have grown from junior positions to become Ambassadors and high ranking officials. I wish them all the best in their careers and personal lives.

I am grateful to three successive Presidents of Azerbaijan, who trusted me and honored me by giving opportunity to represent my country in the world’s sole remaining power center at such a crucial time in our history. It has been a privilege to work with two Presidential Administrations here, one Democrat and one Republican. And to be honest it is a bit sad to be leaving such a big part of my life behind. But the time is ripe to move on and clear the playing field for others, who undoubtedly, will continue in what I hopefully term as my humble contribution to the thriving alliance between our two nations.