INTERVIEW: Peter Voß fragt Jörg Baberowski: Peter Voß fragt Jörg Baberowski (3sat.de)

(3sat.de) "Die Ukraine (war) das Kernland des alten Imperiums. Der russische Gründungsmythos beginnt in Kiew", sagt der Historiker Jörg Baberowski. Was hat die Vergangenheit mit der aktuellen Krimkrise zu tun? Wie hat der Westen beim Konflikt in der Ukraine versagt?

Stalin und der Stalinismus ist ein ewiges Leit- und Leidthema der jüngeren russischen Geschichte, aber keineswegs nur dieser. Der Osteuropa-Experte Jörg Baberowski hat mit seiner 2012 erschienen Studie "Verbrannte Erde - Stalins Herrschaft der Gewalt" über die Bedeutung Stalins im stalinistischen Terrorsystem kontroverse Diskussionen ausgelöst. Darin hatte er den Stalinismus als Rückfall in eine archaische Gewaltherrschaft, und damit als Fremdkörper im sowjetischen Modernisierungsprojekt gedeutet. Baberowski erzählt die Geschichte der stalinistischen Gewaltexzesse und beschreibt Stalin als einen Psychopathen und passionierten Gewalttäter.



Die Gewaltherrschaft Stalins

Das bolschewistische Projekt, so die These des Buches, bot eine Rechtfertigung für den Massenmord, aber es schrieb ihn nicht vor. Stalin war Urheber und Regisseur des Terrors. Laut seiner Studie über die stalinistische Herrschaft ließen sich deutliche Parallelen zum Nationalismus erkennen, so zum Beispiel im Ausmaß der Gewalt. Baberowski erforschte in den russischen Archiven, wie grausam Stalin und seine Schergen waren. Bereits 1918 gab es in Russland Konzentrationslager. Nahe Moskau haben vier Leute in einem Jahr 20.000 Menschen erschossen. Die Bolschewisten konnten ihre schwache Machtposition nur durch einen gnadenlosen Krieg gegen die eigene Bevölkerung durchsetzen.



Auf der Leipziger Buchmesse wurde Baberowski in der Kategorie "Sachbuch/Essayistik" ausgezeichnet. Die Jury begründet ihre Bewertung mit der Verbindung von Baberowskis Quellennähe und seiner klugen Kritik tradierter Deutungen. Er widerstehe der Versuchung, die Gewalt zu rationalisieren.

Warum einen ungewollten Staat erhalten?

In der Krimkrise rät Baberowski zu einem Verständnis für Putin und die Mehrheit der Russen. Er wirft dem Westen Europas und der USA vor, das sowjetische Imperium und die Rolle der Ukraine nicht verstanden zu haben. Für die Russen sei die Ukraine der mythische Geburtsort ihres Landes. Die Ukraine sei kein einheitlicher Nationalstaat, und die Krim habe immer eine Sonderrolle gespielt. Gegenüber dem Deutschlandradio Kultur wirft er die provokante Frage auf: "Warum kann die Krim nicht haben, was für die Südtiroler selbstverständlich ist? Wieso soll für alle Zeit ausgeschlossen sein, dass sich der östliche vom westlichen Teil der Ukraine trennt? Solches Recht haben auch Tschechen und Slowaken für sich in Anspruch genommen, und es ist kein Krieg daraus geworden."

Im Konflikt um die Ukraine verweist Jörg Baberowski auf die Autonomie der Südtiroler oder die Trennung von Tschechen und Slowaken. Dies seien Modelle in Westeuropa, die gewaltfrei erprobt wurden. Der Geschichtsprofessor sieht darin eine potentielle Lösung. Auch ein mögliches Auseinanderbrechen der Ukraine hält Baberowski nicht für tragisch, sofern gewalttätige Konflikte verhindert würden. "Der Souverän ist das Volk, und wenn die Mehrheit der Wähler im Osten nicht mehr Teil der Ukraine sein will, dann ist es eben so. Warum sollte man denn einen Staat erhalten, dessen Bürger ihn gar nicht wollen?", äußert er gegenüber der Deutschen Welle.

Die russische Sicht der Dinge

Nicht nur die Krim, sondern auch die Gebiete im Osten der Ukraine sollen sich abspalten dürfen, meint Baberowski. Der Westen habe in der ukrainischen Krise versagt, weil er die Geschichte der Ukraine nicht begreife. "Jetzt tut der Westen so, als könne man die Ukraine in die Nato aufnehmen - das ist naiv", postuliert er im Interview des Deutschlandradios. Die Westukrainer hätten mit Hitler kollaboriert, während die Ostukrainer als Soldaten in der Roten Armee kämpften. Die Geschichtserinnerung sei deshalb im Westen und im Osten grundsätzlich unterschiedlich. Erst nach dem Zusammenbruch der Sowjetunion habe die Ukraine zu einer Nation werden müssen.

Die provokanten Thesen des Berliner Professors rufen viel Kritik hervor. Baberowski wird Blindheit gegenüber der Existenz einer selbständigen ukrainischen Geschichte vorgeworfen. Er vernachlässige, dass sich in der Ukraine nach über zwanzig Jahren staatlicher Unabhängigkeit eine demokratische Zivilgesellschaft gebildet habe, und übersehe die postsowjetische Generation, die sich nicht mehr in ethnischen, sondern in staatsbürgerlichen Kategorien definiere.

Sehen Sie am Montag, 28. April 2014, 23.10 Uhr ein Gespräch von Peter Voß mit Jörg Baberowski, in dem dieser den Historiker fragt: "Verstehen wir Russland?"

Vita

Jörg Baberowski ist Professor für Geschichte Osteuropas an der Humboldt-Universität in Berlin. Der 1961 am Bodensee geborenen Historiker studierte Geschichte und Philosophie in Göttingen, erlernte selbstständig die russische Sprache und verfasste Studien über die politische Justiz im ausgehenden Zarenreiche und den Stalinismus im Kaukasus. 2012 erhielt er für sein Buch "Verbrannte Erde. Stalins Herrschaft der Gewalt" den Preis der Leipziger Buchmesse in der Kategorie "Sachbuch/Essayistik".

ESSAY: Georgia between the Aesthetics and the Politics of Democracy. By Zurab Karumidze (ifsdeurope.com)

(ifsdeurope.com - pdf) Art is based on the human ability of playing -- the free play of intellect and intuition (as Kant defined it in his “Ability of Judgment”); freedom is at the core of playing, and therefore art as free play is essentially democratic. Although throughout history art was used as a very strong tool to boost totalitarian and authoritarian structures -- religious or secular, to politicize arts and aestheticize politics (Walter Benjamin) -- freedom of imagination was disruptive for ideological clichés and stereotypes. Western European art, from its ancient Greek origins (Satirical Drama), had this liberalizing drive, which materialized in the culture of carnival, parody and laughter throughout the pre-modern, modern and post-modern ages. What I suggest calling “Democratic Aesthetics” -- the art of parody and laughter, the art which disrupted the established ideological values and moral norms, the carnavalesque travesty and grotesque, individualism and physiologizm, playful rereading and rewriting of established texts, critical questioning and creative freedom of thought paved the way for the making of the European mindset; it provided one of the earliest and most significant experiences of liberalism and democracy that the European mind has gone through. Authors like Rabelais, Cervantes, 18th century English novelists, Italian dramatists of Commedia dell’Arte, etc., were as instrumental in forging European liberalism, as the political thinkers and philosophers of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. Pre-modern European art provided the aesthetical background, and laid the aesthetical foundation for political Democracy of later periods.

Georgian art and literature emerged from the religious art and writings of the early Middle Ages (influenced by Byzantine art), developing into the secular art of the Golden Age (11th-13th cc.), then declining until the late 18th century, and from the early 19th century falling under European influence through the Russian conquest. Pre-Modern Georgian art and literature substantially lacked “democratic aesthetics.” To a great extent it was parochial and pious. Democracy, be it aesthetical or political, emerged in the free European cities, while the city culture in Georgia was rather underdeveloped. This is one of the reasons that Georgian literature developed mostly as poetry, while prose and fiction remained very poor until the end of the 19th century; classical Georgian prose is mostly made up of religious texts (lives of martyrs and saints), historiography (chronicles, biography of Kings, etc.), and some legal and medical texts.

However, we can talk about some episodes of “democratic aesthetics” in the artistic history of Georgia. Georgian visual art was mostly clerical: iconography and frescos. I’m not a historian of visual arts, but one could trace the tension between the established norms and the emergence of perspective and individualism. The most obvious sample of “democratic aesthetics” is Georgian folk music, which is based on collective improvisation. As for the literature: the major text of the pre-modern age, and not only of that, is the Georgian national epic – Shota Rustaveli’s The Knight in the Panther’s Skin (early 13th c.), a unique example of medieval Romance, a largely secular mixture of Platonism and Sufism, with superb versification. By the way, Sufism as one of the most “democratic” religious teachings was appreciated by the Georgian elite of that period. It took five centuries to beget David Guramishvili, a poet of rather wide scope, spanning religious mysticism and secularism, especially his humorous-erotic pastoral poem “The Shepard.” Next comes Romanticism (early 19th c.), in the poetry of Nikoloz Baratashvili: highly individualistic, self-searching, intimate, fanciful, passionate, agitated. The second half of the 19th century featured Ilia Chavchavadze, the leader of the new Georgian public intellectuals, who promoted nationalism. However, in order to do so he had to deconstruct obsolete traditionalist clichés and patterns, suggest following European models of social-political organization and educational reform, and promote the need for cultural, political and social criticism. Among his essays, poems, and long stories (which can be called “foundational” for the new Georgian nation), I would distinguish his almost Rabelaisian story -- “Is he a Man?!” – about a Georgian nobleman in decline. European type literary Realism in Georgian fiction was introduced by the novels of Alexandre Kazbegi. Another unique and remarkable manifestation of “democratic aesthetics” in the history of Georgian literature comes in the writings of Vazha-Pshavela, whose narrative poems focus on the conflict between individual freedom and traditional collective mores. Also I would compare his poetic philosophy with that of American Transcendentalists -- in terms of the intuitive openness to natural phenomena, as representing higher truth; “shamanic transcendentalism” – this could be another definition of Vazha-Pshavela’s poetic weltanschauung.

The richest episode in the history of Georgian art and literature, during which “democratic aesthetics” materialized and, moreover, coincided with political democracy, is the age of Georgian Modernism (1910s-late 1920s). It spanned three dramatic historical periods: the collapse of the Russian Empire (1914-17), the Georgian Democratic Republic (1918-21), and the Sovietization of Georgia (1921-late 1920s). As several political historians suggest (Stephen Jones, Roland Suny), the so-called “First Republic” (Georgian democratic Republic) proved to be a pretty successful experiment in social democracy. As for Georgian Modernism – this was a genuine explosion of artistic freedom, liberty, and diversity in Georgian visual arts, theatre and literature. Paintings by Niko Pirosmani, David Kakabadze, Lado Gudiashvili, Shalva Kikodze, Elene Akhvlediani, et al., the theatre productions by Kote Marjanishvili and Sandro Akhmeteli, the writings and literary disputes of the “Blue Horn” symbolists and Futurists -- they tried to come up with new forms of expression, a new idiom, creating vibrant examples of “democratic aesthetics;” they combined Georgian folklore and myth with the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, French and Russian symbolism with the poetry of Vazha-Pshavela and Commedia dell’Arte; Edgar Allan Poe was the demon, the major persona haunting the Georgian poets (not as an American, though, but as the father of French symbolism). Though located on the periphery of European Modernism, Tbilisi or Tiflis of that time was called the “Fantastic City” (Tatyana Nikolskaya) to which the artist and writers from the collapsing Russian Empire were attracted, seeking creative and political freedom, good food and wine. Such energy of “democratic aesthetics” could have boosted the further development and establishment of political democracy in Georgia, but the Sovietization of the nation and the advent of Bolshevik rule killed the process: part of the creative elite was destroyed during the Bolshevik purges, some had to flee the country, and some had to keep a low profile, e.g. by restricting their intellectual explorations to the privacy of their homes.

With the advent of the “Khruschev Thaw” in the late 1950s there was a certain revival of “democratic aesthetics” in Georgia. This is when American culture and the arts penetrated the Soviet realm partly via official, but mostly unofficial (black-market) channels. American literature was permitted in the Soviet Union -- the writings of Mark Twain, Theodore Dreiser, Jack London, et al. However, the true novelty was the coming of the works of Hemingway in the 1960s and William Faulkner in the 1970s: they captured the minds of some Georgian writers. Specifically, Hemingway became a sort of icon for many Georgians, together with JFK and other idols of American pop-culture, particularly, pop-music. America was perceived as the land of all kinds of freedoms, including sexual freedom, of unlimited possibilities and wealth. The strongest impression came from the jazz music. There were few Georgians who performed jazz, but many appreciated it, listening to smuggled records, to the Willies Connover Jazz Hour program on Voice of America, watching movies such as “Sun Valley Serenade,” which became a true fad at that time, or “The Magnificent Seven,” which fascinated Georgian “Machos” with the dynamics of cowboy shootouts and Wild West chivalry. People who appreciated jazz, American literature and the associated way of life turned into a cast of “aesthetic dissidents,” marginalizing themselves from the official Soviet aesthetics and ideology.

“Democratic aesthetics” in the 1960s and 70s in Georgia was mostly represented in the cinema and the theatre; due to mysterious reasons, some things were more permitted in the Soviet Socialist Republic of Georgia than elsewhere in the Soviet Union. Movies by Otar Ioseliani, Gia Danelia, Eldar Shengelaia, as well as theatre productions by Mikhail Tumanishvili and Robert Sturua questioned and deconstructed not only Socialist ideological clichés, but also those of the Georgian traditionalists, and this was achieved by a vibrant carnivalesque and parodic artistic idiom. Though working under the Soviet-Communist regime, they were able to accomplish what can be called a “pluperfect Postmodernism.”

With the advent of Perestroika and subsequent Georgian independence, significant changes suggesting “democratic aesthetics” emerged in Georgian literature. Still in the minority, a group of young intellectuals promoted the idea of cultural criticism, of rethinking national history, rereading and rewriting the national classics, encouraging globalization processes in Georgian culture. Young authors modified Georgian fiction, introducing new language (e.g. city slang) and new topoi (modern urban realities, gender, minority, perversions), and delved into parodic intertextual play. Thus, beginning in the early 1990s, Postmodernism became a fad sweeping the minds of a new generation of Georgian artists and writers.

All the above mentioned episodes of the emergence of “democratic aesthetics” are just islands in the stream of Georgia’s history. None of this was ever enough to forge and temper the sensibility and the mindset needed to embrace political democracy, with the exception of one case – the Democratic Republic of 1918-21. To an extent, for a small nation like Georgia such an experience with “aesthetic democracy” should have been enough to translate it into political democracy and liberalism. However, Georgia had missed the formative centuries of “democratizm," which Europe had been through in the late Middle ages, featuring a "carnival culture" of free cities, and social and economic modernization. The elites, who created the artistic and political democracy of the Georgian Democratic Republic of 1918-21 were destroyed, banished or marginalized by the totalitarian rule and thus the succession was disrupted. The Soviet period left no space for political democratization, and as for the post-Soviet period, there are several explanations why Georgia failed to become a decent democracy: a) social, economic and territorial problems disenfranchised the broad majority of the nation, and people embraced religious nationalism instead as a solution; b) the power lust of the ruling elites, which impeded decentralization and self-governance, transparency and accountability, and jeopardized fledgling property- and human rights. In contrast to the sporadic liberalism of the Shevardnadze period, the post Rose Revolution years have shown a dramatic backslide of democracy: lack of checks and balances, politicized judiciary and police, violation of property rights, total control of national TV.

Due to historical and present-day hurdles, Georgians are stuck on the “aesthetic” level of Democracy. Democracy as an idea and a value is something amorphous and eclectic to the Georgian mindset – it is more like a metaphor, a symbol. Opinion polls show that democracy, alongside religious orthodoxy, has become a significant element of the Georgian national identity, thus suggesting a form of conflation of notions in the current national mentality. Democracy is subliminally perceived as an index of chosenness, Europeanness, and Christianity, all of which are important for a nation historically surrounded by Muslim states. On the other hand, Christianity is also perceived as an index of national identity, not as a purely religious value. The core of such an amorphous eclecticism is in the Georgian cultural mindset. For a concise and comprehensive description of such a mindset I’ll refer to Osip Mandelshtam, who wrote: “I would consider Georgian culture a type of ornamental culture. Tracing the outlines of the vast and fully developed territory of the foreign (culture), they [the Georgians] mainly absorb only its outer design, while at the same time fiercely resisting the internally hostile essence of the powerful neighboring territories.” Today, however, the picture of democracy is clearing up. Paradoxically, this is thanks to the backslide of the objective democracy we have had since the Rose Revolution: more people demand real democracy – checks and balances, independence of national TV and media, property rights, independent judiciary, decentralization, participation, accountability, a fair electoral environment, etc.

more here: ifsdeurope.com

TEXT: “We are All Georgians Now:” Symbolic Capital, Trust and Authority Under Hierarchy. By Alexander Cooley and Daniel Nexon

(bc.sas.upenn.edu) Our analysis of the US-Georgia relationship has a number of implications for internationalrelations scholarship in general, and the new hierarchy studies in particular. Tbilisi’s accumulation of symbolic and social capital led Washington to overvalue Georgia’s strategic importance and downplay the risk of US entrapment into a peripheral conflict. This suggests that international-relations scholars sometimes overemphasize “objective” sources of credibility—such as regime type—at the expense of (rarely examined) interpersonal and interagency relations shape assessments of credibility in international politics. Indeed, US-Georgian relations provide a compelling case for this claim precisely because hindsight makes clear that key US and Georgian officials placed too much trust in Georgian officials and that Georgian officials believed Washington would take a harder line on their behalf.

Our study suggests that work on hierarchy needs to move further away from state-centrism and the structure of relational governance among states toward analyzing the character of relations among sub-state actors, including regimes and individuals. It provides additional evidence that the dynamics of asymmetric relationships are far more complicated than simply the degree to which weaker states accept the legitimate domination of stronger ones. Leaders of subordinate states, for example, have proven capable of deploying the very basis of that authoritative relationship to influence the policies of great powers.108 We hope, furthermore, that this study advances attempts to recognize the strategic dimensions of symbolic politics and recover a broader understanding of power politics.

Full text >>>

VORTRAG: „Vorherrschende Einstellungen zum Sowjetischen Architekturerbe Georgiens“ - Soviet Modernism 1955-1991. Unknown Stories

Liebe GeorgierInnen und FreundInnen von Georgien,

wir freuen uns, daß diese Woche so viel zu "Georgien" in Österreich angeboten wird und übersenden Ihnen zusätzlich zu dem Georgischen Kulturkalender Information zu dem am Samstag, den 24. Um 13:25 November geplanten Vortrag „Vorherrschende Einstellungen zum Sowjetischen Architekturerbe Georgiens“ von Levan Asabashvili (Georgien), Architekt

Im: A r c h i t e k t u r z e n t r u m  W i e n MQ

Museumsplatz 1

19. WIENER ARCHITEKTUR KONGRESS

Sowjetmoderne 1955 –1991. Unbekannte Geschichten

PROGRAMM

SAMSTAG 24. NOVEMBER 2012

KAPITALISMUS VERSUS KOMMUNISMUS. ARCHITEKTUR DER MODERNE IN OST UND WEST

Moderation: Katharina Ritter (Österreich), Kuratorin der Ausstellung

10:00 Begrüßung: Dietmar Steiner (Österreich), Direktor Az W

10:15 Einführung: Katharina Ritter (Österreich), Kuratorin der Ausstellung

10:30 Vortrag „Des Imperiums letzter Stil. Rückblicke aus dem 21. Jahrhundert“

Vladimir Belogolovsky (USA), Kurator

11:15 Vortrag „Die Moderne: Auf beiden Seiten des Eisernen Vorhangs“

Olga Kazakova (Russland), Kunsthistorikerin

12:00 Mittagspause

DAS SOWJETERBE: NATIONAL ODER RUSSISCH?

Moderation: Ekaterina Shapiro-Obermair (Russland/Österreich), Kuratorin der Ausstellung

13:00 Einführung: Ekaterina Shapiro-Obermair (Russland/Österreich), Kuratorin der Ausstellung

13:15 Vortrag „Das Erbe der Moderne. Retten oder vergessen?“

Irina Chepkunova (Russland), Vizedirektorin Forschung, Staatliches Schtschussew Museum für Architektur, Moskau

13:25 Vortrag „Vorherrschende Einstellungen zum Sowjetischen Architekturerbe Georgiens“

Levan Asabashvili (Georgien), Architekt

14:10 Vortrag „Architektonische Prototypen für das Nationale“

Dimitrij Zadorin (Weißrussland, Niederlande), Architekt

14:55 Vortrag „Rettung des Open Air Kino ‘Moskwa’ oder Paradoxe des sowjetischen und postsowjetischen öffentlichen Bewusstseins in Armenien“

Ruben Arevshatyan (Armenien), Künstler, Kunstkritiker und Kurator

15:40 Diskussionsrunde mit Ruben Arevshatyan, Levan Asabashvili, Irina Chepkunova, Ruslan Muradov, Mait Väljas, Dimitrij Zadorin

16:10 Pause

DER LETZTE KONGRESS DER ARCHITEKTINNEN DER UDSSR

Moderation: Andrey Bokov (Russland), Präsident der Architektenvereinigung Russlands

17:00 – 19:30 weitere Details siehe „Der letzte Kongress der ArchitektInnen der UdSSR“

kuratiert von Felix Novikov (Russland, USA), Architekt

SONNTAG 25. NOVEMBER 2012

LOKALE MODERNEN. ZENTRIFUGALE KRÄFTE IN DER ARCHITEKTUR DER UDSSR

Moderation: Georg Schöllhammer (Österreich), Vorstand tranzit.at / Gründer „springerin“

10:00 Einführung: Georg Schöllhammer (Österreich), Vorstand tranzit.at / Gründer „springerin“

10:15 Vortrag „Baltische Modernen“

Mart Kalm (Estland), Professor und Dekan an der Estnischen Kunstakademie

11:00 Vortrag „Lokale Moderne und globaler Orientalismus: Konstruktion eines sowjetischen Orients“

Boris Chukhovich (Usbekistan, Kanada), Kurator und Forscher

11:45 Vortrag „Kunst und Architektur in der Ukraine der späten Sowjetzeit“

Oleksandr Burlaka (Ukraine), Architekt & Oleksiy Radynski (Ukraine), Herausgeber „Politytschna Krytyka“

12:30 Diskussionsrunde mit Oleksandr Burlaka, Boris Chukhovich, Sergej Fedorov, Mart Kalm, Oleksiy Radynski

13:00 Mittagspause

GEBAUTE IDEOLOGIE

Moderation: Alexandra Wachter (Deutschland, Österreich), Kuratorin der Ausstellung

14:00 Einführung: Alexandra Wachter (Deutschland, Österreich), Kuratorin der Ausstellung

14:15 Vortrag „Stadträume einer sozialistischen Moderne“

Elke Beyer (Deutschland), Historikerin

15:00 Vortrag „Erfindung eines sowjetischen Rituals: Das Dramatische in der neuen Architektur“

Marija Drëmaitë (Litauen), Architekturhistorikerin

15:45 Vortrag „»Republik der roten Halstücher« – die Architektur von Artek“

Wolfgang Kil (Deutschland), Architekturkritiker und Publizist

16:30 Vortrag „Zwei Architektengenerationen im Kommunismus“

Vladimír Šlapeta (Tschechien), Architekt und Architekturtheoretiker

Der Kongress wird in deutscher, russischer und englischer Sprache abgehalten.

Jeder Vortrag dauert ca. 30 min, anschließend 15 min Publikumsfragen.

Änderungen vorbehalten

Aktuelle Informationen: www.azw.at/kongress

Zum Kongress erscheint die Publikation „Hintergrund 54“, voraussichtl. Erscheinungstermin 19.02.2013

BLOG-MEDIA: South Caucasus Media Conference

New media - New Opportunities of Communication In the Region

Congress Hotel, Picasso Hall
Yerevan, Armenia
19 May 2011, 14.00 - 18.00
AGENDA

13.45 – 14.00 Registration

14.00 - 14.30 Opening Session
Suren Deheryan, president of Journalists for the Future

14.30 - 15.30 First Session - Alternative resources for media: the potential and dangers

Moderator: Samvel Martirosyan, Information Security Expert

Speakers: Gregory Shvedov, Editor-in-chief of the Internet news agency Caucasian Knot

Onnik Krikorian, Caucasus Editor for Global Voices Online


15.30 - 16.00 First Session Discussion

16.00 - 16.15 Coffee break

16.15 - 17.15 Second Session – International Experience of Online Broadcasting. Prospects for
the South Caucasus Countries


Moderator: Ashot Melikyan, Chairman of “Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression”

Speakers: Robert Parsons, Director General of Canal PIK
Manana Aslamazyan, Representative of Internews Network in Armenia


17.15 - 17.45 Second Session Discussion

17:45 – Closing Remarks

The conference is being organized within the framework of the “New Media Workshops for Media Society” project. It is implemented with the financial support of the Social Transformation Program (Matra) of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the OSCE Office in
Yerevan.

BOOK: An Appraisal of the EU’s Trade Policy towards its Eastern Neighbours: The Case of Georgia (ceps.eu)

Authors: Patrick Messerlin, Michael Emerson, Gia Jandieri and Alexandre Le Vernoy
In: EU Neighbourhood Policy
CEPS Paperbacks
source: ceps.eu

In: EU Neighbourhood Policy, CEPS Paperbacks
Date of publication: 01 March 2011
Pages: 121

File type: pdf
634.2 KB
Can't download?
Download

This study, conducted by researchers at Sciences Po in Paris, CEPS and the New Economic School of Georgia, assesses the present state of the EU-Georgia discussions on a free trade agreement and finds there is an urgent need for the European Commission to reshape its approach. To this end, the authors put forward concrete proposals that should be set in motion well before the autumn 2011 Eastern Partnership Summit.

INTERVIEW: Georgien zwei Jahre nach dem Krieg - Gespräch mit Alexander Rahr (arte.tv)

Wo steht Georgien politisch und wirtschaftlich zwei Jahre nach dem Krieg mit Russland? Alexander Rahr leitet bei der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik das Berthold-Beitz-Kompetenzzentrum für Russland, Ukraine, Belarus und Zentralasien. ARTE Journal sprach mit ihm telefonisch am Rande einer Konferenz zu politischen Reformen in Russland.

Interview >>>

CONFERENCE: "European Security and the Caucasus" - October 17-21, 2010 in Florence, Italy (fondazione-delbianco.org)

The main focus of the conference will be directed, on one hand,toward the Caucasian security and the role of Europe in this, on theother, toward the place of the Caucasus in the process of creation ofEuropean security architecture, and the threats originating from thisregion. At the same time, attention will be paid both tointraregional processes and problems (conflicts, poverty,deficiencies of governance, democratisation, interethnic relations,etc.), and to external geopolitical and geostrategic factors, suchas: strategic agendas of neighbouring countries and other regionalactors, world economic crisis, emergence of religious radicalism,etc.

Following sessions will take place at the conference:
¢ Internal and external threats to security in the Caucasus:,
¢ New architecture of European security and the Caucasus,
¢ Conflicts in the Caucasus and the prospects for their resolution,
¢ Religion, culture and ethnicity in contemporary globalised world,Europe and the Caucasus,
¢ Democratic transformation in the Caucasus and the European 'softpower',
¢ Images and perceptions of the countries and the peoples of theCaucasus in European societies and political elites,
¢ Legacy of the past: history of the Caucasus and its impact on thecurrent situation and the future of the region,

Paper proposals of no longer than 250 words should be send toorganizersby 25th of August, 2010, along with the following information:

author's full name (and that of co-author's, when relevant), city andcountry, organizational affiliation, e-mail, and, paper title. Pleasealso indicate, in which section you would like to participate, andwhether you will need any equipment.

The abstracts should be sent tothe following addresses: leilakhubashvili@gmail.com

Working languages of the Conference are: English, Russian, and Georgian.
The duration of paper presentations should be limited to 10-15minutes., The organising committee is not supposed to cover anyaccommodation or travel expenses, but will provide necessaryassistance with finding suitable accommodation.

For more information, see the conference website: European Security and CaucasusFrom: Sunday, October 17, 2010 To: Thursday, October 21, 2010

DIALOG: Britische Internetseite will Dialog zur Situation im Kaukasus anstoßen (iiss.org)

Das Internationale Institut für strategische Studien London (International Institute for Strategic Studies) eröffnete für Experten aus verschiedenen Ländern ein Internetportal zum „virtuellen Dialog" über die Situation im Kaukasus. Es wurde zur ersten Online-Plattform für einen regelmäßigen Meinungsaustausch zwischen den Experten aus Russland, den Kaukasus-Ländern sowie aus den USA und den Ländern Europas. Das Portal wurde im Vorfeld des 2. Jahrestages der Kaukasus-Krise gestartet. Im August 2008 hatte Georgien Südossetien angegriffen. Russland hatte eine Operation zur Nötigung zum Frieden durchgeführt, indem es Zivillisten und seine Friedensstifter vor dem Aggressor geschützt hatte.

+++

To coincide with the second anniversary of the Russian-Georgian war of August 2008, the IISS Russia and Eurasia Programme has today launched its Caucasus Security Insight webpage – the first online platform offering a regular exchange of views among a unique spectrum of experts from Georgia, Russia, different parts of the Caucasus region as well as the US and Europe. Read More

The project is part of the IISS Georgian–Russian Dialogue on Post-August War Challenges,a project funded by the European Union under its Instrument for Stability Programme.

PODCAST: Podium: Der “gefrorene Konflikt” um Karabach (moe-kompetenz.de)

Quelle: www.moe-kompetenz.de

Das Verhältnis der kaukasischen Nachbarstaaten Armenien und Aserbaidschan ist angespannt, der Konflikt um die Region “Berg-Karabach” nach wie vor nicht gelöst. Die Region liegt auf aserbaidschanischem Staatsgebiet, ist aber mehrheitlich von Armeniern bewohnt. Die von Armenien unterstützte “Republik Nagornyj Karabach” wird international nicht anerkannt.

Noch im Juni 2010 wurden vier armenische und insgesamt zwei aserbaidschanische Soldaten an der Grenze getötet. Der Konflikt kann also ebensoschnell “heiß” werden wie der zwischen Russland und Georgien um Südossetien im Jahr 2008…

Wie sehen die Menschen in der Region den Konflikt? Welche Lösungsmöglichkeiten gibt es und wie stehen die Chancen dafür? Dazu spreche ich mit Müschfig Mammadov, Dr. Vahram Soghomonyan und Dr. Uwe Hallbach, also mit je einem jungen Experten aus beiden Ländern und mit einem deutschen Wissenschaftler, der unter anderem die Bundesregierung in diesem Konflikt berät. Das Gespräch beweist im Ergebnis nicht zuletzt, dass trotz gegensätzlicher Grundauffassungen zum Konflikt ein Gespräch zwischen den Parteien möglich ist und beide Seiten mehr zivilgesellschaftlichen Kontakt wünschen, um die Basis für eine zukünftige Lösung zu legen.

Download MP3-Datei (höhere Qualität)
Download MP3-Datei (kleinere Dateigröße)
(ggf. auch mit rechter Maustaste und “Ziel speichern unter” versuchen)
(48:40 Min.)

Das im Beitrag erwähnte Buch über den Konflikt, das 2006 gemeinsam von Publizisten beider Länder veröffentlicht wurde, kann hier heruntergeladen werden. Die erwähnte Studie von Stefan Meister (DGAP) zur Europäischen Kaukasuspolitik hier.

Weitere Informationen zu den Gesprächspartnern siehe unten (auf “weiterlesen” klicken). Kommentare zu diesem Gespräch sind willkommen – einfach unten in das Kommentarfeld einfügen – ohne Anmeldung!

Müschfig Mammadov, wurde 1978 in Sumgait in Aserbaidschan geboren. Nach einem vierjährigen Bachelor-Stidium und dem anschließenden einjährigen Magisterstudium an der Fakultät „Völkerrecht und internationale Beziehungen“ der Staatlichen Universität Baku (Aserbaidschan) studierte er von 2000 bis 2002 Europa- und Völkerrecht an der Juristischen Fakultät der Universität Leipzig. Diesem Studium folgten die einjährigen Forschungsarbeiten an der Juristischen Fakultät der HU Berlin. Nach der Rückkehr nach Aserbaidschan arbeitete er als Jurist und Dolmetscher beim GTZ-Projekt „Unterstützung der Gerichts- und Justizreform in Aserbaidschan“ sowie für das Projekt des niederländischen Centre for International Legal Cooperation zur Unterstützung der Verwaltungsrechtreform in Aserbaidschan. Seit Oktober 2007 promoviert er an der Juristischen Fakultät der HU Berlin zum Thema „Sezessionskonflikte im postsowjetischen Raum und das Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker“.

Dr. Vahram Soghomonyan, geboren 1977 in Jerewan (Armenien), studierte Germanistik und Weltliteratur an der Staatlichen Universität Jerewan. 2006 promovierte er an der Philipps-Universität Marburg. Von 2002 bis 2006 arbeitete er in der FEI-Forschungsgruppe Europäische Integration am Institut für Politikwissenschaft der Philipps-Universität Marburg. Schwerpunkte: Südkaukasuspolitik der EU, Demokratische Konsolidierung und Wertewandel in Armenien. Autor zahlreicher Publikationen zum Thema Europa/Südkaukasus (u.a. Europäische Integration und Hegemonie im Südkaukasus 2007). Engagiert sich in der Bürgerinitiative zum Schutz von Grünanlagen in Jerewan.

Dr. Uwe Halbach (geb. 1949) ist Mitarbeiter der Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik in Berlin. Er forscht und publiziert dort zu den Regionen Kaukasien und Zentralasien, Russland (südliche Regionen und nichtrussische Föderationssubjekte) und zur GUS. Schwerpunkte seiner Arbeit sind u.a. regionale Konflikte, Sicherheitsfragen und Religionspolitik.

UNIVERSITY: Seminar zu ethnologischen Musiktraditionen des Kaukasus in Halle/Saale (musikwiss.uni-halle.de)

... noch ein kleiner Hinweis eher wissenschaftlicher Art: im nächsten Semester bietet Eckehard Pistrick am Institut für Musik, Martin-Luther-Universität, Abt. Musikethnologie jeden Montag von 10.15-11.45 ein Seminar zur Musik des Kaukasus an.

Interessenten können sich unter eckehard.pistrick@musikwiss.uni-halle.de melden, das Seminar steht auch für Nicht-Universitätsangehörige offen.

Der Kaukasus galt in der Musikethnologie lange Zeit als Rückzugsgebiet alter Musiktraditionen. Die reiche Instrumentaltradition Armeniens, die mugham-Tradition Aserbaidschans und die georgische Polyphonie wurden unter diesem Gesichtspunkt interpretiert. Neuer Forschungen zeigen aber, dass der Kaukasus über Jahrhunderte auch als Drehscheibe zwischen christlichen und islamischen Traditionen fungierte. Die Bühnenpraxis unter sowjetischer Herrschaft hat die Tradition im Sinn einer „neuen Folklore“ im Dienste der Machthaber uminterpretiert. Auch die post-kommunistischen Prozesse der Wiederbelebung und die Wiederbelebung national interpretierter Musiktraditionen lassen sich am Beispiel des Kaukasus analysieren. Das Seminar stellt die wichtigsten Musikgattungen, Instrumente und Musiker wie Djivan Gasparian, Alim Qasimov und das Rustavi-Ensemble anhand von Video- und Tonbeispielen vor. Außerdem stellt es Fragen nach einer möglichen Neuinterpretation des Kulturraums Kaukasus im Licht neuester musikethnologischer Forschungen. Ergänzt wird das Seminar durch Beitrage von aus dem Kaukasus stammenden Musikern, die am Institut für Musik studieren.

Literatur:
Amy Estelle de la BRETEQUE, « Femmes mollah et cérémonies féminines de deuil en Azerbaïdjan » In: Cahiers de Musiques Traditionnelles 18, 2005, 51-66.
Deema KANEFF, Who owns the past? – The politics of time in a ‘model’ Bulgarian village, New York 2004.
Andy NERCESSIAN, “A Look at the Emergence of the Concept of National Culture in Armenia: The Former Soviet Folk Ensemble” In: International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music, Vol. 31, No. 1 (2000), 79-94.
www.polyphony.ge
Frieder ZAMINER/Susanne ZIEGLER, Polyphonie médiéval et polyphonie du Caucase, In: Michel HUGLO (Hrsg.): Polyphonies de tradition orale, Paris 1993, 70-83.

Mit besten Grüßen,
Eckehard Pistrick

----------------------------
Eckehard Pistrick
Research Assistant
Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg
Institute for Music
Dept. Ethnomusicology
Kl. Marktstr. 7
D-06108 Halle
Germany
+0049 (0) 3455524562
eckehard.pistrick@gmail.com

PROJEKT: Politische Transformation im postsowjetischen Aserbaidschan: eine historisch-institutionalistische Analyse (madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de)

Political Transition in Post-Soviet Azerbaijan: A Historical Institutionalist Analysis
Babajew, Aser

pdf-Format: Dokument 1.pdf (12.389 KB)

Das Projekt versucht, im Rahmen des historisch-institutionalistischen Analyserasters die politische Transformation eines postsowjetischen Systems am Beispiel Aserbaidschan zu erklären, insbesondere die Persistenzlogik sowjetischer Institutionen weit über den Kollaps des Sowjetsystems hinweg.Die Fragestellung wurde vor allem durch verbale Datenerhebung, Beobachtung und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse untersucht. Das wichtigste Ergebnis dabei ist die Einsicht, dass es analytisch sinnvoll ist, beim politischen Transformationsprozess neben der Unterscheidung zwischen formellen und informellen Institutionen auch zwischen neuen und alten Akteuren, die vor allem Träger der informellen Institutionen sind, zu differenzieren. Hinzu kommt, dass die informellen Institutionen, die sich kurzfristigen Umwälzungen entziehen und vielmehr mit der gesellschaftlichen Gesamtentwicklung inkremental wandeln, für politische Transformations-Outcomes viel maßgeblicher sind als die formellen.

Kurzfassung in Englisch:
The project tries to explain within the historical-institutionalist analysis framework the transition of the post-Soviet political system in Azerbaijan, in particular the logic of the persistence of soviet institutions far beyond the collapse of the soviet system.The research question is examined mainly by verbal data collection, observation and qualitative content analysis. The most important result thereby is the insight that it makes analytically sense, to distinguish during periods of political transformation, in addition to the differentiation of formal and informal institutions, between new and old actors (as bearer of informal institutions) as well. Moreover, the informal institutions resisting short-term upheavals and changing rather incrementally with the societal overall development are much more decisive for political transition outcomes than the formal ones.

Lizenz: Veröffentlichungsvertrag für Publikationen

UNIVERSITÄT: Arbeitskreis Kaukasus am Institut für Ethnologie Tübingen (uni-tuebingen.de)

Da der Kaukasus neben Zentralasien und Indien ein regionaler Schwerpunkt des Instituts für Ethnologie in Tübingen ist, jedoch leider von keiner der Professuren vertreten wird, möchte der AK Kaukasus interessierten Studierenden und Wissenschaftlern eine Plattform der Information, des Austauschs und der Diskussion zum Thema Kaukasus bieten und darüber hinaus den interdisziplinären Austausch anregen. Alle Interessenten sind herzlich willkommen, sich an den Treffen und Aktivitäten des AKs zu beteiligen und können in den Email-Verteiler des AK aufgenommen werden. Der AK wird sich in regelmäßigen Abständen treffen, wobei Teilnehmer ihre eigenen Arbeiten, aktuelle Forschungsprobleme, Fragen, Publikationen etc. zur Diskussion stellen können. Außerdem stehen Absolventen und Studierende, die bereits im Kaukasus studiert, gearbeitet oder geforscht haben, gerne als Ansprechpartner für Fragen in Bezug auf Praktika und Studien im Kaukasus zur Verfügung. Da bereits eine Partnerschaft mit der Slawischen Universität in Baku besteht und Abkommen mit Universitäten in Georgien und Armenien in Planung sind, rechnen wir mit einem solchen Beratungsbedarf.

Weitere Ziele und Aufgaben des AK sind:
- Der Ausbau des Kaukasus-Schwerpunkts am Institut für Ethnologie Tübingen und die Erweiterung der Bibliotheksbestände des Instituts zum Thema Kaukasus
- Die Verbreitung aktueller Informationen in Bezug auf ethnologische Forschung und Projekte im Kaukasus
- Eine Vernetzung mit deutschen und internationalen Ethnologen mit einem regionalen Interessen - Schwerpunk im Kaukasus
- Eine Vernetzung mit Kaukasus-Experten aus anderen Fachbereichen
- Die Organisation von Informationsveranstaltungen, Workshops, Vortragsreihen und Symposien
- Die Unterst&uum;tzung von Projekten, Forschungen, Publikationen


Einleitung zur Kaukasus-Region

Das Ende der Sowjetunion im Jahr 1991 und die Unabhäägigkeit der ehemaligen Sowjetrepubliken Zentralasiens, des Kaukasus und des Baltikums eröffnete für westliche Wissenschaftler ein bis dahin weitgehend unbekanntes Feld. Die Kaukasus-Region ist hier von besonderer Bedeutung. Als geographische Schnittstelle zwischen Europa und Asien war das Gebiet zwischen dem Kaspischen und Schwarzen Meer bereits seit der Spätantike Gegenstand geopolitischer Interessen umliegender Großmächte. Diese dynamische Geschichte zeigt sich heute in der sprachlichen und religiösen Vielfalt sowie in einer ethnisch stark heterogenen Bevölkerung. Gleichzeitig verdeutlichen die aktuellen ethnisch-territorialen und politischen Konflikte die Willkür und den konstruierten Charakter ethnischer Zuschreibungen, territorialer Grenzen und nationaler Identitäten. Das jüngste Beispiel des Fünftagekriegs zwischen Georgien und Russland 2008 zeigt, dass internationale Mediendiskurse eine einseitige Wahrnehmung der Region als "Krisenherd" fördern und zur Reproduktion solcher Stereotypen beitragen. Dieser Rahmen verdeutlicht die Bedeutung einer intensiveren wissenschaftlichen Auseinandersetzung sowie den Beitrag ethnologischer Studien und Fragestellungen. Ein Verstehen gegenwärtiger Prozesse ist nur im Kontext vorherrschender Ideen- und Wertekonzepte möglich. In der Fokussierung lokaler Bedeutungswelten sowie der Aushandlung, Inszenierung und Repräsentation sozialer, nationaler und kultureller Identitäten, sieht der AK-Kaukasus einen wichtigen Beitrag für ein tieferes Verständnis aktueller Prozesse in der Kaukasus-Region.

Quelle: www.uni-tuebingen.de

STUDIES: Center for Balkan and Black Sea Studies (Yildiz Technical University Istanbul), Istanbul 06.-07.12.2010, YTU Auditorium, Istanbul, TURKEY

Deadline: 05.07.2010

The Center for Balkan and Black Sea Studies (BALKAR) at Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, organizes an international symposium on the "Caucasian Migration of 1864" on December 6-7, 2010. The forced migration of 1864 was the largest migration movement from Caucasus during the period of the Russian occupation. More than a million people were affected by this event. The largest group among the migrants was the Circassians, but other Muslim groups from the Caucasus were to join this migration movement. Ottoman authorities settled this population mainly in the Balkans, Anatolia and the Middle East. Their successors are still living in these territories, especially in Turkey and Jordan.

The aim of this international symposium is threefold: 1- to examine to which extent this forced migration, almost entirely unknown to the general public, has been a subject of academic research; 2- to bring together experts of the topic; and 3- to encourage young academicians to carry out research on the subject.

The symposium will examine the Migration of 1864 from four different angles:
1. The causes of the 1864 Caucasian Migration: The Ottoman-Russian relations in the 19th century, the Caucasus policy of Russia and the political, economic and social situation of the Muslims of Caucasus in the 19th century, the causes of migration.
2. The forced migration of 1864 and waves of migration in the following years: The Russian expansion in the Caucasus, wars, resistance, migration movements, migration routes, epidemics during the migration and death etc.
3. The situation of the Muslim Caucasians after the Migration of 1864: the establishment of the Russian administration in Caucasus, the situation of the Muslims under Russian administration until the present day.
4. The Settlement of the Caucasian migrants and the process of their integration: The areas of settlement for the Caucasian migrants, the process and problems of their integration, the developments until the present day.

Scholars willing to participate in the symposium shall send the title of their presentation with an abstract of 200-300 words as a Word document to the organizing committee by July 5, 2010. Among the applications those papers which are based on archive research or field work, and particularly those of young scholars writing a master thesis or PhD dissertation on this theme will be given priority.

Following the symposium, the papers will be published in an edited book titled "The Caucasian Migration of 1864."

Organization Committee:
Doç. Dr. Mehmet Hacisalihoglu (Director of BALKAR):
Hacisalihoglu.Mehmet@gmx.de
Yaprak Has (YTU undergraduate student): hasyaprak@gmail.com
Keisuke Wakizaka (YTU graduate student): kafkaslikeisuke85@gmail.com

For further information and update: www.bal-kar.org

REVIEW: Aft er the August War: A New Strategy for U.S. Engagement with Georgia. By Lincoln Mitchell and Alexander Cooley (harrimaninstitute.org)

THE HARRIMAN REVIEW
Volume 17, Numbers 3-4 May 2010
Special Double Issue
After the August War:
A New Strategy for U.S. Engagement with Georgia
The Harriman Review would like to thank Matt hew Schaaf
for his considerable assistance in putt ing together this special issue.
THE HARRIMAN REVIEW, successor to The Harriman Institute Forum, is published quarterly by the Harriman Institute,
Columbia University. Annual subscription rates: U.S. and Canada: $35.00 (1 year), $60.00 (2 years); elsewhere: $45.00 (1 year),
$85.00 (2 years). Back issues: $10.00 (includes postage). Check or money order should be made payable to Columbia University.
U.S. funds only. Send all orders, changes of address, and subscription inquiries to: The Harriman Review, 1216 International Aff airs
Building, Columbia University, 420 West 118th Street, New York, New York 10027. FAX: (212) 666-3481.
The Harriman Review is indexed by PAIS and ABSEES.
Harriman Institute
Timothy Frye, Director
htt p://www.harriman.columbia.edu/
420 West 118th Street, MC 3345, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027


Contents

List of Maps, Charts, and Tables 5
Acknowledgments 7
Executive Summary 9
Map of the Region 12
Introduction 13
1. The U.S. Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership 17
2. Abkhazia and South Ossetia Before and Aft er the War 23
3. Democracy 34
4. U.S. Assistance to Georgia 43
Conclusion 54
Appendices
Timeline 1: Major Military and Legal Events Regarding Abkhazia, Ajara,
and South Ossetia Since 1921 59
Timeline 2: Russian-Georgian Relations from 2003 to 2008 62
Timeline 3: June to October 2008 64
Major Agreements Signed between the Russian Federation and Abkhazia,
August 2008-March 2010 67
Bibliography 69


This project is the product of good will, cooperation and constructive engagement from a great
number of individuals and organizations. We are thankful to the Smith Richardson Foundation for a grant to undertake and disseminate the fi ndings of this research from July 2009 through December 2010. We are especially grateful to Nadia Schadlow for her support, advice and confi dence that we could deliver a product that could be of service to the broader policy community.
Columbia University’s Harriman Institute oversaw the project. We deeply appreciate the support and encouragement of Director Tim Frye, his predecessor Catharine Theimer Nepomnyashchy, as well as the Harriman Institute’s faculty, staff and affi liates. We owe a special thank you to Matthew Schaaf for his superb research assistance and help with the preparation of the final report. During the grant period, Harriman also sponsored three
special seminars of the Limited Sovereignty and Soft Borders in Southeastern Europe and the Former Soviet States: The Challenges and Political Consequences of Future Changes in Legal Status series, co-directed by Alexander Cooley and Gordon Bardos, on the topics of the Georgia aid and reconstruction package, dynamics of unrecognized and partially recognized states, and the U.S.-Georgia Charter of Strategic Partnership. We thank the presenters of these sessions – Tom de Waal, Cory Welt, Ken Yalowitz, Chris Walker, Tamuna Karosanidze, and Janine Wedel – as well as the seminar participants for stimulating and challenging our thinking about these topics. Finally, we thank Ron Meyer for his work in preparing the report for publication as well as releasing it as a special issue of the Harriman Review.
The cooperation of a number of organizations and individuals across Washington D.C., Moscow, Brussels, Tbilisi and Sukhumi were invaluable to our efforts. On the U.S. side, we appreciate the help and guidance we received from the Department of State, Department of Defense, National Security Council, U.S. Congress, and USAID.
In Moscow, we thank Moscow State University and Moscow State Institute of International Relations for organizing special roundtable seminars involving their experts on the topics of U.S.-Georgia-Russia relations and the future of the South Caucasus. We also appreciate our meetings with members of the Russian think-tank community and print and electronic media who specialize in the South Caucasus for their insights.
In Brussels, we benefi ted from meetings with the European Union Special Representative to the South Caucasus, Georgia confl ict and the European Union External Relations and Trade divisions. We also thank representatives of NATO, the European Policy Centre, LINKS, and the German Marshall Fund of the United States for their insights.
In Georgia, we are especially thankful to the State Ministry of Reintegration and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs for their support. We met with a variety of government and opposition political representatives, as well as civil society groups representing a range of political views. We also thank the U.S. Embassy and the EU Mission in Tbilisi for their helpful assistance. Nina Khatiskasi was indispensable for our trip’s planning.
In Sukhumi we appreciate the efforts of the Abkhaz authorities to help arrange our April 2010 visit and providing us with important meetings and perspectives.
Ultimately, none of these partners are responsible for any errors in the report or any other of its shortcomings.
Finally, the authors deeply appreciate the support of our families—Marta, Asher, Reuben, Nicole and Greta —through these extended periods of overseas travel.

Lincoln Mitchell and Alexander Cooley
New York, May 2010

full document (pdf) >>>

VORTRAG: Formen der Vergangenheitsbewältigung am Beispiel der monumentalen Kunst Georgiens

Der Vortrag findet am
Montag, 07.06.2010 von 18:30 Uhr - 20:00 Uhr im Klubsaal der
Österreichische Orient-Gesellschaft Hammer-Purgstall

Titel des Vortrages:
Formen der Vergangenheitsbewältigung am Beispiel der monumentalen Kunst
Georgiens (inkl. einer virtuellen Stadtführung durch Tbilisi)

Mag. Siegfried Wöber ist Vorsitzender der Österreichisch-Kaukasischen
Gesellschaft und Kaukasus Experte

http://www.orient-gesellschaft.at/
http://www.orient-gesellschaft.at/data/Georgien_Vergangenheitsbewaeltigung.pdf

Abendkarte: € 4 (€ 2)

Im Anschluss an den Vortrag dürfen wir Sie zu einem Gläschen georgischen Wein einladen!

silvia de carvalho
information center for central asia and southern caucasus c/o austrian
association for the middle east
dominikanerbastei 6/6, 1010 vienna, austria
phone: ++43 1 512 89 36 /16
e-mail: silvia.carvalho@orient-gesellschaft.at
www.orient-gesellschaft.at

SCIENCE: Final communiqué of the Working meeting of the civil activists and historians of the South Caucasian countries.

(Tsakhkadzor, Armenia, 11 – 14 November, 2007)

We, participants of the Working meeting, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Georgian civil activists and historians, emphasize that it is important and beneficial for the peoples of the South Caucasus:

• To organize meetings of civil activists and historians of the South Caucasian countries on regular basis.
• To have immediate contacts between professionals, as it would facilitate better mutual understanding, exchange news and important information about global and regional developments, and the developments in the South Caucasian countries.
• To organize more meetings of the similar format that helps to create an atmosphere of tolerance, respect, and mutual understanding between civil activists and historians of the South Caucasus.
• To develop cooperation in the areas where our countries have close or matching interests; the positive examples from the history of our peoples’ cooperation and coexistence should be the starting point.

After having the debates and discussions we, participants of the working meeting, state that:

• There is a need to create an online information network for the cooperation of Armenian, Azerbaijani, and Georgian civil activists and historians;
• We are interested in publishing joint articles and essays in scientific journals and non-affiliated magazines, as proposed by some of the participants of the working meeting;
• The Tbilisi initiative of the Council of Europe, providing for a joint project on Caucasus History, is a positive example of cooperation of historians from the South Caucasian countries;
• This format is one of the directions for continued efforts of our countries’ citizens aimed to the development of civil society, finding historical factors that keep us together, democratization, and European integration of the South Caucasian countries;
• We are interested in a more in-depth study of the European experience in dealing with historical problems, on the examples of the French-German and Czech-German reconciliation, which will facilitate the process of universal reconciliation and creation of an atmosphere of peace and neighborly relationships in the South Caucasus;
• One of the results of our working meeting has been the creation of an initiative group for establishment of a South Caucasian Association of History teachers and lecturers.

The participants of the working meeting express their deep gratitude to those who initiated and organized our conference, with a special acknowledgement for Caritas France, whose support made our contacts and meetings possible.

13 November, 2007

Internet: www.acgrc.am

PUBLICATION: Essays on History of the South Caucasian Countries (A Multi-perspective View of History)

In November 2007, the Analytical Centre on Globalisation and Regional Cooperation together with its partners, Public Union of the Azerbaijan Historians and Caritas Georgia, initiated a meeting of historians and civic activists of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. The meeting was organised with assistance of Caritas France.

Such a framework for cooperation was chosen because the experience of the recent few years’ developments in the South Caucasus had showed that many problematic issues in relations between the peoples of the region arise because of different interpretation of historical facts, different views and approaches to events that occurred in the South Caucasus. Therefore, it was needed to organise regular meetings and to develop cooperation between historians and civic activists of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia.

The main result of the aforementioned meeting was the communiqué adopted on 13 November 2007. In the communiqué it was, particularly, said:

After having the debates and discussions we, participants of the working meeting, state that it is important and beneficial for the peoples of the South Caucasus:
- To organise meetings of civil activists and historians of the South Caucasian countries on regular basis that helps to create an atmosphere of tolerance, respect, and mutual understanding;
- We are interested in publishing joint articles and essays in scientific journals and non-affiliated magazines, as proposed by some of the participants of the working meeting;
- The Tbilisi initiative of the Council of Europe, providing for a joint project on Caucasus History, is a positive example of cooperation of historians from the South Caucasian countries;
- This format is one of the directions for continued efforts of our countries’ citizens aimed to the development of civil society, finding historical factors that keep us together, democratisation and European integration of the South Caucasian countries.

During the aforementioned meeting, the participants showed great interest for the working session dedicated to the experience of Armenian, Azerbaijani and Georgian historians who had worked together on a book titled The History of Caucasus. That project was frozen in 2003 because of several disagreements between Armenian and Azerbaijani experts (we consider that one of the main reasons for such a failure had been the extremely different task assigned to the experts – to write joint history of the South Caucasian countries and to overcome all differences in approach). On the other side, the work that was done deserves close attention, because it was a positive example of cooperation between historians of three countries. We offered the authors who had worked on that project – Armen Khachikyan from Armenia, Aydin Aslanov from Azerbaijan and Paata Ramishvili from Georgia – to go back to the accomplished work and, using the experience they had gained, to prepare new essays on history of their respective countries, centred on a multi-perspective view. New essays would be based on the previously used materials, as well as would count on the new factors that emerged during the recent 10-12 years. In fact, that meant publishing the first comprehensive joint work of Armenian, Azerbaijani and Georgian historians.

The newly-published book, Essays on History of the South Caucasian Countries, contains essays about the historical past of the peoples of the South Caucasus, from the ancient times till the establishment of the Soviet authority in the region. We hope that the book will be interesting and useful for the readers. The first part of the book reveals the historical context of the development of the South Caucasus from the ancient times till the establishment of the Soviet authority in the region, and the second part presents the cultural treasures of the South Caucasian countries. The book contains a number of illustrations.

Being addressed to both scientific and popular audiences, Essays on History of the South Caucasian Countries is addressed to a wide circle of readers, first of all, to civil society institutions, academics, state institutions, younger generation, as well as international organisations concerned with peacemaking and development of cooperation in the South Caucasus.

The authors worked on the book for near two years. They attempted to let the readers know about the main instances in the history of the three countries. It was important not just to provide some information, but also to introduce the readers to the neighbour peoples’ views to the same events, so the peoples of the region might develop tolerance and mutual understanding. Besides, the book provides different interpretations of a number of regional events, using a multi-perspective approach; in fact, that means having three different viewpoints on certain historical events. That is also important for readers living in the region, as well as outside, because they may see how contemporary historians from the South Caucasian countries interpret the historical events. It is natural that historians from different countries have different approaches according to their personal, cultural and national identities.

Such an approach has important characteristics:
1. The society of each country may get familiar with the viewpoints of others on the same historical events.
2. Historians from each country may have an opportunity to discuss the viewpoints of their colleagues from other countries within a scientific framework.
3. Being better informed will let the societies of three countries to develop dialogue.

So, the essays in the first part of the book may not match each other. Sometimes they may contain conflicting statements. As a result, any impartial reader will have to think. Any reader may choose one of the explanations for historical events, but it should be remembered that other explanations, which lead to other interpretations, also have the right to exist.

Finally, let us congratulate the historians and civil societies of the South Caucasian countries for publishing of the book, which is the first example of joint scientific work of academics from Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the period of independence of our countries.


Stepan Grigoryan,
Chairman of the Analytical Centre on Globalisation and Regional Cooperation (ACGRC)

www.acgrc.am

CONFERENCE: “European Union and South Caucasus – A Security Partnership?”

On 27 November 2008, this year’s largest conference was organized in the Great Hall of the Congress Hotel in Yerevan, with the topic: “European Union and South Caucasus – A Security Partnership?”.

The conference was organized by the Analytical Centre for Globalization and Regional Cooperation (ACGRC, Armenia) and German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP). The conference was supported by the Black Sea Trust for Regional Cooperation, German Marshall Fund of the United States, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung and Robert-Bosch Stiftung.

Welconme speeches and reports were given by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia Arman Kirakossian, German Ambassador to Armenia Andrea Wiktorin, head of European Commission delegation in Armenia Raul de Luzenberger, representative of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Liana Marukyan and director of ACGRC Dr. Stepan Grigoryan.

Reports on issues of interest for Armenian society were delivered by Dr. Arif Yunusov (Institute for Peace and Democracy, Azerbaijan), Dr. Seyed Rasol Mousavi (Institute of Political and International Research of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Islamic Republic of Iran), Armen Rustamyan (member of the standing committee on foreign affairs of the national Assembly of Armenia), Aleksander Rusetsky (director of the South Caucasus Institute for Regional Security, Georgia), Diba Nigar Goksel (senior analyst, European Stability Initiative, Editor, Turkish Policy Quarterly), Özgül Erdemli Mutlu (ARI Movement, Turkey), Vyacheslav Igrunov (director of the International Institute for Humanitarian and Political Studies, Russia), Gevorg Ter-Gabrielyan (Country Director, Eurasia Partnership Foundation, Armenia) and Ivlian Khaindrava (director of the South Caucasus studies programme, Georgia).

The number of participants reached 300, instead of initially planned 150. Among the participants were ambassadors of Bulgaria, Germany, Iran, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Romania; heads of UN, EU, OSCE and Council of Europe missions in Armenia; head of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung office; representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia; diplomats representing British, German and Greek Embassies; Armenian political scientists, historians, sociologists, university professors; heads of political parties and NGOs; students; and journalists of the leading Armenian media.

Reports about the conference were broadcasted by a number of TV companies: Public Television of Armenia, Kentron, Yerevan TV, Shant, TV5, YerkirMedia, etc. Daily newspaper Aravot published a detailed report about the conference on November 28 and November 29. Reports were also published in other newspapers and by information agencies Noyan Tapan, Arminfo, PanArmenian, Armtown, etc.

more: www.acgrc.am

SCIENCE: Vol. 4 (1) - Winter 2010 issue of the Caucasian Review of International Affairs (CRIA) (cria-online.org)

Vol. 4 (1) - Winter 2010 issue of the Caucasian Review of International Affairs (CRIA) is now available on-line at http://www.cria-online.org

The Table of Contents of the Issue is attached below.

Deadlines for submissions for CRIA’s Spring 2010 issue and Summer 2010 issue are March 15, 2010 and June 15, 2010, respectively. CRIA accepts articles from authors as original contributions. Submission guidelines can be viewed at http://www.cria-online.org/Submit_a_Paper.html .

Yours Faithfully,

Nasimi Aghayev

Editor-in-Chief
Caucasian Review of International Affairs
Email: contact@cria-online.org
Web: www.cria-online.org
ISSN: 1865-6773


VOL. 4 (1) - WINTER 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

-Note from the Editor-in-Chief (pp. 1-2)
Nasimi Aghayev (http://cria-online.org/10_1.html)

RESEARCH PAPERS

-Russia’s Pragmatic Reimperialization (pp. 3-19)
by Janusz Bugajski (http://cria-online.org/10_2.html)

-Puzzles of State Transformation: The Case of Armenia and Georgia (pp. 20-34)
by Nicole Gallina (http://cria-online.org/10_3.html)

-Russia’s National Security Strategy to 2020: A Great Power in the Making? (pp. 35-42)
by Sophia Dimitrakopoulou & Andrew Liaropoulos (http://cria-online.org/10_4.html)

-International Language Rights Norms in the Dispute over Latinization Reform in the Republic
of Tatarstan (pp. 43-56)
by Dilyara Suleymanova (http://cria-online.org/10_5.html)

-European Foreign Policy after Lisbon: Strengthening the EU as an International Actor (pp. 57-72)
by Kateryna Koehler (http://cria-online.org/10_6.html)

COMMENTARIES

-The Fall of the Berlin Wall: Twenty Years of Reform (pp. 73-81)
by Aleksandr Shkolnikov & Anna Nadgrodkiewicz (http://cria-online.org/10_7.html)

-Kazan: The Religiously Undivided Frontier City (pp. 82-86)
by Matthew Derrick (http://cria-online.org/10_8.html)

INTERVIEW

“The Current Trend of the Kremlin is to Rather Formally Distance itself from the North
Caucasus” (pp. 87-90), Interview with Dr. Emil Souleimanov, Charles University,
Prague, Czechia (http://cria-online.org/10_9.html)

BOOK REVIEWS

-“The Guns of August 2008: Russia’s War in Georgia”, edited by Svante E. Cornell and
Frederick Starr (pp. 91-96)
Review by Till Bruckner (http://cria-online.org/10_10.html)

-“The Caucasus: An Introduction” by Frederik Coene (pp. 97-98)
Review by Alexander Jackson (http://cria-online.org/10_11.html)

-“When Empire Meets Nationalism. Power Politics in the US and Russia” by Didier Chaudet,
Florent Parmentier & Benoît Pelopidas (pp. 99-100)
Review by Samuel Lussac (http://cria-online.org/10_12.html)


CRIA is a Germany-based quarterly peer-reviewed online academic journal. The Review is committed to promote a better understanding of the regional affairs by providing relevant background information and analysis, as far as the Caucasus in general, and the South Caucasus in particular are concerned. CRIA also welcomes lucid, well-documented papers on other countries and regions including especially Turkey, Iran, Central Asia, Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, as well as on all aspects of international affairs, from all political viewpoints. CRIA is indexed/abstracted in Columbia International Affairs Online, ProQuest Research Library, EBSCOhost Political Science Complete, Directory of Open Access Journals, Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory, Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, etc.