Democracy or Duplicity?
The Washington Post
Monday, July 4, 2005; Page A17
By Jackson Diehl
Less than six months after President Bush’s inaugural address, the tension
between his commitment to democracy and longstanding U.S. security and
economic commitments grows steadily more acute, especially in the Muslim
world. There is the problem of whether to endorse Egyptian President Hosni
Mubarak’s half-baked presidential election; there is the dilemma of
Uzbekistan’s Islam Karimov, who massacred hundreds of protesters in one town
but continues to host a U.S. military base in another.
Next up: Azerbaijan, an oil-rich former Soviet republic on the Caspian Sea
that hosts big U.S. oil companies, a new strategic pipeline for their
products, a refueling stop for U.S. military planes — and a government
teetering between consolidating a corrupt autocracy and embracing democratic
reforms.
Lodged between Russia and Iran, Turkey and Central Asia, Azerbaijan
resembles Ukraine a year ago, as it performed a similar wobble — one that
ended in a fraudulent election, followed by a democratic revolution. Like
former Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma, Azeri President Ilham Aliyev —
who was elected amid some blatant ballot-box stuffing two years ago — has
promised to hold free and fair parliamentary elections this November. As it
did last year, the Bush administration is trying to push the president to
keep his word, without pushing so hard that he ends up in the arms of
dictator-friendly Russia or China, or reverses his cooperation with the
Pentagon and American oil companies.
Azerbaijan’s well-developed political opposition and civil society meanwhile
is deliberately modeling itself on the democracy movements of Ukraine and
neighboring Georgia. It has built a coalition, chosen a protest color
(orange), and united around a demand that the elections be free and fair. If
they are not, the opposition will call Azeris to the streets. Already,
thousands joined two anti-government demonstrations in the capital, Baku,
last month.
“We have learned many important lessons from our Georgian colleagues and our
Ukrainian colleagues,” says Isa Gambar, one of the opposition leaders, who
spoke to me by phone last week. “We are studying very closely their method
for coming to power peacefully, and trying to follow their example.”
The Azeri opposition is not as united or popular as that of Ukraine or
Georgia. But the challengers are far better organized and competent than
those in many other Muslim countries. Gambar, who once served as an interim
president, says the opposition supports free-market capitalism and the
integration of Azerbaijan into NATO and the European Union.
Aliyev, for his part, is the 43-year-old son of a former Soviet politburo
member who ruled Azerbaijan for a decade before installing him in office.
The rigged election that gave him a mandate was followed by the beating and
mass arrest of protesters. Still, the secular and Western-educated president
regularly charms his American and European visitors. Sipping whiskey and
speaking fluent English, he tells them he is genuinely committed to making
his country a democratic Western ally.
Given the U.S. oil and security interests, Bush administration policymakers
would love to believe him. But should they? Skeptics, including some who
have been listening to the young Aliyev’s pitch for several years without
noting any significant change in Azerbaijan, say the administration risks
creating another Egypt: a government that delivers economic and security
cooperation and mouths words about democracy while practicing de facto
dictatorship. As massive oil revenues begin to flow into Baku, U.S.
acceptance of another rigged election this year could cement Aliyev into
just another president-for-life.
Administration officials say they understand the risk and have made a fair
Azeri election a top policy priority. “We are using every bit of leverage we
can muster,” one official told me. That includes deferring, for the moment,
a prize Aliyev very much wants: a pre-election visit to Washington for a
White House meeting with Bush. The Azeris have been told a date won’t be set
until it becomes clear whether the president will follow through on his
promises, including a 13-point plan for the elections he recently unveiled.
So far the signs are mixed. After suppressing one opposition rally in May,
the government allowed the two last month. It has opened a dialogue with
opposition leaders, and there is talk that Aliyev will agree to debate his
opponents on national television. But Gambar says the opposition still isn’t
allowed to rally or organize outside the capital and has no access to state
media. Electoral commissions at the national and provincial level are still
dominated by the government apparatchiks who falsified the 2003 vote.
At best, Azerbaijan could deliver a breakthrough for the Bush
administration: a historic free election that would end up strengthening its
ally Aliyev. At worst Bush will have to choose this November between another
oil-rich autocrat and pro-democracy demonstrators who have taken his
inaugural address to heart. Either way, a strategic Muslim country that
hasn’t gotten much attention in Washington since 2001 will soon be in the
spotlight.