Think Tank: Nr. 43: Parliamentary Elections in Georgia (css.ethz.ch/publications/CAD)

(css.ethz.ch) This issue examines Georgia's historic October 2012 parliamentary elections in which power passed peacefully to the opposition for the first time in the country's history. Giorgi Kldiashvili examines the course of the campaign, including the impact of the prison scandal. David Sichinava provides an overview of the regional breakdown of the results, stressing the rural urban divide between the two parties that won parliamentary representation. Cory Welt examines the prospects for democratic development in the aftermath of the election. Finally, Niklas Nilsson considers the international implications. The relatively free and fair elections likely improve Georgia's relations with the West and potentially open the door to better relations with Russia as well.

The President in Opposition: Georgia’s 2012 Parliamentary Elections 2
By Giorgi Kldiashvili, Tbilisi

DOCUMENTATION
The Results of the Georgian Parliamentary Elections 5

Shades of Red and Blue—Regional Characteristics of Georgia’s 2012 Parliamentary Elections 7
By David Sichinava, Tbilisi

MAP
Results of Geo-Statistical Analysis of Voting Behavior 10

Can Georgia Become A Multiparty Democracy? 13
By Cory Welt, Washington

OPINION POLL
Georgian Public Opinion on the Quality of the Parliamentary Elections (August 2012) 15

International Implications of Georgia’s Parliamentary Elections 17
By Niklas Nilsson, Washington

CHRONICLE
From 24 September to 22 October 2012 20

Autor(en): Giorgi Kldiashvili, David Sichinava, Cory Welt, Niklas Nilsson

Herausgeber: Robert Orttung

Serie: Caucasus Analytical Digest (CAD)

Ausgabe: 43

Verlag(e): Center for Security Studies (CSS), ETH Zurich; Research Centre for East European Studies, University of Bremen; Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies, George Washington University

Publikationsjahr: 2012 

Download:

Englisch (PDF)

Newsletter-Abonnement CAD

POSITION: Deutsche Außenpolitik und Östliche Partnerschaft (dgap.org)

(dgap.org) Positionspapier der Expertengruppe Östliche Partnerschaft

06.02.2012 | von Markus Meckel, Georg Milbradt, Friedbert Pflüger, Christian Schwarz-Schilling, Rainder Steenblock, Rita Süssmuth, Günter Verheugen, Karsten D. Voigt, Gereon Schuch, Irene Hahn

DGAPstandpunkt 1, 6. Februar 2012, 4 S.

In dem sieben Punkte umfassenden Positionspapier fordern acht hochrangige Persönlichkeiten aus der Politik ein stärkeres Engagement Deutschlands in Osteuropa und dem Kaukasus. „Die Östliche Partnerschaft ist von zentraler Bedeutung“ für die deutsche und die EU-Außenpolitik. Die Bundesregierung solle einen Sonderbeauftragten ernennen, der dazu die deutsche Position einbringt. 

Link: DGAPstandpunkt 1, 6. Februar 2012, 4 S.

downloads

• Deutsche Außenpolitik und Östliche Partnerschaft (PDF 536.73 kB)
• English Version (PDF 188.17 kB)
• Polska Wersja (PDF 246.42 kB)
• Ergänzende Erklärung zum Positionspapier der Expertengruppe Östliche Partnerschaft von Markus Meckel (PDF 55.36 kB)
• русская версия (PDF 173.45 kB)

FEATURE: In The Heart Of New York, Russia's 'Soft Power' Arm Gaining Momentum (rferl.org)

February 15, 2009

By Nikola Krastev

NEW YORK -- Tucked into a piece of prime real estate in midtown Manhattan, the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation currently boasts just four employees -- two Russian analysts, a secretary, and Andranik Migranyan, the Armenian-born political scientist who serves as director of the institute's New York branch.

It appears to be a bare-bones operation. Much of the furniture and office equipment are secondhand, left behind by the previous tenants. Migranyan, who occupies a sleek corner office with a sweeping view of the city, is dressed casually in a brown leather jacket and sweater. During the course of a two-hour interview, the premises remain preternaturally silent, with no evident signs of activity or bustle.

But Migranyan, a former adviser to Boris Yeltsin, is thinking bigger. The office, which includes a 30-seat conference room, has already hosted two seminars on U.S.-Russian relations.

full article >>>

REPORT: Russia vs Georgia: The Fallout. (crisisgroup.org)

Europe Report N°195 22 August 2008

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Russia-Georgia conflict has transformed the contemporary geopolitical world, with large consequences for peace and security in Europe and beyond. Moscow’s initial moves into South Ossetia as large-scale violence broke out there on 7-8 August were in part a response to a disastrous miscalculation by a Georgian leadership that was impatient with gradual confidence building and a Russian-dominated negotiations process. But Russia’s disproportionate counter-attack, with movement of large forces into Abkhazia and deep into Georgia, accompanied by the widespread destruction of economic infrastructure, damage to the economy and disruption of communications and movement between different regions of the country, constitutes a dramatic shift in Russian-Western relations. It has undermined regional stability and security; threatened energy corridors that are vital for Europe; made claims with respect to ethnic Russians and other minorities that could be used to destabilise other parts of the former Soviet Union, with Ukraine a potential target; and shown disregard for international law.

Russian actions reflected deeper factors, including pushback against the decade-long eastward expansion of the NATO alliance, anger over issues ranging from the independence of Kosovo to the placement of missile defence systems in Europe, an assertion of a concept of limited sovereignty for former Soviet states and a newfound confidence and aggressiveness in foreign affairs that is intimately linked with the personality and world view of Russia’s predominant leader, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

Georgia, too, has mishandled its relationships with Russia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia since 2004, abandoning real confidence building and often following confrontational policies towards the conflict regions. With patience it might have demonstrated that the regions would be better served by enjoying extensive autonomy within an increasingly prosperous and democratising Georgia. Instead, President Mikheil Saakashvili and a small inner circle of bellicose officials used menacing and arrogant rhetoric that made the dispute with Moscow and the conflict regions bitter and personal. All sides bear responsibility for the humanitarian consequences of the violence, as tens of thousands of civilians in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and the rest of Georgia have been displaced amid disturbing reports of atrocities.

Western nations must eschew the worst of the Cold War mentality that would further isolate Russia, but engagement, as UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband has put it, has to be “hard-headed”. Russia cannot be allowed to maintain a military force in Georgia except as part of an international peacekeeping mission with non-Russian command, with a clear and mutually acceptable mandate in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The ceasefire signed on 15-16 August must be respected, and Russian troops must return promptly to the positions they held on 7 August, honouring the spirit of a loosely worded agreement. International monitors should be deployed in Georgia proper to observe Russian withdrawal and return of displaced persons (IDPs) and then serve as an interim measure to help maintain the ceasefire in South Ossetia and Abkhazia until a peacekeeping mission can be created.

Russian participation is probably necessary as a practical matter in the peacekeeping mission, although serious questions should be raised about the motives of the Russian forces that Moscow describes as peacekeepers. Command and composition should be genuinely international. All Georgian and Ossetian civilians displaced since 7 August need to be immediately allowed to return to their homes. The Russians and Georgians should agree to and cooperate with investigations to establish responsibility for human rights abuses during the conflict, including by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and perhaps the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).

None of this will be easy or even possible without a combination of significant pressures and pragmatic incentives to gain essential Russian approval. Moscow must be made to understand the advantages for its prestige, power and economy of being a partner in ensuring security in Europe rather than an outlier, subject to threats of exclusion from such institutions as the G8 and World Trade Organization (WTO).

The crisis also reflects serious mistakes by the U.S. and the European Union (EU) in Georgia since 2004, most significantly failing to adequately press President Saakashvili to abandon a quick-fix approach toward restoring Georgian control over South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Georgian army was trained and sold weapons without ensuring that these would not be used to recover the conflict territories, and Russia’s anger over these actions and other perceived post-Cold War slights was misread. Instead of concentrating on democratic institutions and rule of law, the U.S. too often focused its support on Saakashvili personally, even as he engaged in reckless and authoritarian behaviour. As the long-frozen conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia began to heat up, Georgia’s partners did too little to encourage it to engage more substantially in confidence building and dialogue with the de facto authorities and Russia.

With regard to NATO, the division evident at its Bucharest Summit in April 2008 on whether to approve a membership action plan (MAP) for Georgia has been exacerbated. Those countries, led by the U.S., who support Georgia’s accession are pointing to the Russian attacks as clear proof that Georgia needs the protection of NATO security guarantees; those that oppose it believe that NATO dodged a bullet by not committing itself to go to war against Russia in defence of a capricious and reckless government in Tbilisi. A decision on MAP or membership status should not be taken in the heat of the current crisis. It will be difficult to finally resolve the membership issue, in relation to both Georgia and other potential members, without addressing the larger question of NATO’s future role as a security organisation.

At the broader level, the crisis raises significant questions about the capacity of the EU, the UN and NATO to address fundamental issues. While European leaders stepped forward to achieve the ceasefire agreement, their inability to put forward a forceful response to the Russian action reflects a lowest common denominator approach that discourages stronger and more innovative policies. Similarly, the UN Security Council, divided by whether to include references to Georgia’s territorial integrity in either a resolution or statement, has issued nothing on the conflict since it began to boil over on 7 August. In an unhappy reminder of the Cold War years, the conflict has called into question the Council’s capacity to address any issue over which P-5 members have significantly different interests. And in the process of seeking justification for its actions, Russia has also misstated and distorted the UN-approved principle of “responsibility to protect”.

Full Text >>>

read media release >>>

To find out more, visit our "War in Georgia" page, which has links to Crisis Group’s reports and opinion pieces on the situation, details of our advocacy efforts to date, links to other resources, and information on what you can do to support Crisis Group’s efforts.

Contacts:
Andrew Stroehlein (Brussels) +32 (0) 2 541 1635
Kimberly Abbott (Washington) +1 202 785 1601
To contact Crisis Group media please click here
Read the full Crisis Group report on our website: http://www.crisisgroup.org

Tbilisi/Brussels, 22 August 2008

GEOPOLITIC: The Real World Order. By George Friedman. (stratfor.com)

Statement: Friedmann would like to have a strong and clear imaging of world order - without doubt ...

On Sept. 11, 1990, U.S. President George H. W. Bush addressed Congress. He spoke in the wake of the end of Communism in Eastern Europe, the weakening of the Soviet Union, and the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. He argued that a New World Order was emerging: “A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor, and today that new world is struggling to be born. A world quite different from the one we’ve known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.”

After every major, systemic war, there is the hope that this will be the war to end all wars. The idea driving it is simple. Wars are usually won by grand coalitions. The idea is that the coalition that won the war by working together will continue to work together to make the peace. Indeed, the idea is that the defeated will join the coalition and work with them to ensure the peace. This was the dream behind the Congress of Vienna, the League of Nations, the United Nations and, after the Cold War, NATO. The idea was that there would be no major issues that couldn’t be handled by the victors, now joined with the defeated. That was the idea that drove George H. W. Bush as the Cold War was coming to its end.

Those with the dream are always disappointed. The victorious coalition breaks apart. The defeated refuse to play the role assigned to them. New powers emerge that were not part of the coalition. Anyone may have ideals and visions. The reality of the world order is that there are profound divergences of interest in a world where distrust is a natural and reasonable response to reality. In the end, ideals and visions vanish in a new round of geopolitical conflict.

The post-Cold War world, the New World Order, ended with authority on Aug. 8, 2008, when Russia and Georgia went to war. Certainly, this war was not in itself of major significance, and a very good case can be made that the New World Order actually started coming apart on Sept. 11, 2001. But it was on Aug. 8 that a nation-state, Russia, attacked another nation-state, Georgia, out of fear of the intentions of a third nation-state, the United States. This causes us to begin thinking about the Real World Order.

full text >>>

BLOG: Georgia’s Neighbors, Watching Warily (NY Times)

August 13, 2008, 12:45 pm
By The New York Times

The Russians declared an end to its military operations in Georgia, but its forces are still occupying the city of Gori and, according to the Georgian government, they have all but established an economic blockade of Tbilisi, the capital. How will the standoff in Georgia play out in the rest of the region? Martha Brill Olcott, a senior associate with the Russian and Eurasian Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, specializes in the problems of the Caucasus as well as in the security challenges in the Caspian region generally. Here are excerpts of her analysis for the Carnegie Endowment.

full text >>>

SCIENCE: Caucasus Research Resource Centers (CRRC). Eurasia Foundation, Tbilisi, Georgia.

from: The Asian Studies WWW Monitor: late Aug 2007, Vol. 14, No. 11 (268)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 Aug 2007
Caucasus Research Resource Centers (CRRC)
Eurasia Foundation, Tbilisi, Georgia

Self-description:
"The Caucasus Research Resource Centers program (CRRC) is a network of resource and training centers established [in 2003 - ed] in the capital cities of Armenia [www.crrc.am - ed.], Azerbaijan [www.crrc.az - ed.] and Georgia [www.crrc.ge - ed.] with the goal of strengthening social science research and public policy analysis in the South Caucasus.
A partnership between the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Eurasia Foundation (EF), the program's outcomes are to increase the accessibility of high-quality research resources, to strengthen capacity and, to increase the dialogue and collaboration between social science researchers and policy practitioners."

Site contents:
* About CRRC;
* Data Initiative Project (Data Sets [South Caucasus household data on demographics, household economic behavior, migration trends, and social attitudes - ed.], Documentation, Web Interface, Research Team, Papers);
* CRRC Blog and Moodle;
* Contact Us;
* Publications.

[The Caucasus Research Resource Centers is a program of the Eurasia Foundation [www.eurasia.or] funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. - ed.]

URL http://www.crrccenters.org/

Internet Archive
http://web.archive.org/web/
http://www.crrccenters.org/

Link reported by: T. Matthew Ciolek (tmciolek--at--coombs.anu.edu.au)
* Resource type [news - documents - study - corporate info. - online guide]: Corporate Info
* Publisher [academic - business - government - library/museum - NGO - other]: NGO
* Scholarly usefulness [essential - v.useful - useful - interesting - marginal]: Useful
* External links to the resource [over 3,000 - under 3,000 - under 1,000
- under 300 - under 100 - under 30]: under 1000
--------------------------------------------------------------
Src: The Asian Studies WWW Monitor ISSN 1329-9778
URL http://coombs.anu.edu.au/asia-www-monitor.html

The e-journal [est. Apr 1994] provides free abstracts and reviews of new/updated online resources of significance to research, teaching and communications dealing with the Asian Studies.

The email edition of this Journal has now over 6,510 subscribers.
The AS WWW Monitor does not necessarily endorse contents, or policies of the Internet resources it abstracts.

- regards -
Dr T. Matthew Ciolek tmciolek--at--coombs.anu.edu.au
Head, Internet Publications Bureau, RSPAS, The National Institute for Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia ph +61 (02) 61250110 fax: +61 (02) 62571893 skype: tmciolek also, Asia Pacific Research Online at www.ciolek.com

[You may freely forward this information, but on condition that you send the text as an integral whole along with complete information about its author, date, and source.]
-
To subscribe to Asian Studies WWW Monitor email edition send email to: majordomo@coombs.anu.edu.au

message: subscribe asia-www-monitor
International students: ANU (http://studyat.anu.edu.au) CRICOS Provider Number is 00120C

RESEARCH:

Security from Europe through Turkey to South Caucasus
10-11 May 2007, Istanbul,Turkey

Presentation and Application form
Security from Europe through Turkey to South Caucasus
The Strategic Research Centre of Galatasay University and International Association of Young Diplomats Businessmen Scientists and Lawyers in collaboration with NATO, TİKA, and Tanıtım Fonu are going to organize an international conference on “Security from Europe through Turkey to South Caucasus” within the perspective of world security.
The Strategic Research Centre of Galatasay University and International Association of Young Diplomats Businessmen Scientists and Lawyers are planning to dedicate this international conference to provide opportunity for students, academicians politicians, diplomats, journalists, members of civil societies to discuss the main components of the agenda and create the conditions for an exchange of experience and ideas on this issue. This conference aims to be a humble contribution to the exchange of views from the European Union through Turkey to South Caucasus on potential and existing threats to their security. After a general introduction about the new threats for international security, three workshops will be held, dealing with the security issues shared by the European Union, Turkey, and South Caucasus, a focusing on bilateral cooperation.
The aspirations of EU to emerge as a new actor on international security face a major challenge with its latest enlargement. This economic giant has no option to remain silent on the security threats beyond its borders. Turkey on its side is obliged to take into consideration the security strategies of EU and persisting security matters in the South Caucasus while elaborating a security strategy of its own. Likewise, South Caucasian states recognize the potential of EU and Turkey to shape the future of the region. The purpose of the conference is, by putting emphasis on the interactions between these three areas, to provide new keys for the comprehension of regional security issues.
From this point it is very important to organize this kind of international event bringing together participants from different cultural backgrounds in order to overcome misunderstandings dominating the relations in the region. Participants to the simulations will also design resolutions thad will be presented during the workshops.


Simulation and workshpos of the International conference on Security from Europe through Turkey to South Caucasus:
The main purpose of the conference is to overcome misunderstandings dominating the situation in the region through numerous simulations and worksops that will provide opportunities to share and exchange different view points.

Simulation:
In order to develop new perspectives on the actions of actors in world politics, a simulation will be hold on May 10th, allowing participants to role play states, international organizations, multinational firms, transnational press organizations and other NGOs. Each state (plus one autonomous region), international organization and NGO will seek either to maximize its gains, will consent to a minimum or will reach a compromise with other actors for optimum benefits. Role playing students will thus be able to view complex security issues through eyes of prime ministers, foreign ministers, representatives of international organizations and CEOs and better grasp constraints, opportunities, and obligations influencing actions of decision makers.

Source: http://www.eussct.org/

RESEARCH:

Aims of "Ararat" Center for Strategic Research

OUR MISSION STUDIES NEWS MAPS QUIZ DONATIONS CONTACTS

1. to analyze the developments in the international political arena affecting Armenia's interests and, based on those findings, to define the needs and demands of its national security;
2. to be of use to both decision-makers and the society at large by exploring the unique circumstances relating to Armenia's security and its priorities in all detail and with scrutiny;
3. to neutralize the anti-Armenian propaganda launched internationally by Azerbaijan and Turkey by means of regularly increasing the international community's awareness of Armenia's and Nagorno-Karabakh's positions presented to foreign audiences in the most comprehensible way;
4. to increase the level of theoretical preparedness of Armenian officers and military students (cadets) by means of purposeful dissemination of information, publications and translations, including the acquaintance with classic and modern military theories and changes;
5. to propagate ideas and traditions of patriotism and self-defense in the Republic of Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as well as the Diaspora, especially among the youth;
6. to analyze Armenia's own capacities of deterring and restraining foreign aggression without third-party assistance;
7. to analyze and compare structures, regulations and conditions of military service in foreign countries, to study in detail the possibilities of adoption of elements of foreign best-practices in Armenia;
8. to recommend substantive improvements for the Armenian army;
9. to analyze the armed forces and the military doctrines of the countries in the region as well as other states with interests in the Greater Middle East;
10. to analyze possible solutions of the Karabakh conflict;
11. to compile a comprehensive historical and legal portfolio on Karabakh (ancient Artsakh, late medieval Khachen);
12. to analyze the liberation of Karabakh in accordance with the basic international principles on the right for self-determination and self-defense;
13. to study the historical demography of Karabakh and Nakhijevan;
14. to study the history of the Armenian armed forces and the art of war from the ancient times to the modern era;
15. to search for ways of strengthening cooperation between Armenia and the Diaspora as well as to develop a joint all-national doctrine for cooperation;
16. to undertake Armenian translation and publication of classical and contemporary literature on military and political strategy and national security issues;
17. to create Armenian explanatory dictionaries as well as multi-lingual (Armenian-English-Russian) dictionaries of military, strategic and national security terminology

STUDIES
“The Liberated Territory of Armenia and the Settlement of The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict”, Selected Studies, compiled and edited, with an introduction by Armen Ayvazyan, Yerevan, Lusakn, 2006, 372 pp.

“The Cornerstones of Armenian Identity: The Army, The Language, The State”, Armen Aivazian, Yerevan, Lusakn, 2007, 124 pp.

“Studies on Strategy and Security”, compiled and edited, with an introduction and commentary by Armen Ayvazyan, Yerevan, Lusakn, 2007, 684 pp.

more ...

Source: http://ararat-center.org/

INTERNET:

EURASIA 21

Research Areas Eurasian Election Update Expert Viewpoints Archive Person of the Month
Events in Washington

Eurasia21 is a full service, web based think tank collecting, originating and disseminating information on countries in Eurasia, which includes former Soviet states of Ukraine, Moldova, Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, to a worldwide audience.
Our mission is to provide leaders in the world with strategic insights on economic, social and political issues and policy solutions to current and emerging trends in Eurasia. Eurasia21 seeks to integrate news, up-to-date research and analysis, net assessment and early warning on political, social and economic issues on Eurasia.
Eurasia21 is a web portal that integrates the traditional activities of a think tank with the new media structures associated with the worldwide web and the 21st century.

Contact Us: Eurasia 21 info@eurasia21.com

Foreign Policy In Focus