STATEMENT: Politisch hat Georgien alles verloren. Von Sonja Zekri (derbund.ch)

Überraschend ist das Ergebnis nicht einmal für die Georgier – für die wahrscheinlich am wenigsten. Den Fünftagekrieg in Südossetien hat der georgische Präsident Micheil Saakaschwili vom Zaun gebrochen, als er seine Truppen in der Nacht vom 7. auf den 8. August in die abtrünnige Provinz einmarschieren liess. Es gab keine russischen Panzerkolonnen, die Richtung Zchinwali und Tiflis rollten. Es gab nicht mal konkrete russische Pläne, Georgien anzugreifen. Die Selbstverteidigungssituation, von Micheil Saakaschwili als Grund für den Überfall auf das nächtliche Zchinwali mit Opfergeste bis zum heutigen Tag vorgetragen, war eine Lüge.

[...]

Wenig Greifbares erfährt man im Tagliavini-Report zur Rolle Amerikas. Doch selbst wenn er eine stärkere Unterstützung der US-Militärberater in Tiflis ans Licht gebracht hätte, wäre der grosse Streit ausgeblieben. Der Bericht ist so lange und gründlich aufgeschoben worden, bis sich die politische Situation grundlegend verändert hat.Im vergangenen Jahr hätte eine klare Verurteilung der georgischen Kriegsschuld Russland möglicherweise von der Anerkennung Südossetiens und Abchasiens abhalten können.

Aber das war vor Obamas Besuch in Russland, vor dem neuen Pragmatismus zwischen Moskau und Washington, vor der Weltwirtschaftskrise. Was wiegt Südossetien gegen Afghanistan, Iran oder auch nur Lehman Brothers? Für Moskau gehört der Georgien-Konflikt in die dunklen Bush-Jahre, inzwischen ist man weiter, reifer, verantwortungsvoller. An Gelegenheiten, dies zu beweisen, wird es in Zukunft nicht fehlen.

Der ganze Text >>>

OPEN LETTER: Europe must stand up for Georgia (guardian.co.uk)

Open letter: Twenty years after half of Europe was freed, a new wall is being built – across Georgia, say Vaclav Havel and others

As Europe remembers the shame of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact of 1939 and the Munich agreement of 1938, and as it prepares to celebrate the fall of the Berlin wall and the iron curtain in 1989, one question arises in our minds: Have we learned the lessons of history? Put another way, are we able to avoid repeating the mistakes that cast such a dark shadow over the 20th century?
To deplore or celebrate past events is a futile act if we remain blind to their lessons. Only if these events teach us how to act differently – and more wisely – do such commemorations have any value.
Looking at Europe today, it is abundantly clear that history has not come to an end and that it remains tragic. Twenty years after the emancipation of half of the continent, a new wall is being built in Europe – this time across the sovereign territory of Georgia.

full text >>>

STATEMENT: EU wünscht Stabilität im Kaukasus, sagt Semneby.

Von Asbarez Staff

WIEN - Die Europäische Union sucht einen stabilen Südkaukasus mit offenen Grenzen und wirtschaftlichen Aufschwung, sagte der repräsentant der EU für den Südkaukasus, Peter Semneby, am Freitag vor der OSZE in Wien.
"Die EU unterstützt nachhaltig einen stabilen Südkaukasus mit offenen Grenzen, was vorteilhaft für die Prosperität für alle Seiten ist", sagte Semneby. ""Der Start der Östlichen partnerschaft (ENP) in Prag drei Wochen zuvor, macht unumwunden klar, dass das Engagement der EU in dieser Region ein neues Level erreicht hat."
Aber die ungelösten Konflikte in der Region sind ein fundamentales Hindernis für die Stabilität, politische Reformen und die ökonomische Entwicklung und die regionale Kooperation, fügte Semneby in Hinsicht auf den Konflikt in Berg-Karabach hinzu.
Er fügte hinzu, dass die EU ihre internationalen Ziele weiterverfolgt eine Lösung für den Karabach-Konflikt mit der Unterstützung der OSZE Misk Gruppe zu finden.

Der Text in english >>>

COMMENT: Here Should Have Been a Title About Georgia that is Always on My Mind... By Diana Chachua

... I had a dream the other night. I dreamt about Tbilisi. The streets of the capital were full with thousands of protesters. Again? I thought to myself. What was most concerning, the capital had become a city of cells, yes cells, literally CELLS with volunteers inside, and there were people, probably organizers who had masks on their faces and were fooling people. What was most sad: these masses trusted and supported them.... I don't believe in dreams but this was a special one. I woke up all stressed and called Tbilisi. Soon I found out that it wasn't just a dream, it was what ectually has started in Georgia...

... So, from dreams back to reality. The opposition rallies continue in the capital of Tbilisi... If asking for my opinion, I would express my deep concern about ongoing events in Georgia and would call opposition for more constructive, diplomatic and democratic ways of solving problems. I think the time for choosing presidents by revolutions are over. Of course if we still have claims for being a democratic state with the inspiration of joining EU and NATO. Though, stating this I don't mean that people shouldn't have a right to go out and protest. I always respected Georgian citizents' high grade civil responsibility and fight for its better future. But do they really understand what for are they standing in front of the parliament today? I am afraid for the sake of some politicians' ambitions and unclear aims. The point is that ongoing protests and their leaders doesn't bring any sympathy and trust to me and if protesting, then I would claim for some reforms and would suggest particular changes and not like they do: "Georgia without Saakashvili". It seems to me that's all about personal hatred and political ambitions. Removing Saakashvili won't solve all the problems. And what if Saakashvili resines, what will be after, does this opposition have a plan? I never succeeded to get any argumentative answer on this question.

So, you can think of me as a suporter of Georgian president or whatever, it's your right, but what I care most is the future of my country. I am deeply concerned of seeing Tbilisi as a "city of cells and tants" again and again and hearing hundreds of unacceptable speeches during these protests in Tbilisi. I am tired of hearing how foreign journalists tell my Georgian collegues, what a nice place my country is because even when there is nothing going on in the world to report, there are always some protests, rallies and revolutions in Georgia...

What I suggest? I would have advices not only for Georgian government and opposition, but for western Institutions as well. Concerning local authorities, I am for stopping this circus and starting a dialogue between the current government and the opposition. As for International community, I would call for their higher level support. You would be probably surprised and ask me "what does EU or NATO or western communities as a whole have to do with this rallies"?! Well, I will give you an answer. I recall the words of famouse professor of political sciences Svante Cornell that he published in his work "Learning from Georgia's Crisis" and this will be my response: "the consequence for the West of the August events is not that Georgia has failed the test of democracy and therefore deserves less support, but exactly the opposite: that only more substantial investments in Georgia’s security can contribute to the building of a stable and democratic Georgia, itself something in the interest of the West," - - - and another very important point - - - - "It should be abandoned the false premise that sustainable democratic development in Georgia or anywhere is possible in the absence of sovereignty and security. The events of November 2007 only reinforce the conclusion that long-term sustainable democracy is unlikely to be built in the absence of basic security. This is one area where the comparison between Georgia and the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe breaks down. Compared to the successful democratization processes in Eastern Europe in the 1990s, Georgia faces a security threat much more acute and existential in nature than any of those countries, including the Baltic states, ever did. Moreover, Georgia enjoys less Western – in particular European – support in terms of membership prospects in the EU and NATO, than those countries did. As long as that is the case, Georgia is unlikely to single-handedly develop into a consolidated and secure democracy."

So more we go into the topic more we see that the roots of Georgia's current problems are burried somewhere on the banks of the river called "security"........!!!

In the end, I want to recall the words of a friend of mine who once told me in a very optimistic way: "don't worry, this is a normal process and everything, including those mass rallies are part of this wide process of screening and purification of Georgian politics...". As a final remark, I would like to finish my letter in the same optimistic mood as my friend while sharing his ideas with me: "And I totally agree with him", but I more feel for "And I hope events proove he was right"...

BLOG: PEACE IN GEORGIA
TALKS WITH DIANA
dianach.livejournal.com

ARTICLE: Red Alert: A Possible Revolution Simmering in Georgia (diplomatofthefuture.blogspot.com)

A POSSIBLE COUP D'ETAT IN KAVKAS? STRATFOR PREDICTS A TUMULT IN TBILISI

The following is a 'just-in' report from the American on-line journal, Stratfor.com. It is a prediction that the demonstrations which will occur later on today, the 9th of April will result in a coup d'etat by the opposition in Georgia, ousting the current Saakashvili regime. As per Stratfor, the opposition will be joined by members of the ruling circles, who at this point are eager to jump ship and join the prospective winning side. Id est., somewhat what occurred back in 2003 when Saakashvili then overthrew the regime of Eduard Shevardnadze. Obviously, such an event, even if there were zero Russian backing (as per Stratfor, Russia's hand is in the pie, as it were), would be viewed as a tremendous victory for Russia and concomitantly, also viewed as a defait for the Americans. The latter being viewed as the prime patron of Saakashvili's regime. However allow me at this point to let Stratfor predictions speak for itself. Please read and enjoy:


Red Alert: A Possible Revolution Simmering in Georgia, April 8, 2009 1943 GMT

"Georgian opposition movements have planned mass protests for April 9, mostly in Tbilisi but also around the country. These protests could spell trouble for President Mikhail Saakashvili. The Western-leaning president has faced protests before, but this time the opposition is more consolidated than in the past. Furthermore, some members of the government are expected to join in the protests, and Russia has stepped up its efforts to oust Saakashvili.

full article >>>

RELEASES: Statement of President Mikheil Saakashvili (president.gov.ge)

Yesterday, democracy in Georgia took a major step forward. Thousands of people exercised their democratic rights by voicing their concerns about their elected government. They did so without violence. The police also acted with maximum restraint, as I ordered them.
Yesterday, we paid tribute to those who fell in defense of Georgian independence. I would like to believe that those heroes would have been proud of how our democracy performed.
I want to thank everybody who participated in yesterday’s events -peacefully and within the framework of the law.
By demonstrating peacefully-by the complete and total lack of violence, by ensuring the right to free movement and freedom of assembly-we proved the maturity of our state and of our democracy.

full statement >>>

STATEMENT: Propaganda war: Russia- 0, Georgia-1

Boris Dolgin, 14 - 08 - 2008

Having isolated itself from the world, Russia has played the propaganda war badly, argues polit.ru's editor. Georgia has won it, but that does not make it an aspiring democracy

full text >>>

STATEMENT: David Bakradze: Not Only Historical Past But Also Hopeful Future Unite Armenian And Georgian Peoples (groong.usc.edu)

ArmInfo, 2009-02-24 13:06:00

ArmInfo. Not only the historical past but also the hopeful future unite the Armenian and Georgian peoples, speaker of the Georgian parliament David Bakradze said today in the parliament of Armenia.

more >>>

STATEMENT: Weathering the Storm: A Commentary on Armenia and the Economics of Defense (armenianow.com)

In a region that has only recently witnessed a war between Russia and Georgia, defense and security issues remain priority concerns. But over the past few years, the increase in defense spending among the countries of the region has raised new concerns over the implications from such an arms race.

In addition, there is a related worry over the long-term impact from such a militarization of the region, especially for Armenia, as Azerbaijan has been using its oil wealth to fuel ever-larger defense budgets. Most worrying for Armenia, the constant drone of Azerbaijan’s militant rhetoric to “solve” the Nagorno Karabagh conflict by force has been bolstered by several years of billion-dollar-plus defense budgets. That combination of militant rhetoric and military spending now poses one of the most serious threats to regional security and stability.

[...]


The Risk of Hostilities & the “Hostilities of Risk”

The second factor of defense economics is the relationship between the risk of hostilities and the “hostilities of risk.” Notably, there is an inverse relationship between an increasing level of the risk of hostilities and an increasingly hostile level of risk, affirmed by the fact that international capital may pull out of a region once it becomes too dangerous to operate or too unstable to protect investments.

Ironically, this rather basic business maxim poses more of a threat to Azerbaijan than to Armenia. It also means that by aspiring to replace Armenia as the region’s dominant military power and threatening to retake Karabakh by force, Azerbaijan may soon face a worried group of investors who may decide that the risk outweighs the profit in Azerbaijan. And Azerbaijan is especially vulnerable to any downturn in investor confidence because of its over-reliance on foreign capital amid falling oil prices and due to a lack of industry beyond its energy sector.

Richard Giragosian is the director of the Yerevan-based Armenian Center for National and International Studies (ACNIS), and has worked as a consultant for various international organizations including the OSCE, World Bank, and regularly contributes to Jane's, RFE/RL, and Newsweek International, among other publications. Giragosian is a former professional staff member of the US Congress. "Weathering the Storm" is a weekly column exclusively for ArmeniaNow.

PRESSEMITTEILUNG der Bundestagsfraktion Bündnis 90/Die Grünen NR. 0169

Datum: 19. Februar 2009
Fall Politkowskaja unaufgeklärt - Staatsanwaltschaft hat versagt

Zum heutigen Urteil im Prozess um die Ermordung der Journalistin Anna Politkowskaja erklärt Marieluise Beck MdB: Die Freisprüche für die drei Angeklagten verdeutlichen das Versagen der Staatsanwaltschaft und Ermittlungsbehörden im Mordfall Politkowskaja. Anstatt
den Auftraggeber und Todesschützen vor Gericht zu stellen, hat die Staatsanwaltschaft drei angebliche Komplizen angeklagt - und eine herbe Niederlage erlitten. Zu schwach die Beweislage, zu widersprüchlich die Verwicklungen der drei Angeklagten.
Damit bleibt der Mord an der mutigen russischen Journalistin unaufgeklärt. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass die Schuldigen bestraft werden, ist verschwindend gering. Die fehlende Aufklärung in zahlreichen Mordfällen hat zu einem Klima der Straflosigkeit geführt. Jüngste Opfer sind der Menschenrechtsanwalt Stanislaw Markelow und die Journalistin Anastasija Baburowa, die wie Politkowskaja für die "Nowaja Gaseta" schrieb. Auch andere kritische Journalisten müssen um ihr Leben fürchten, etwa der Chefredakteur von "Echo Moskwy", Alexei Wenediktow, der offene Morddrohungen erhalten hat.
Präsident Medwedew hatte die Verbesserung der Rechtsstaatlichkeit zum Ziel erklärt. Doch zehn Monate nach seinem Amtsantritt gibt es kaum Zeichen der Bewegung. Medwedew bekommt ein Glaubwürdigkeitsproblem, wenn seine Kritik am politischen System zu keinen tiefgreifenden Veränderungen führt.

(c) Bundestagsfraktion Bündnis 90/Die Grünen
Pressestelle
11011 Berlin
T: 030 / 227 - 5 72 12
F: 030 / 227 - 5 69 62
http://www.gruene-bundestag.de
eMail: presse@gruene-bundestag.de

GEOPOLITICS: Soros on the geopolitics of cheap oil (halldor2.blogspot.com)

The financial broadsheet Vedomosti has published an article (in Russian) by the international financier and philanthropist George Soros in which he gives his assessment of the effects of the economic crisis on the global political landscape. In his analysis he suggests that the recent dramatic fall in the price of oil may not be entirely a bad thing, as it is likely to promote some realism in Teheran, and make Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's return to power in Iran's June 12 elections that much less probable. On the other hand, there are dangers elsewhere. In Russia, Soros continues, the loss of oil revenues is likely to propel the leadership towards more adventurism abroad and greater repression at home. Nationalism has replaced Communism as the official ideology, and the people who are currently in power in Kremlin have few scruples about using the enormous might of the state to further their own individual ends.

A Step At A Time

Reflections on the world post-9/11, by a British writer, translator and musician who engaged for many years in the debates of the Cold War, and who tends to see the world's present troubles as a continuation of the old common struggle with tyranny and oppression. The blog can also be accessed here

FEATURE: We should all be keeping Georgia on our minds (tribunemagazine.co.uk)

Marcus Papadopoulos warns Western backing for Mikheil Saakashvili could mean further conflict in the Caucasus

THE great Russian poet Alexander Pushkin wrote in his poem The Fountain of Bakhchisarai: “I know how to use a dagger/I was born in the Caucasus.” The war in South Ossetia last year, together with the ongoing tension in the region, aggravated by the presence of great power rivalries, demonstrates that Pushkin’s observation of this part of the world is as pertinent now as it was when he was writing in 1823.

On the day of the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics last summer, the world’s attention was distracted by Georgia’s invasion of its secessionist republic of South Ossetia. The fighting which followed, after Russia launched a military counter-offensive in support of Tbilisi’s rebel region and which resulted in Russian armoured units entering Georgia proper and destroying the country’s capacity for war, was portrayed by most Western governments and media outlets as evidence of “old-time Russian imperialism in action”. Historical comparisons were drawn with Moscow’s actions in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.

As was the case during the wars in the former Yugoslavia, Western commentators adopted stances on a complex conflict the history of which few understood. Today, however, even Western governments which maintain close relations with Georgia’s President Mikheil Saakashvili have conceded that, in the words of former American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Tbilisi “fired the first shots in the breakaway region of South Ossetia”. After having been shown evidence of war crimes committed by Georgian forces during their advance on Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband described Georgia’s actions as “reckless” – a mild criticism, but one which at least recognised that the Georgian government was not as innocent as it had been portrayed.

In the years of the Soviet Union, its power ensured that historic animosities inherited from Tsarist Russia between the various people of the Caucasus were suppressed by an iron fist and through constant surveillance by the state’s secret police. The existence of a Soviet national identity also helped to bind people together, albeit in a fragile manner. In 1922, the Bolshevik government made South Ossetia an autonomous region of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic. In 1931, Soviet leader Josef Stalin transferred Abkhazia to the jurisdiction of Tbilisi.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world was witness to a series of conflicts in parts of the Caucasus with which even some members of the foreign-policymaking elite in Western capitals were not well acquainted.

In 1992, Violence flared between the Georgian government and South Ossetia and Abkhazia, after the latter two regions unilaterally declared independence from Georgia and sought closer ties, including reunification, with Russia. Fighting between Georgian and South Ossetian troops ceased in 1992 following the introduction of Russian peacekeeping units, while peace only prevailed in Abkhazia after Georgian forces were driven out in 1993.

The decision by the Georgian government to resort to force last year to try and resolve the issue of South Ossetia was largely a result of President Saakashvili’s waning popularity and the precarious nature of Georgia’s economy. Just as Argentina’s Leopoldo Galtieri chose to invade the Falkland Islands as a way of attempting to rally domestic support for his unpopular regime, so the Georgian president opted for the same course in the hope that it would ensure the survival of the Rose Revolution of 2003, which propelled him to power in the former Soviet republic.

On taking over from one-time Soviet foreign minister Eduard Shevardnadze as Georgian president, Saakashvili made integration into the West and re-establishment of Tbilisi’s control over the breakaway regions of Adjaria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia key priorities for his government. The US, which played a crucial role in bringing Saakashvili to power through similar means it had employed in the Serbian presidential election of October 2000, began to forge close political and military relations with the government of the American-trained lawyer.

Saakashvili has failed to fulfil his objectives, with the exception of regaining control of Adjaria. This, it should be noted, only returned to Tbilisi’s jurisdiction in 2004 once the Russian government had withdrawn its support for the breakaway region’s government headed by Aslan Abashidze.

Saakashvili inherited an economy which was one of the poorest of the former Soviet Union, with its gross domestic product and industrial production having declined rapidly. However, instead of focusing on rebuilding his country’s economy, the Georgian leader began to spend vast sums of money on armaments. Under Saakashvili, Georgia has become a highly militarised state in one of the most volatile areas in the world. Military spending has increased by 30 times since 2003 and much of the weaponry purchased has been of an offensive nature. It is now apparent that the Georgian president was intent from the beginning on using force to bring the country’s secessionist regions to heel. The US has supplied most of this equipment, although Israel has also sold unmanned aerial vehicles to Tbilisi. The increase in military expenditure has worsened Georgia’s economy, which has led to increasing resentment among much of the Georgian population towards its leader.

Saakashvili’s reckless handling of the economy has been eclipsed only by the dangerous course of foreign policy which he pursues. The Georgian leader has ruined relations with Moscow and created feelings of bitterness between Russians and Georgians – historically, fraternal people.

Under Saakashvili, Georgia has acted obsequiously in its relations with the US. His administration strives for Nato membership at all costs and is, according to some of the country’s opposition politicians, engaged in talks with American officials on the creation of rent-free US military bases in the Caucasian country. For Washington, bringing Georgia into Nato – a move which President Barack Obama has pledged to support – would be an important step towards placing a cordon sanitaire around Russia. However, for it would place ordinary Georgians in the direct line of fire from a resurgent and angry Russian state.

Saakashvili has also provoked the ire of the Kremlin by pursuing and encouraging anti-Russian activities within the Commonwealth of Independent States through the GUAM alliance – consisting of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova.

Georgia has become a US client, although an unstable one. Saakashvili’s disastrous policies have already led to one war and have turned his country into a theatre of confrontation between Russia and America. However, the Georgian leader could not have achieved this without the backing of Washington. The endeavours of US policy-makers to contain Moscow’s global power and influence by surrounding the Russian Federation with a belt of Nato states has grave implications, not just for peace and stability in the Caucasus, but also in the wider world.

source: www.tribunemagazine.co.uk

REPORT: Die georgische Sicht auf den Kaukasus-Konflikt von Nodar Belkania (krusenstern.ch)

Publiziert am 17. Januar 2009 von Krusenstern

Bern * Die georgische Sicht auf den Kaukasus-Konflikt vom August 2008 erklärte Professor Nodar Belkania, Dekan für Politik- und Sozialwissenschaften der Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University TSU, kürzlich im Berner Polit-Forum im Käfigturm. Krusenstern berichtet über diese Veranstaltung der Schweizerischen Osteuropabibliothek im Rahmen einer Serie über den Kaukasus-Konflikt.

Suche nach den Ursachen des Kaukasus-Konfliktes
Im Kaukasus-Konflikt standen Georgien auf der einen und Russland sowie die international nicht anerkannten Republiken Südossetien und Abchasien auf der anderen Seite. Der “Kaukasische Fünftagekrieg” wurde im August 2008 auf georgischem Staatsgebiet ausgetragen. Bis heute streiten sich beide Seiten darum, wer den Krieg wie und vor allem warum begonnen habe.

Währenddessen vertritt die Schweiz die Interessen Russlands in Georgien und vice versa mit einem Schutzmacht-Mandat. Und die erfahrene Schweizer Diplomatin Heidi Tagliavini leitet parallel dazu eine EU-Untersuchungskommission zu den Ursachen des Konfliktes.
Vor diesem Hintergrund organisierte die Schweizerische Osteuropabibliothek SOB in Bern zwei öffentliche Referate, welche beiden Seiten eine Möglichkeit zur Erklärung gab. Es referierten Professor Nodar Belkania, Dekan für Politik- und Sozialwissenschaften der Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University TSU und Alexander Gladkov, Botschaftsrat und Leiter der Gruppe Aussenpolitik, Massenmedien und Kultur an der Botschaft der Russischen Föderation in der Schweiz.

Krusenstern publiziert nach einem sehr persönlichen Bericht von Marc Achermann, stv. Delegationschef des Internationalen Komitee vom Roten Kreuz IKRK in Georgien, die Zusammenfassungen der Referate von russischer und georgischer Seite – gefolgt von eigenen, neutralen Zusammenfassungen der historischen und geopolitischen Hintergründe sowie des Kriegsverlaufs.

Das ganze umfangreiche Exposé mit Links hier >>>

About this story:
Sources: Dieser Beitrag beruht u.a. auf folgenden Quellen:
Professor Nodar Belkania, Dekan für Politik- und Sozialwissenschaften der Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University TSU.
Schweizerische Osteuropabibliothek SOB, die grösste wissenschaftliche Spezialbibliothek der Schweiz zu Fragen der Gegenwart (Politik, Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft, Recht) und Zeitgeschichte des europäischen Ostens sowie der Nachfolgestaaten der Sowjetunion.
Personalities: Nodar Belkania.
Copyrights: © Fotos: Archiv Nodar Belkania.

OPINION: Is the European Union becoming an instrument of Moscow’s neo-colonialism? (kyivpost.com)

It appears that European Union monitors will observe the flow of Russian gas to Europe via Ukraine. The EU is thus helping to ease Russian-Ukrainian confrontation. Or is it?
Source: Russia Profile

Since the Orange Revolution of 2004, Ukraine has become increasingly salient in pan-European politics, taking center stage in the relations between Russia and the West. Western institutions have, in turn, become important factors in Ukrainian-Russian relations.

full text >>>

By Andreas Umland is editor of the book series “Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society” (www.ibidem-verlag.de/) and co-editor of the Russian web-journal "Forum for the Contemporary History and Culture of Eastern Europe" (www1.ku-eichstaett.de/ZIMOS/forumruss.html).
He also administers the website“Russian nationalism” (groups.yahoo.com/group/russian_nationalism) which provides extensive up-to-date information on recent trends Russian right-wing thought and politics.

STATEMENT: Der Fall Georgien: Medienpolitik als Organ der Vermittlung oder als Instrument des Kulturkampfes? (pdf)

Von Marika Lapauri-Burk und Frank Tremmel


Betreff ZDF-Dokumentationen am 14.12.08 „Machtpoker im Kaukasus“ am 17.12.08 „Die Spur des Goldes“ /„Abenteuer Wissen“

Abstract: In der Zeit des eisernen Vorhangs und erneut in der Zeit nach der Perestroika war Georgien und der Kaukasus eine Terra incognita. Auch die offenbar mit heißer Feder geschriebenen Artikel und Bücher der jüngeren Zeit bewegen sich entweder auf dem problematischen Niveau einer Weltbürgerkriegsdiagnostik oder ergehen sich in ahistorische Sophistereien über völkerrechtliche Einzelfragen, die den Leser oftmals ratlos zurücklassen. Den westlichen Berichterstattern ist oftmals nicht bewusst, dass mit den politischen, ökonomischen und kulturellen Umbrüchen in Osteuropa für uns alle eine neue Ära angebrochen ist, die es erforderlich macht, unterschiedliche Erfahrungen in einem wechselseitigen Prozess auszutauschen und nicht einfach durch die Raster der jeweils überkommenen Kategorienssysteme zu filtern. Durch die Ereignisse im 20. Jahrhundert ist Georgiens natürliche Entwicklung als eine der ältesten europäischen Kulturen abgebrochen worden. Durch die veränderte Weltlage, wie sie nach dem Zerfall der Sowjet Union entstand, bekam die geopolitische Stellung des Kaukasus erneut Bedeutung. Wir waren immer der Auffassung, dass europäische Politik im 21. Jahrhundert wesentlich Kulturpolitik im weitesten Sinne sein sollte. Kultur ist eine Möglichkeit, auch die oben angesprochenen politischen Krisen besser zu verstehen.

Der ganze Text >>>

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: The August War: The Russian and Georgian Versions (nytimes.com)

In the New York Times you can find two versions by Vitaly Churkin (Ambassador of Russia to the United Nations, New York, Nov. 10, 2008) and Vasil Sikharulidze (Ambassador of Georgia to the United States, Mexico and Canada, Washington, Nov. 7, 2008)

more >>>

Past Coverage
Georgians Flee Border Village as Russian Troops Leave (November 11, 2008)
European Union to Resume Russian Partnership Talks (November 11, 2008)
Georgian Church Envoys Meet With Russian Official (November 8, 2008)
Protesters Condemn President of Georgia (November 8, 2008)

ARTIKEL: Europäische Ideale nicht der Heizung opfern. (lavoix.lu)

La Voix du Luxembourg - Luxemburg

Wegen der Präsenz russischer Truppen in Georgien hatte die EU ihre Gespräche mit Russland vorübergehend ausgesetzt. Jetzt sollen die Verhandlungen wieder aufgenommen werden, auch um russische Energielieferungen nach Europa nicht zu gefährden. Die Tageszeitung La Voix du Luxembourg kritisiert das Einlenken Europas gegenüber Russland im Gasstreit: "Die erste Winterkälte reichte, damit die Europäer ihre Mütze aufsetzen, ihr Gesicht im Schal vergraben – und Russland gegenüber zunächst nachgeben. Sie wollten es nicht riskieren, dass der Gashahn zugedreht wird. Doch wenn man die europäischen Ideale der Heizung opfert, wird es schwierig, im Kongo einzugreifen und kritisch, die Festnahme eines Gefolgsmanns von [dem ruandischen Präsidenten Paul] Kagame in Deutschland zu rechtfertigen, ... oder das Völkerrecht zu zitieren, um künftige Interventionen zu begründen." (11.11.2008)
» weiterführende Informationen (externer Link, französisch)
Mehr aus der Presseschau zu den Themen » EU-Erweiterung / Nachbarschaft, » Russland, » Europa
Alle verfügbaren Texte von » Thierry Labro

STATEMENT: Offener Brief von Giorgi Tortladze.

Georgischer Parlamentsmitglied
Vorsitzende der Fraktion „Starkes Georgien-Christlichdemokraten“

Georgien braucht die Hilfe der internationalen Gemeinschaft, damit wir derganzen Welt zeigen können, dass es in Georgien keinen ethnischen Konflikt gibt.Und unter der Voraussetzung, dass es uns gelingt, die Ursachen desSeparatismus zu neutralisieren, wird sich in Georgien weder mit Abchasen noch mit Osseten ein ethnischer Konflikt anbahnen.

Der ganze Brief >>>

OFFENER BRIEF: Einige Bemerkungen zu den Veröffentlichungen der Gesellschaft für bedrohte Völker. Von Marika Lapauri-Burk.

Der Kaukasus ist ein Region in Europa, wo immer Minderheiten miteinander seit Jahrhunderten lebten. Jede politische Entscheidung im Kaukasus, die nicht dessen historisch-kulturellen Kontext berücksichtigt, hat keine Zukunft. Heute ist es die Aufgabe Europas, diese einzigartigen kleinen Völker von der Bedrohung und dem Aussterben zu schützen. Nur dann kann eine an ökonomischer Entwicklung interessierte Politik Zukunft haben. Die kulturellen Werte werden in den globalen Entwicklungen in unserer Epoche bei weitem nicht ausreichend berücksichtigt. Eine bisher orientierungslose Politik hat das Anbrechen einer neuen Ära nicht richtig erkannt. Vielleicht ist die aktuelle Krise im Kaukasus eine Chance für die Welt, um zu handeln, eine klare Vision zu entwickeln, wozu und mit welchen Mittel wir besser zusammen für unsere Zukunft sorgen können.

Der ganze Brief >>>

An
Gesellschaft für bedrohte Völker
Postfach 2024
37010 Göttingen

Von Marika Lapauri-Burk
Lile e. V.
Hamburg/Oktober 2008

STATEMENT: Ordner or Chaos. By Giorgi Tortladze.

On 25 August 2008 the Russian Duma recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and 24 hours later the President of the Russian Federation, Dimitry Medvedyev approved the decision of the Duma and the request of the separatist authorities.

That was a response to the recommendations of various countries to the Russian Federation on fulfillment of the 6-item agreement on cease-fire and withdrawal of the troops from the territory of Georgia. The President of France, Nikola Sarkozi plaid extremely important role in overcoming this critical situation.

We all know what this 6-item agreement is about. Despite of a cease-fire agreement the bombing of Georgian cities was continued after 12 September; the bridges were exploded and the ships, infrastructure and the civilian buildings were destroyed. Using the fire-bombs they devastated the forest areas – totally 1400 hectares, restoration of which will take at least two centuries.

In contrary to the Agreement the Russian troops still remain on the Georgian territory. They create new posts and dig the trenches. All of these activities are carried out outside of the conflict zone, on the territory of Georgia. There were facts of marauding that became public due to the decisive work of journalists and reporters. Here I would like to express my deepest sorrow for those who perished in the course of fulfilling their professional duties.

Against this background one still can hear the question: who shoot the first!

I would like to say for those who may not know that: the problem of the first shot the Soviet Russia solved in 30 November 1939 in Finland, when the group of NKVD destroyed its own border post at the village Mainil using this event as a ground for starting the war against Finland. At the same day Molotov cinically noted: “the Red Army has to respond to the hostile policy of Finland and their aim is to protect security of Leningrad”.

I’m not going to draw your attention to the terrorist acts and the violations of border from the Russia’s side, as they will not fail to blame Georgian authorities in doing them.

In order to wave any doubt how this big provocation was being prepared, let me provide you with the information about certain legislative initiatives of the Russian Federation.

For example, on 22 July 2004 A. Kokoshin, the chairman of the Committee of CIS Affairs of the Russian Duma, lodged the initiative to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. His application read as follows: “on the legal basis for possible affiliation of the South Ossetia to the Russian Federation as a new entity”.
We have to remember that for the material time Russia was fulfilling its mandate as a peacekeeper in the region.

It is regretful that such “first shots” did not become the subject of the wider public consideration.

How it can be explained that on 9 December 2004 a group of parliamentarians of the Russian Federation, namely the representatives of the Faction “Rodina” – D. Rogozin, N. Narochnitskaya and A. SAvelieva drafted the amendments regarding the “Procedure on Admitting a New Entities to the Russian Federation”. The authors offered to the Government the simplified procedure for admitting the new entities to the Russian Federation. It also applied to the autonomous entities of the former Soviet Union.

The aim of this drat-law was to simplify the procedure for the membership in the Russian federation. It states that this is possible if the people residing on the given territory express such will through the referendum. Indeed, according to the authors, there is no need to have a consent of the country whose part is this or that autonomous entity. Moreover, the draft-law suggests to adopt a special constitutional law to admit to the Russian federation the new entities, such as Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Adjara etc. According to the authors the necessity of introducing such amendments is originated form the fact that “Russia and a legal successor of the Soviet Union, thus having the right to incorporate the autonomous entities of the former Soviet Union through the simplified procedure”.

Let’s consider the latest novelties of the Russian legislation.

On 13 June 2008 the ad hoc Commission on the North Caucasus Situations of the Russian Federation examined the issues related to the population of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The enlarged meeting of this Commission was planned for 17 June. The Mission of South Ossetia received the invitation to participate in the work of the ad hoc Commission of the Council of Federation of the CIS.


It is well known fact that regional department of LDPR initiated the unification of the North Ossetia with South Ossetia.

Not to mention surprises like information provided by TV Company “Zvezda”, according to which on the territory of North Ossetia functions concrete plant, imported from Korea and thanks to efforts of Russian specialist they are building highway of 500km length, which would link South Ossetia with North Ossetia bypassing Georgian checkpoints.
I think there is not a single country in the world, which would be unaware of “territorial appetites” of the Soviets. There is no country, towards which the Soviets did not have territorial claims. They wanted from Norway-archipelago Shpicbergen, from Turkey-Dardanelle, and territories for military bases from Greece and Tripoli Tania (Libya).
There is no need to explain this reality to Poland, Baltic States and the Ukraine. In these states the Soviets expressed and promoted their interests through Molotov-Ribentroup pact.

The Soviet Union introduced its troops into the territory of Iran during the Second World War and through its security service they would carry out so called “democratic movement”, which aimed at depriving Iran its south provinces and attaching them to the Soviet Azerbaijan. Only in 1956 the Soviets give up on this intention. However, relations with Russians show that their words and promises do not mean much. For example, four Japanese islands, occupied by the Soviet Army in 1945. It is true that in 1956 Russia reached an agreement with Japan, which stipulated return of two islands out of the occupied four islands. However, just in four years, in 1960, it refused to meet its own previous commitments.

Is there any need to explain to Europeans, what does it mean “peace enforcement “ in a Soviet way. Let’s remember Hungary in 1956, Prague in 1968. Is there any need to talk about protection of civilian rights?

Protection of its own citizens on the territories of other states, as well as misinterpretation of issue who started shooting first, is very well adopted and practiced by Russia in many countries, as it was the case with Nazi Germany in the 30s of the 20th century.
Maybe some would say, that all that happened in the Soviet Union, while today we are dealing with the Russian Federation, which can not be held responsible for its past history. That is a true argument, but what about the statement of Vladimir Putin: “dissolution of the Soviet Union was the largest geo-political catastrophe of 21st century” and legislative act adopted by the State Duma (December 9, 2004)- “Russia is a legal successor of the Soviet Union”.

Examples of recent history demonstrate that today, like during the Soviet Union, the security concept of Russia envisages further expansion of its borders and establishment of security buffer zones.

But let me ask a question. From whom is Russia defending itself, and who is attacking Russia? Georgia?

Georgia’s population is about 1/3 of the population of Russia and territory of Russia is 150 times larger than territory of Georgia.

I call upon the international community, please do not be trapped by demagogue and political technology games of who “shoot first”.

Today, I am not going to speak about my personnel opinions, but rather I would like to draw your attention on mere facts and chronology of events, which is available for those who are interested in the Archives.

On May 7, 1920 Russia recognized the independence of Georgia. The only demand of Russia towards Georgia was to allow local Bolsheviks to function freely on the Territory of Georgia. After that, as pointed out by Ossetian Bolsheviks themselves, on the territory of four administrative units of Georgia: Gori, Dusheti, Racha and Shoropani they set up “ District Committee of South Ossetian Bolsheviks”.

It is interesting, why they called it South Ossetia, when beyond the Caucasian range, where is historical Ossetia-Alania, which was at that time part of the Russian Federation, as a constituent part of the Union of Mountain Republics, there was no mention of North Ossetia. Therefore, they have created Union of South Ossetian Bolsheviks, while there was no North Ossetia in existence. The title of North Ossetia came into existence only after the District Committee of South Ossetian Bolsheviks appealed to Lenin with a request,
- to admit them to the Bolshevik Russia, since the Menshevik government of Georgia was unacceptable for them.

At that time, this request was rejected by the Kremlin under the pretext that the Caucasian ranges were closed for 9 months out of 12 in a year and therefore direct transport communications between the two was actually impossible. What is important in this respect is a fact that at that time, in 1921, Russia had already decided to occupy the whole Georgia and therefore South Ossetia Autonomy was formed as a administrative territorial unit within Georgia. As a result of military intervention, the whole territory of Georgia became part of Soviet empire.

These are facts and nobody is able to deny them. I call upon the international community to pay more attention to Russian sources; for example, in great Soviet encyclopedia of 1940, you will see the following definition of Poland: Poland is a geographic notion and this territory it is in the sphere of German interest (should we trust their publications?).
Now, when it comes to protection of Russian citizens on the territory of Georgia- that is the Russian way of “protection” of its citizens in a “humane” manner; Russia had carried out sterilization of these territories of ethnic Georgians, pursued policy of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Therefore, Russia had been “protecting” its own citizens at the cost of discrimination of ethnic Georgians.

Therefore, when Russia claims in a most cynical way that it has been protecting its own citizens on the territory of Georgia, I would like to remind it that: neither Georgian, nor Russian legislation provides for double citizenship. Therefore, those citizens who assume Russian citizenship, automatically loose Georgian citizenship, that is, there staying on the territory of Georgia is no longer legal, since for many years now, there is visa regime between Georgia and Russia, and the aforementioned so called citizens of Georgia have not gone through any custom checkpoints. Proceeding from the aforementioned, the Russian government should not protect its own citizens who are illegally on the territory of other country, but to take immediate steps to remove them from the territory of Georgia.

The so called Russian peacekeepers and criminal paramilitary groups under their patronage have driven out ethnic Georgians from their homes, grossly violated their property rights and carried out ethnic cleansing against Georgians. (declarations of December 2-3 , 1996 Lisbon and 18-19 November, 1999 Istanbul OSCE Summits).

I would like to remind you, that in the beginning of July, 2008 Mr. Karl Schtainmayer presented a very realistic and reasonable plan for peaceful settlement of the conflict and demonstrated very clear ways hot to stabilize the situation in the volatile region.

Peaceful settlement of these conflicts would lead to the return of displaced citizens of Georgia and restoration of legality and Georgian jurisdiction in these regions, and all these developments would not serve the neo-imperial plans of Russia and the legislative initiatives starting since 2004 are the potent proof of the abovementioned. It is no surprise that Mr. Bagapsh, as a crony of Russia, rejected the Shtainmayer plan outright.

A few words about one aspect of Georgian-Russian conflict.

I am a Chairman of opposition faction in the Parliament of Georgia and has been elected to the Parliament from the United Opposition list, therefore I am from the most radical opposition movement. However, it should be underlined that I have rejected the idea of boycotting the Parliament and establishing an alternative consultative body. I remember very well the bitter experience of similar actions in 1991-92.

Let me remind you, that on December 21, 1991 the so called Commonwealth of Independent States was established, and Georgia refused to join this organization. On the very next day, on 22 December 1991 military operation aiming at deposal of the Georgia legitimate authorities started. Alongside with Russian heavy weapons and finances, political opponents of President Gamsakhurdia were used in the process.

I do believe that democracy is a mechanism for the management of State and we have got to improve it through our own efforts and aspirations. The Georgian people will not allow anybody to intervene in our inner political processes.

As far as unilateral and arbitrary recognition of independence of integral parts of Georgia is concerned, words said by Arnold Toynbee come to my mind, which recognized society and civilization, formulated by religion and geography, as a legal entity of history.
Or let’s take George Elenik’s “theory of three elements, which the foundation of statehood.
In accordance with 1993 Montevideo convention, article 1, a State, as a subject of international law, must have the following characteristics:

1. permanent population
2. defined government
3. government
4. capacity to establish relations with other states.

Let’s address all these characteristics one by one:

1. Vast majority of permanent population is displaced from both regions (Abkhazia and Tskinvali region)
2. Both territories are integral part of Georgia.
3. Governments have been elected as a result of ethnic cleansing and with the support of Russian tanks and military forces.
4. Not a single State (except Russia) has legal relations with the separatist regimes.

A question comes to a surface, are there any legal and legitimate arguments for recognizing these separatist enclaves as independent entities. We think that we are witnessing Russia’s attempts aiming at creation of mono-ethnic zone.

So far, not a single State has been established under the pretext of protection own citizens residing on the territory of other state (except for Hitler’s “legalistic innovations”). This is Russia’s interpretation of the international law.

Today the civilized world faces a dilemma, defined not only by a desire to render support to Georgia: The Georgia case gave the birth to the following dilemma:

Order or chaos
Relations based on mutual respect and agreement or demonstration of force.

Georgia needs support from the international community to prove to the world that in Georgia we do not have ethnic conflict and provide we will manage to neutralize the sources of separatism, we will have no conflict either with Abkhazs, or with Ossetians.
First of all, an agreement reached thanks to Mr. Nicola Sarkozy should be materialized. And the next step could be considerer implementation of peace plan offered by Mr. Karl Schtaimayer.

We will prove that the only method for solution of the similar conflicts is nothing but peaceful coexistence, and that still remains a possibility in our case, provided Russia withdraws its troops from the territory of Georgia, the peace process is internationalized, and displaced persons from both sides are allowed to return to their homes.

To this end, we need your held, support of the international community and do promise that you will be proud of events developing in Georgia.
We will be able to solve the task in a dignified manner.


Giorgi Tortladze
Member of the Parliament of Georgia
Chairman of the faction “Strong Georgia –Christian Democrats

soure >>>