Azernews.Az

Elnur Enveroglu

Read more

They say, with good reason, that a person is tested by the very deeds they pursue. And is there a greater punishment than being condemned to carry out the schemes that another nation longs for in secret but dares not say aloud—or that no law on earth could ever legitimately demand?

In the run-up to Donald Trump’s second presidency, dozens of politicians and members of Congress damaged their own careers—or even ended up behind bars—for such causes. The charge sheet is long: adopting a prejudiced stance, peddling false testimony, sabotaging international relations, and, worst of all, trampling the law underfoot and tarnishing the very image of the United States.

Then, on 8 August, history took a sharp turn. The United States, in full view of the world, achieved something that many had thought impossible. With President Donald Trump himself at the helm, Washington brought together two South Caucasus states—long locked in enmity and silence for over three decades—at the same table. This was not just another diplomatic photo opportunity; it was an act of political bridge-building that sent ripples through the global order.

One might well ask: Why did the Biden administration fail to accomplish this six months earlier? Why, at that time, was the air on Capitol Hill thick with the noise of pro-Armenian activists in Congress?

It is worth recalling that in 1992, it was members of Congress themselves who pushed through Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act—aimed squarely against Azerbaijan—at a time when Azerbaijani lands were under foreign occupation and in dire need of assistance. In a bitter twist of justice, Washington’s laws seemed to run in reverse: instead of supporting the victim of aggression, they aided the aggressor and amplified its voice.

Now, a brief aside—when I say pro-Armenian, I do not cast a blanket over the entire Armenian people. I refer specifically to the separatist lobbyists who, then as now, seek to legitimise territorial conquest.

So what did the pro-Armenian congressmen of that era achieve? And what of those pseudo-statesmen who, under Biden’s watch, dusted off Section 907 as though it were a holy relic? These were the same voices claiming that Azerbaijan had “occupied Garabagh” and committed “ethnic cleansing” against 200,000 Armenians. By their logic, perhaps they would have us believe that Karabakh was somehow conquered for Armenians to settle there. Such political chatter comes from people who can barely find the South Caucasus on a map.

Sadly, even in Trump’s era, the same empty vessels make the most noise. Their chief aim is to muddy the waters, to act as mouthpieces for Yerevan’s unsaid ambitions, and to plant these notions in the public mind.

Take, for instance, the comments of Brad Sherman—a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Vice Chair of the Congressional Armenian Caucus—just a day after Trump’s breakthrough peace meeting in Washington. Sherman came out swinging against the possible supply of US arms to Azerbaijan, demanded the release of all Armenian prisoners of war, and declared that “Azerbaijan must be held accountable for aggression” while insisting that America should provide Armenia with “fair and real security guarantees.”

He went further, stressing that Section 907 should never be suspended—a position he has held consistently for decades, in lockstep with the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) and other lobby groups. In past years, Sherman has repeatedly backed Armenian genocide resolutions opposed by President Trump’s administration, and he has championed aid packages to Armenia that run directly counter to Trump’s foreign policy priorities in the region.

Now, call me naïve, but I scoured his statement for even a trace of objectivity or sincerity and found none. His words read less like congressional oversight and more like a political billboard for the Yerevan lobby.

One must ask whether Sherman truly believes his own claim—that Section 907 has ever had teeth enough to influence Azerbaijan’s course. In reality, this so-called pressure measure has spent the past 29 years gathering dust in statute books, achieving nothing but a footnote in diplomatic history. Neither Sherman nor his cherished clause has altered the facts on the ground—and they never will.

Frankly, it’s hard to make head or tail of this pro-Armenian congressman’s antics. One can’t tell whether his hollow statement is a sly wink at Donald Trump—the very man he once lambasted and pushed to impeach—or merely a feeble attempt to rattle Azerbaijan with the toothless old cudgel of Section 907.

We see little point in straining our voices to explain to a hard-of-hearing Democrat the difference between a prisoner of war and a war criminal. The seventy-one-year-old Congressman Sherman should have the seasoning to tell the two apart without a cue card. We merely remind him not to march his blinkered campaign under the banner of Azerbaijan—for such prejudice could well boil over into resentment and leave an indelible blot on his long political record. A word to the wise: a lesson or two from the downfall of his former colleagues would serve him well.

Photo credit: Los Angeles Daily News