Apparently when President Bush says that America is \committed to freedom in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in a peaceful Palestine,"" that precludes extending opportunities for freedom to other countries throughout the world.
Azerbaijan is a former Soviet satellite state that gained its independence in 1991. Located just north of Iran, it contains about eight million people. President Heydar Aliyev has ruled the country since 1993, procuring lucrative oil and gas contracts with Western investors and racking up an appalling human rights record by detaining, torturing and expelling much of the political opposition that challenges his control.
But President Aliyev has recently fallen ill, threatening his hold on power. What is a president to do? Conveniently, Aliyev has the power to manipulate his country's constitution and install his son, Ilham, as successor in the prime minister's post, which he has done. Thus, Aliyev can rest assured that when he passes on, his flesh and blood will retain power for the family. Azerbaijan will be the first ex-Soviet state to slip from limited democracy into a monarchy.
Thousands of protestors have thronged to the capital demanding that Ilham step down from his new position. The opposition Musavat party in parliament has derided the move as ""an attempt to put into place a neo-monarchist scenario in Azerbaijan."" Big oil has also had something to say about the continuation of pro-oil leadership with one unnamed Western executive remarking, ""We're about to crack open the champagne in the office.""
After losing hundreds of our soldiers and and billions of dollars for the cause of democracy in Iraq, one might think that the Bush administration would have some harsh words about this very undemocratic transfer of power in the region. But when the State Department was asked for comment, a spokesperson replied that the power transfer was ""fully consistent with the Azerbaijani constitution."" Now, why would we be rushing to defend the democratic credibility of a administration that gladly opens its oil fields to Westerners?
Of course, this is just one examples of hypocritical foreign policy. From Latin America to Iraq, we have embraced authoritarianism and suppressed democratic movements when we did not stand to directly benefit from the change. But the notable feature in this case is that the about face on human rights comes even as the Bush administration continues to proclaim our desire for democracy in the region.
When President Bush says, ""We stand for liberty,"" he apparently means just some of the time. And when he says that ""the advance of freedom is the surest strategy to undermine the appeal of terror in the world,"" he only applies the maxim when a country is not opening up its oil fields to us. We should stand for liberty, and successful democracies are less likely to foment terrorism. Double standards driven by self-interest will only fuel the violence and hate while destroying what little credibility we have left.
We need a foreign policy that consistently encourages democracy and human rights, not just when we have something to gain. Making a small investment in democracy now goes a long way in saving us money and lives by cleaning up the roots of terror before any shots are fired.
Nathan Kalmoe is a junior majoring in political science.
