Transitions on Line, Czech Republic
May 25 2005
Where Oil and Democracy Clash
by Khadija Ismailova and Shahin Abbasov
25 May 2005
Azerbaijan’s political temperature rises as the parliamentary
election campaign looms.
Two principles seem to guide foreign policy of the administration of
U.S. President George Bush – an intent to open up international
energy markets and a desire to promote democratic values around the
globe. These two notions appear to be on a collision course in
Azerbaijan, an oil-rich state in the Caucasus where the risk of risk
of political violence is growing.
The last half of this year promises to be eventful in Baku. The main
pillar of the country’s long-range economic development effort – the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline – is expected to become operational in
late 2005, around the same time parliamentary elections are held in
November. Already, there are indications that the election could
prove tumultuous. Political uncertainty, in turn, could cloud the
pipeline’s prospects for a smooth launch.
Opposition parties have become increasingly active in 2005, clearly
emboldened by the revolutionary trend in the former Soviet Union that
has produced regime change in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan over
the past 18 months. On 21 May, an opposition coalition sponsored a
demonstration, calling for guarantees of a free-and-fair legislative
vote. The Azeri government refused to sanction the rally, and police
used force to break it up. Dozens were injured in the confrontation,
including several journalists covering the event who were wearing
special vests designed to identify them as members of the press and
thus protect them from harassment. Estimates of the number of arrests
ranged from 45 to 149.
Before being set upon by club-wielding riot police, some opposition
demonstrators could be seen holding portraits of President Bush.
During a 10 May speech in the capital of neighboring Georgia, Bush
indicated that the United States would back democratic change in all
former Soviet states. “Across the Caucasus, in Central Asia and the
broader Middle East, we see the same desire for liberty burning in
the hearts of young people. They are demanding their freedom – and
they will have it,” Bush told the crowd assembled on Tbilisi’s
Freedom Square. “We are living in historic times when freedom is
advancing, from the Black Sea to the Caspian.” In organizing the Baku
rally for fair elections, opposition leaders seemed to be acting on
Bush’s Tbilisi’s comments.
One of the explanations given by local authorities in refusing to
grant the opposition permission to assemble was a desire to maintain
stability in the capital in advance of the opening ceremony for the
BTC pipeline, scheduled for 25 May. The event is expected to draw
dignitaries, including U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, from
around the world. The extent of force used by police, however, puts
foreign diplomats and corporate representatives in a difficult spot
for the BTC ceremony. Some may end up staying away from the event out
of concern that an appearance would be seen as an endorsement of the
suppression of the right to freedom of assembly.
The incident puts the Bush administration in an especially awkward
position. As a key backer of the BTC project, Washington has
developed a close strategic relationship with Azeri President Ilham
Aliev’s administration. U.S. officials have energetically promoted
stabilization initiatives in recent months, including a diplomatic
push to break the stalemate in the talks between Azerbaijan and
Armenia on a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. A stable political
environment is needed to help BTC realize its economic potential,
many observers say.
The aggressive tactics adopted by Azerbaijan’s opposition seem sure
to raise the country’s political temperature, running counter to the
U.S. desire for regional tranquility surrounding the BTC launch. Yet,
given the Bush White House’s messianic advocacy of democratic values,
U.S. officials cannot appear to discourage the Azeri opposition’s
quest for a free-and-fair vote. A U.S. embassy statement, issued
after the rally was suppressed, expressed regret over the police use
of force in Baku, adding that American officials will closely monitor
events. “We urge the Azeri government to respect the democratic
freedoms of the people,” the statement said.
In comments made prior to the 21 May rally, Ali Hasanov, an advisor
to Aliev, insisted that the Azeri government is committed to
democratization. “We think this [democratization] is normal,” Hasanov
said in comments broadcast on 21 May by Space TV. “Azerbaijan has
chosen the way of evolution. Some states have chosen the way of
revolution, and that is their own business.”
Opposition leaders characterized the 21 May rally as a success, and
gave every indication that the use of confrontational tactics would
continue. “Although hundreds of people were arrested and injured,
these people brought the victory of democracy even closer,” said Isa
Gambar, leader of the opposition Musavat Party was quoted as saying
in the 22 May edition of the Yeni Musavat newspaper.
Another opposition leader, the Popular Front reformist wing’s Ali
Karimli, said the demonstration was “more effective than we had
planned.” He added that the rally offered confirmation that “Azeri
authorities are ready to rig the elections and that they have no
respect for human rights,” Yeni Musavat reported.
The Azeri government’s image has taken a beating since the October
2003 presidential election, and the ensuing crackdown on the Aliev
administration’s political opponents. International monitors found
numerous flaws in the conduct and the results of the 2003 vote, in
which Aliev secured his own political mandate, succeeding his father,
Heidar, who died in December of the same year.
On 11 May, the younger Aliev took action designed to improve the
country’s electoral image, issuing a decree to make the
ballot-counting process more transparent. A week later, government
officials and opposition representatives agreed to a code of conduct
governing the upcoming campaign. In the so-called “Consensus of
Behavior” document, both sides pledged to observe democratic norms.
Prior to the 21 May incident, officials had sought to persuade
opposition leaders to postpone the demonstration until mid-June.
Opposition leaders dismissed the proposal, saying that such a
postponement would greatly reduce their ability to influence the
debate on possible amendments to the country’s election code.
Parliament is expected to take up the issue in early June.
In the aftermath of the 21 May incident, both sides’ commitment to
the code of conduct seems in doubt. Officials and opposition leaders
have traded accusations that the other side was the first to violate
the agreement. “The ink on the Consensus of Behavior agreement …
was hardly dry when the police wielded their truncheons [to break up]
a peaceful manifestation,” complained Fuad Mustafayev, the Popular
Front’s deputy chairman. Mustafayev maintained that the opposition
was determined to promote changes to the electoral code.
A spokesman for the governing Yeni Azerbaijan party, Husein Pashayev,
seemed equally determined not to give in to opposition pressure. “The
government of Azerbaijan is not that weak so that it should [alter]
its position just because of rally of some radical groups,” Pashayev
said.
“After the acts of violence performed by opposition in October of
2003 we had no confidence that they [the opposition activists] will
not destroy public order in the city,” Pashayev said. “The fact that
the opposition parties did not agree … to postpone their rally
until late June shows that they are keen to create trouble.”
Pashayev hinted ominously that international organizations played a
role in organizing the opposition rally. However, he declined to
identify any foreign entity under suspicion of assisting anti-Aliev
forces. Meanwhile, Mustafayev dismissed the notion that opposition
parties received assistance from foreign “donors.” At the same time,
he indicated that opposition leaders had contacts and shared
information with foreign organizations, noting that all such
interaction was driven by a common interest in “freedom of speech,
freedom of assembly and fair elections, which are the basis of any
democracy.”
In addition to the U.S. embassy statement on the 21 May clash, the
European Union and the OSCE office in Baku also criticized the
behavior of Baku police. Andreas Herkel, the co-raporteur of the
Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe, said the “practice of banning mass actions must be
abolished.”
The U.S. and EU commitment to democratic reforms is sure to be put to
the test in Azerbaijan in the coming months. The Azeri opposition
appears determined to push the government on the election issue.
Aliev administration officials seem to view the opposition activists
more as rabble rousers than democracy advocates. The stage is thus
set for fresh, and potentially more violent confrontation as the
election campaign progresses.
Some political analysts in Baku believe the government is committed
to retaining power at any cost, describing as “just words” the Aliev
administration’s rhetoric on the need for free elections. “The
government possesses the tools to ban demonstrations, and change
election statistics,” said Rasim Musabekov, a skeptical political
analyst.
There is a good chance that the Azeri government’s behavior in the
coming months could force the Bush administration, along with
European governments, to choose between the desire for stability and
a smooth launch for BTC, and the desire to promote democratic
reforms.