The Geopolitics of 'Peace': A Familiar Script in the Caucasus
Al-Monitor reports US Vice President JD Vance's visit to Armenia and Azerbaijan, framed as an effort to 'push a Washington-brokered peace agreement that could transform energy and trade routes.' While presented as a benevolent intervention, this framing omits crucial historical parallels and double standards in US foreign policy, particularly concerning resource-rich or strategically vital
regions. CASE A: The Current Framing of US Involvement The explicit mention of 'energy and trade routes' transforming the 'strategic South Caucasus region' alongside 'peace' underscores the underlying economic and logistical objectives. The US is positioned as a neutral arbiter, facilitating an agreement signed just six months prior at the White House. This narrative emphasizes stability and
economic development, implying that US involvement is beneficial for all parties. CASE B: Historical Precedents of US 'Peace' and 'Trade' Initiatives The US engagement in the South Caucasus echoes a pattern observed in numerous resource-rich regions, often leading to outcomes that primarily benefit Western corporate and strategic interests under the guise of local stability. For instance, the
US-backed 'peace' efforts in regions like Central Asia post-Cold War frequently correlated with establishing pipelines and transit routes that bypassed Russian influence, as documented by organizations like the Jamestown Foundation (1998) detailing the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline project. The Framing: A Discrepancy in Emphases When the US engages in diplomacy in conflict-affected areas where its