Belarus and Azerbaijan. Use a long spoon

Date: 29/04/06

A tale of two presidents, and of American short-sightedness

TWO rigged elections, with political arrests before the vote and protesters battered afterwards; behind them, two moustachioed, post-Soviet rulers. The balder one, Alyaksandr Lukashenka, was reviled by the United States before and after last month's pointless presidential poll in Belarus. The other--Ilham Aliev of Azerbaijan, whose allies swept the board in an absurd parliamentary vote last year--this week fulfils his longstanding ambition to meet George Bush in America. Mr Bush's hospitality is a mistake, for two reasons.

The first is moral. Mr Aliev inherited his presidency from his father in 2003; the Alievs have run Azerbaijan for almost all its post-Soviet existence, as Mr Lukashenka has Belarus. Under Aliev junior, human rights have been extolled in theory but abused in practice, probably as much as in Belarus. And Azerbaijan is a world champion of corruption. Still, the use of double standards in foreign policy is not exactly a surprise: even governments committed to spreading democracy must compromise and hold their noses occasionally. The important question may not be whether Mr Aliev's visit is morally defensible, but whether it is politically sensible. It is not.

Here is the case for overlooking in Mr Aliev what is excoriated in Mr Lukashenka. Belarus is a poor, landlocked Slavic nation; Azerbaijan is a Muslim petro-state on the shores of the Caspian Sea. Oil and gas are starting to flow via twin pipelines from its offshore deposits to the Mediterranean. Its southern neighbour is Iran: Donald Rumsfeld, America's defence secretary, has been a mysteriously frequent visitor, and rumours swirl about just how helpful Mr Aliev is being with America's military operations. Azerbaijan's northern neighbour is Russia: Mr Aliev is part of the West's competition with the Kremlin for influence in the former Soviet Union.

In this competition the Americans can sometimes afford to be principled. For example, they denounced Islam Karimov, the brutal president of Uzbekistan, after his troops massacred protesters last year, even though it cost them an airbase. But oil and geography supposedly make Azerbaijan too important to risk alienating its president. In any case--and unlike in Ukraine in 2004--the opposition is too weak and fractious to offer a real alternative. When they meet, it is said, Mr Bush will try to nudge his guest along the path to democracy.

Unfortunately, Mr Aliev has already proved adept at simulating liberal instincts, rationalising abuses and promising improvements: Azerbaijan, he will doubtless plead in Washington, DC, is a country in transition. But, in deed, Mr Aliev has been intolerant of opposition and too tolerant of corruption and inequality. The oil billions about to flood into Azerbaijan will reinforce his already formidable position. And in his part of the world, where the top man is thought responsible for more or less everything, a handshake from Mr Bush will look like a cast-iron imprimatur, no matter what lesser American officials may say. State-run television in Azerbaijan is unlikely to dwell on any criticisms Mr Bush offers in private.

This public validation will be bad for Azerbaijan, but ultimately for America too. Something else that Mr Aliev has in common with Mr Lukashenka is that neither can rule for ever. If Mr Aliev can be pressured into change, Azerbaijan has the potential to become a well-off, democratic Muslim state. If he is not, America may one day be faced with an oil-rich Muslim country in a volatile region that is disillusioned with democracy and the West, and susceptible to other ideas.

Editorial talks of 'A tale of two presidents, and of America's short-sightedness'