Now, members of Azerbaijan’s political and intellectual elite are raising concerns about Aliyev’s ability to run the country. They are also worried that lingering leadership questions could invite a new era of instability in Azerbaijan.

Although Aliyev has a lengthy history of health problems – including surgeries for a heart bypass, prostate condition and a hernia in recent years – the April 21 incident marked the first time that the president had faltered in public. Aliyev and his aides have tried to downplay the episode, but speculation is rife in Baku about the president’s ability to handle the responsibilities of power.

Opposition newspapers have dismissed government reports that Aliyev is able to carry out his full workload. On April 22, the "Hurriyet" daily, citing a source familiar with the President’s condition, reported that Aliyev was receiving round-the-clock care, and had been instructed not to speak or "move around much during the day."

"Heidar Aliyev’s image of immortality was destroyed [on April 21]", a Hurriyet editorial said. Prior to the incident, the editorial continued, "they [the president’s political backers] had managed to hide what had been taking place [Aliyev’s health woes] from the public. … Now, the clan [Aliyev’s political machine], which witnessed everything [on April 21], has received a signal to start taking a good look at their future."

Many political observers believed Aliyev’s re-election plans were being driven by a desire to gain more time for Ilham to build a sturdier power base of his own.

Aliyev’s collapse, however, raises questions about his viability as a presidential candidate, and thus sows doubts about his ability to ensure a stable transfer of power. Without Aliyev to offer cover for his son, many observers give Ilham, who lacks the political instincts of his father, little chance of surviving on his own for long.

Aliyev critics, who have long assailed the administration for engaging in systematic rights abuses, have wasted little time in calling for the president’s resignation. "Aliyev should urgently hand over power", wrote opposition journalist Rauf Arifoglu. "He [Aliyev] should go in a normal way without disasters. Our nation might pardon him because of his age and his illness".

Meanwhile, Etibar Mammedov, leader of the National Independence Party, characterised Aliyev’s Administration as representing a "danger" to Azerbaijan and called for an overhaul of the governing apparatus. "This regime must be replaced," the Turan news agency quoted Mammedov as saying April 22.

Azerbaijan under Aliyev has been pro-Western and has built close ties with the United States and Turkey. These ties have at times helped Baku promote the country’s interests in a variety of foreign policy spheres, especially in the development of Caspian Basin energy resources. Aliyev’s own personal authority – which is rooted in his experience as a top Soviet KGB official and Communist Party Politburo member – also has significantly enhanced Azerbaijan’s ability to negotiate from a favourable position.

At the same time, Azerbaijan has tense relationships with most of its neighbours, in particular with Armenia, Iran and Russia. The disputes are mainly connected to ethno-territorial issues and to control over the area’s abundant energy reserves. A possible leadership crisis might influence any or all of these disputes in ways that would likely be detrimental to Azerbaijan’s interests.

The hint of political instability also could prompt Russia to step up efforts to reassert its influence in Azerbaijan. Aliyev over the past few years has succeeded in stabilising Baku’s relationship with Moscow. However, any perception of an erosion of Aliyev’s authority may encourage Russian leaders to meddle in Baku’s domestic affairs. Some experts believe Moscow may attempt to make a diplomatic deal with Aliyev, under which Russia would offer to act as a guarantor of Ilham’s authority in exchange for enhanced influence over Azerbaijan.

Given Azerbaijan’s huge energy holdings and centrality to major international energy issues, an Azerbaijan that was Moscow’s client would have major international repercussions. Should Russia gain a decisive voice in Azerbaijani politics, it could block the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, and frustrate Turkey’s hopes of playing a major role in the Caucasus. Such a development would also increase the geopolitical pressure on Georgia, increasing the odds that Tbilisi, along with Baku, would slip back into Moscow’s sphere of influence.

At the same time, an attempt by Moscow to boost its influence over Azerbaijan could prompt similar action by other interested parties, namely the United States, Turkey and even Iran. Apart from the risks of internal destabilization, some experts worry that Azerbaijan could be driven by international rivalries, emulating in a way the experience of Afghanistan. None of the above-mentioned scenarios augurs well for Azerbaijan, or its neighbours. ENDS ALIYEV ILLNESS 24403

Editor’s Note: Stephen Blank is a professor at the US Army War College. The views expressed this article do not in any way represent the views of the US Army, Defense Department or the US Government.

EurasiaNet carried this article on 23 April.

Highlights and some editing are by IPS