On one side, we had Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, in north Africa to champion the cause of democracy and human rights. On the other, we had Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, congratulating the President of Azerbaijan on his landslide October poll victory, which even the State Department has said was tarnished by fraud, and which triggered street riots.
But the contradiction is not between Powell and Rumsfeld, notorious though their different views of the world are. It lies at the heart of the Administration’s foreign policy: does it always want to promote democracy, when that would produce a government hostile to its interests? That is the question the US faces in Iraq, above all — one it has chosen so far to duck. First Rumsfeld, who stopped in Baku on his way from Brussels to Kabul. The reason for the US’s interest is no mystery. Azerbaijan’s Caspian oilfields are an attraction as the US looks for alternatives to the Gulf. Like the US, it is wary of its neighbours, Russia and Iran. It is also located in an exceptionally useful place. During the Afghan war it gave overflight rights to US warplanes, helping to create an air corridor from Europe to Central Asia.
Azerbaijan was coy yesterday about whether it would grant what the Pentagon would now like — the option of basing troops there or, even better, a promise of access to airbases in the event of a crisis. It said it would think about it.
But Azerbaijan is the only majority-Muslim country to have sent troops to Iraq, about 125 soldiers, plus another 30 in Afghanistan. America gives $3 million (£1.7 million) a year to help to train them and modernise the military so that it can work with US soldiers.
Rumsfeld emphasised the closeness of those links yesterday: “We have a military-to-military relationship, as well as political and economic relationships. And certainly we intend to continue that military-to-military relationship with the new administration here in this country.”
The problem is the nature of that administration. The elections allowed Ilham Aliyev to succeed his father, Heider Aliyev, longtime leader of the Soviet-era Communist Party, who returned to power in 1993 after a military coup. Senior opposition figures are among 100 said still to be in jail after post-election riots. So is Ilgar Ibrahimogul, imam of a mosque in the capital, and founder of Azerbaijan’s Centre for Religious Freedom, together with Rauf Arifoglu, editor of the biggest-circulation newspaper. The State Department has called for an investigation into intimidation and ballot-rigging.
In that light Rumsfeld’s remarks amount to a bald statement of the bargain that the US will strike to pursue its strategic interest. That sits oddly with the message which Powell has been delivering this week on a tour of Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco.
Powell has been preaching to the text delivered by President Bush last month, when he called for a democratic revolution in the Muslim world. The US and its allies had been wrong in “excusing and accommodating” a lack of freedom. All very well, as a universal statement. But though Powell is said to embrace this message wholeheartedly, the message he delivered on the ground was more complicated. In Algeria Powell said that the presidential elections in April should be free, fair and transparent — and that the Government should invite broad participation and guarantee media access for all candidates. That is controversial because it banned the Islamic Salvation Front party in 1992 after it was poised to win elections, triggering a decade of violence in which 150,000 are thought to have died.
In Tunisia, similarly, Powell spoke of the importance of democracy and human rights. But he did not challenge the rules that have let Zine el Abidine ben Ali, the President, stay in power for 16 years, and probably eight more. Instead, he offered him a much-prized trip to Washington.
Tunisia, like Algeria, has a secular government, backed by security forces, which is challenged by Islamists with some popular support. The US may want reform, but it doesn’t want great change, if that means an Islamic regime.
Powell gave his warmest praise to Morocco, one of the most pro-US Arab countries. In his view it is now a model for other Muslim countries, with its election of parliamentarians and regional officials, and new freedoms for women. He put up only a gentle challenge to the Government over reported brutality towards people detained after the terrorist attacks in Casablanca in May. “As one moves forward toward . . . reform, one has to remain committed to the concept of openness and freedom of expression,” he said. “When one cracks down on terrorism, it has to be with the full understanding of basic principles of human rights.” That delicacy, no doubt, reflects US gratitude; Morocco is one of the few Muslim countries to back it over Iraq and terrorism. The US plans to quadruple its military aid and double economic help, Powell said.
Rumsfeld’s and Powell’s parallel trips illustrate the twin dilemmas now besetting US policy, made more acute by Bush’s missionary call for reform. The US wants help on fighting terrorism, but is squeamish about some of the methods used. It wants democracy, but is nervous that it might produce antipathetic regimes, as it might in Azerbaijan, Algeria, Tunisia, and even Rumsfeld’s final stop, Afghanistan.
As it might, too, in Iraq. The US has not yet squarely faced the possibility that Iraqi elections might produce a new government unsympathetic to the US. For all the passion of Bush’s speech, that is a contradiction his lieutenants are advertising rather than resolving.
