Eurasianet
June 9 2005
SIZING UP THE `BUSH EFFECT’ IN ARMENIA AND AZERBAIJAN
Haroutiun Khachatrian and Alman Mir-Ismail 6/09/05
US President George W. Bush stressed the need for “freedom and
democracy” during his visit last month to Georgia. Bush’s words have
had a noticeably different impact on neighboring states in the
Caucasus. In Azerbaijan, where parliamentary elections are scheduled
for November 2005, Bush’s rhetoric seems to be influencing domestic
political developments. The reaction in Armenia, meanwhile, appears
far more muted.
In his May 10 speech in the Georgian capital Tbilisi, Bush suggested
that Georgia’s Rose Revolution in 2003 heralded an era of democracy
across the Caucasus. “We are living in historic times when freedom is
advancing, from the Black Sea to the Caspian, and to the Persian Gulf
and beyond,” Bush said. “Now, 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.”
In Azerbaijan, the president’s speech resonated broadly, helping to
energize opposition political supporters. In an interview shortly
after Bush’s visit to Georgia, Khagani Huseynli, director of the
Azerbaijani Center for Strategic Research, argued that US president’s
remarks were a signal to the Azerbaijani government that free and
fair elections must be held this fall. Accordingly, opposition
leaders are taking action designed to ensure Bush’s message is heard
by President Ilham Aliyev’s administration in Baku. On June 4, an
estimated 10,000 demonstrators took to the streets of Baku to call
for a cleanly contested poll. As they marched, many protestors
carried framed photos of Bush. [For additional information see the
Eurasia Insight archive].
The US embassy in Azerbaijan welcomed the government’s decision to
sanction the June 4 rally, which occurred two weeks after police used
force to break up a similar opposition protest. [For background see
the Eurasia Insight archive]. “We urge the [g]overnment of Azerbaijan
to continue sanctioning public demonstrations, and to meet its other
stated commitment to conduct parliamentary elections this fall that
live up to international standards,” said embassy spokesperson Sean
McCormack in a June 6 statement.
Pro-government figures have argued that Bush’s May 10 comments
contained no message for Azerbaijan. “We know that there are five
countries around the Caspian Sea,” Mubariz Gurbanli, deputy executive
secretary of the governing Yeni Azerbaijan Party (YAP), said shortly
after Bush’s Tbilisi speech. “I think Bush’s hint applies to other
countries and not to Azerbaijan. Because there is already a
democratic system functioning in Azerbaijan.”
In the weeks since Bush’s visit, a variety of influential
presidential supporters have sought to reinforce the notion that the
government is a champion of gradual democratization, and therefore
should not be viewed as a regime-change target. In remarks broadcast
by ANS television on June 7, YAP Executive Secretary Ali Ahmadov
stated that “democratic development is Azerbaijan’s strategic
choice.” The same day, Interior Minister Ramil Usubov offered
assurances that the police would conduct themselves “worthily” during
the November parliamentary poll, the Turan news agency reported.
“Therefore, the opposition should not be expecting a revolution,” he
added.
An opposition bloc, comprising Musavat, the Popular Front and the
Democratic Party, appears determined to press ahead with protest
plans. Authorities have already sanctioned a follow-up rally,
scheduled for June 18.
In Armenia, the governmental reaction to Bush’s speech has been
similar to that in Azerbaijan, with President Robert Kocharian’s
administration insisting that it stands on the side of
democratization. Pro-government media outlets in Yerevan have scoffed
at the notion, implied by Bush, that Georgia’s reform-minded
administration could provide an example for countries throughout the
former Soviet Union to follow. “By ascribing such a
worldwide-historical mission to little Georgia, President George Bush
simply paid tribute to [President] Mikheil Saakashvili, a person
having messianic ambitions,” said an editorial published by Hayots
Ashkharh on May 11. “It was a solemn moment, but had no relation to
real politics.” Many Armenian political analysts view the newspaper
as the unofficial mouthpiece of Defense Minister Serge Sarkissian.
At the same time, the reaction of opposition activists in Armenia, in
sharp contrast to that of their Azerbaijani counterparts, has been
comparatively subdued. Opposition leaders have not attempted to stage
anti-government demonstrations during the last month. Instead, their
reaction has largely been limited to hopeful rhetoric. Bush’s visit
may work to the advantage of “a victory of democratic forces . . . to
revolution, or to the change of power,” Viktor Dallakian, secretary
of the opposition Justice bloc told the weekly Yerrord Uzh on May 13.
Bush’s visit to Georgia generated little public attention in Armenia,
local political observers say, helping to account for the
opposition’s muted response. Many Armenians do not appear to see the
US president as a force for positive change. In a recent survey
conducted by the Armenian Sociological Association for the Gallup
Institute, only 32 percent of those polled expressed confidence in
President Bush, as compared with 87 percent for Russian President
Vladimir Putin. Armenia and Russia have long enjoyed a special
relationship. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Most Armenians, in fact, paid greater attention to Moscow’s May 9
celebration for the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II than
to President Bush’s speech in Tbilisi. One Yerevan pensioner who did
watch Bush’s televised visit to Tbilisi echoed the views of many. “I
think President Bush was wrong to give such a high mark to modern
Georgia,” said Torgom. “To name Georgia `a beacon of liberty’ is the
same as to declare it the eighth wonder of the world.”
Recent actions by US diplomats in Yerevan provide no indication that
the White House is ready to support the Armenian opposition’s
confrontational stance toward the Kocharian administration. [For
background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Opposition leaders were
not invited to the recent opening of the new American embassy in
Yerevan, and US Ambassador John Evans has described the Kocharian
administration as “headed in the right direction,” a qualification
not shared by the opposition.
Washington has been similarly careful not to offend Aliyev’s
administration in Azerbaijan. The recently opened Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan
oil pipeline – a project that stands at the core of US energy policy
for the Caspian Sea basin – explains that US caution in part. [For
background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Azerbaijan, which
borders on Iran, also plays a growing role in security policy for the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Pentagon.
With those considerations apparently in mind, Azerbaijani
pro-government media outlets have dismissed opposition hopes for
greater attention from the White House as overblown. “At first, they
[opposition parties in Azerbaijan] said that President Bush would
meet with them. Then, they said that he would meet with the
opposition NGOs. And what we see is that President Bush did not even
meet with anyone from Azerbaijan,” commented the privately owned TV
channel Lider TV. Pro-opposition youth groups such as Megam (It Is
Time) and Yox (No) traveled to Tbilisi in hopes of catching the
president’s attention during his May 10 speech in the city’s Freedom
Square, but, apparently, did not succeed.
US Senator Charles Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, reinforced
Washington’s support for the Kocharian and Aliyev administrations
during his recent tour of Caucasus states. In Baku, Hagel ruled out
the possibility of American support for a ‘velvet revolution’ in
Azerbaijan. “The US does not support a ‘velvet revolution’ and I am
not aware of such reports”, the English-language AzerNEWS daily
newspaper quoted Hagel as saying. In Armenia, the senator said he was
“very impressed” with the Kocharian administration’s reform record.
Despite Bush’s characterization of Georgia as “a beacon of liberty,”
the Armenian and Azerbaijani governments both seem disinclined to
follow the reform example set by Saakashvili’s government in Tbilisi.
Indeed, several geopolitical factors are exerting force on Georgia to
adopt conciliatory positions towards Armenia and Azerbaijan.
With Georgian state coffers slated to receive some $50 million per
year from the BTC pipeline, Azerbaijan’s importance as an energy
producer is likely to restrain any urge by Saakashvili to press for
democratization in Baku. In Armenia, complaints from ethnic Armenians
in the southern Georgian region of Samtskhe-Javakheti and disputes
with the Georgian Orthodox Church over Armenian churches in Georgia
appear likely to place similar restraints on Tbilisi’s political
influence in Yerevan. [For background see the Eurasia Insight
archive].
Editor’s Note: Haroutiun Khachatrian is a Yerevan-based writer
specializing in economic and political affairs. Alman Mir-Ismail is
pseudonym for a freelance political analyst based in Baku,
Azerbaijan.