Azeri daily sees change in US policy ahead of parliamentary poll
Zerkalo, Baku
22 Jul 05
Changes in Washington in the second term of the George Bush presidency
worked to the disadvantage of the Azerbaijani authorities, a major
Azerbaijani daily has said while commenting on the 20 July resolution
of the US Congress regarding the November parliamentary elections in
Azerbaijan. The front-paged report went on to say that Washington
still believes there could be evolutionary political changes in
Azerbaijan. The following is an excerpt from R. Mirgadirov’s report
by Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo on 22 July headlined “US Congress
demands fair election” and “And also ‘refraining’ from violence”;
subheadings have been inserted editorially:
The House of Representatives of the US Congress passed a resolution
on its Wednesday [20 July] session demanding “free and fair election
in the Republic of Azerbaijan”. As the secretariat of the House of
Representatives has reported, 416 congressmen supported the document
and one voted against it.
[Passage omitted: Description of the resolution]
The Azerbaijani authorities took some steps to prevent the Congress
from passing the resolution. Hafiz Pasayev, Azerbaijan’s ambassador to
the USA, had two meetings with congressmen. “Guided by the relevant
decree of President Ilham Aliyev, the Azerbaijani government will
create necessary conditions so that the voting during the November
[parliamentary] election is in line with international standards,”
Pasayev said in the US Congress during a meeting between an Azerbaijani
working group and representatives of the Committee on International
Relations of the House of Representatives.
During the meeting the Azerbaijani ambassador said that conditions
will be created for staging marches and demonstrations and for
equal access to the media by all candidates, Azartac news agency has
reported. Recalling her latest visit to Baku, Madeleine Albright,
chairwoman of the Board of Directors of the National Democratic
Institute, described her meetings in Azerbaijan with the opposition
leaders, heads of NGOs and the president.
Ambassador’s assurances have “little effect”
Given Washington’s considerable interest in the November parliamentary
election in Azerbaijan, the embassy plans to have a series of
meetings with the US government bodies and to regularly report on the
pre-election situation in the country, Pasayev has told Azartac in an
interview. “Two of the planned series of meetings took place in a very
interesting atmosphere. The congressmen asked me a lot of questions
and were interested not only in the pre-election situation, but also
in Azerbaijan’s economic development, its relations with neighbours,
the current situation around the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and
the overall situation in the region,” he said.
In his words, Congressmen Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Christopher Smith,
Tom Lantos and Joseph Crowley who spoke at the committee’s session
gave a positive assessment of the release of some prisoners ahead
of the election. The congressmen said that the USA is interested
in Azerbaijan’s democratization and in its integration in the
Euro-Atlantic zone.
However, judging from the text of the US Congress’ resolution, the
assurances of our ambassador had little effect and did not convince
the congressmen. The almost perfect consensus among the congressmen
points to certain mood which currently dominates in Washington.
To recap, the Bush administration came in under fierce criticism
in the aftermath of the October 2003 events [post-election riots in
Baku]. The White House was accused of sacrificing democracy values
in Azerbaijan for the sake of geopolitical interests and continued
stability. Some of the congressmen then tried to stage hearings in
the Congress on the outcome of the Azerbaijani presidential election.
The opposition leaders were to attend the hearings and they even set
the date of the hearings.
However, the White House mobilized all the levers of influence at
its disposal to prevent hearings on the situation in Azerbaijan. Then
there was a “revolution of roses” in Georgia and it had the effect of
rehabilitating the administration in the eyes of the US public. The
situation is drastically different now.
Changes in Washington
First, George Bush won his second term as US president. As a rule,
conservative Republicans become more “democratic” during their
second term.
Second, following the startling success toward establishing democracy
in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, the US president declared a
“crusade” against the countries which do not share or share only
partially the Western world’s values. Under these conditions, George
Bush can do nothing but ensure that the forthcoming parliamentary
election in Azerbaijan truly becomes “a big step towards democracy”.
It is no coincidence that the US ambassador to Azerbaijan, Reno
Harnish, said recently that the USA wants to help the Azerbaijani
government and people stage a free and fair parliamentary election.
[Passage omitted: Reno Harnish calls for evolutionary changes]
Third, the situation within the Bush administration, specifically
the reshuffle in the State Department, also “worked” to Baku’s
disadvantage. Condoleezza Rice, a fervent anti-Communist and a
supporter of promoting democracy everywhere where conditions allow
it, became the head of the State Department. But that is not all.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage – a “long-time friend”
of the Baku government, a very influential person in Washington and a
no-less-fervent advocate of the necessity of maintaining stability at
all costs – had to leave the State Department. Hence, the Azerbaijani
authorities lost support in the State Department which might at least
somewhat soften the mood currently prevailing in Washington.
Still, all this is not too bad. As opposed to many people in
Azerbaijan, Washington still hopes to “achieve political changes
in an evolutionary way”. This means that we will be able to avoid
political shocks at least until 7 November, provided of course that
the sides to the conflict, first of all the authorities, do not make
any serious mistakes, especially in foreign policy.