Archive for June, 2007
Much has been said about Kosovo’s eventual independence, and the precedent it might set for the frozen conflicts in the former Soviet Union arena. Yegor Gaidar, the former Russian prime minister made a few valid points and predictions during his interview with Ekho Moskvy.
He is convinced that Russia will use its veto power to block the resolution on Kosovo’s independence. In this case, as many observers predict, the Kosovars are expected to declare independence unilaterally and the western countries will extend Kosovars the recognition. Here, Gaidar predicts the Russian elite would be pressured to ‘immediately recognize independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia’.
After this, the clash between Russians and Georgians would be inevitable, situation which would also present Putin with an opportunity to change the Russian constitution and stay around as president for a while - can’t leave a country in such a mess.
Technorati tags: Kosovo, independence, abkhazia, South Ossetia
According to Civil Georgia, there is word on the street that there are talks between Georgia and Russia to solve the South Ossetia conflict. First, the Georgian paper Rezonansi reported about a plan to replace South Ossetian president Eduard Kokoity with someone loyal to Dimitri Sanakoev, the alternative head of South Ossetia, backed by Georgia. Crucially, this would happen with support from Russia. (Read about it here.) And now the Russian paper Kommersant is bringing a similar story, where Georgia is urging Russia to give up support for South Ossetia in return for Georgia’s assent to Russia’s joining the WTO and its continuing involvement in South Ossetia. (Read about it here.)
It remains to be seen whether this is only coming from one side (Georgia) or whether this is serious. Either way though, I would imagine such a plan would work best without newspapers reporting about it in advance.
The World War Two was at its peak when Stalin imposed his view of justice by charging the whole nations with treason. As the consequence, 200,000 Meskhetians were among those uprooted and exiled to the Asian deserts of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kirgizstan. Many died on the way.
Their collective guilt was their probable cooperation with the possible invaders from Turkey. This did not happen of course, but the Meskhetians were punished nevertheless. Since Stalin’s death, the question of Meskhetian repatriation to Georgia has surfaced on many occasions, but without solutions.
During Georgia’s tumultuous years 1989-1994, the Georgian nationalists had success portraying the return of Meskhetian Turks as yet another invasion of Muslim herds, prospect of losing territory, destabilization, etc. On the background of tensions in South Ossetia and Abkhazia (and other minority populated areas), softly speaking, the Meskhetians were not met with great enthusiasm.
Upon joining the Council of Europe in 1999, Georgia took up the responsibility to return the Meskhetians to their historic homeland by 2011. The plan is nowhere close to implementation stage and a total of 1,000 Meskhetian Turks currently living in Georgia shows the degree of concern.
There are 3 major reasons why Meskhetians have not been able to return. First, many in Georgia are still paranoid about the possibility of another conflict with the minorities who want to ’steal’ the Georgian land (as if the minorities are programmed to act in a certain way). Second, the historic homeland of the Meskhetian Turks is currently populated by 90% Armenians, who would rather live without Meskhetians. And third, of course, is the money.
These reasons are sufficient enough not to do anything.
The Meskhetians had a hard time even after Stalin: in 1989, those living in Kazakhstan were evacuated due to ethnic intimidation and riots by the locals. Many of them were settled in Krasnodar Krai (Russia) and till this day lack legal status, and hence rights.
Surprisingly, the Meskhetians are welcome where one would least expect: the USA. The International Organization for Migration has arranged departure of 12,000 Meskhetians to USA. Who would have thought, USA would become their homeland…
Today, the Georgian government is taking half-thought-through steps to fulfill its moral and political obligation to ensure the return of Meskhetian Turks. The ruling party is drafting a law on the repartition of Meskhetians – provoking controversy and denial.
The law is vague and the opposition is plain incompetent: the Georgian authorities don’t presume any financial obligation and there are no specifics on the crucial detail on where and how would the Meskhetians would return. Would they be ethnically concentrated, or dispersed? How much money would the process require?
The opposition parties on the other hand are united in condemning the law seeing it as anti-national and threating the territorial integrity of Georgia – proving their shortsightedness once again.
The idea behind the return of the Meskhetian Turks can have very positive consequences for Georgia: first, the project could be used to demonstrate to other minorities that Georgia is able to guarantee their rights and that multiculturalism is Georgia’s priority.
Second, the Meskhetian issue could be a venue for cooperation with the regional countries such as Turkey, Russia and Azerbaijan, all of which are one way or another sympathetic to the solution of the Meskhetian ‘problem’. And lastly, the Western countries would more than appreciate the willingness to undo Stalin’s injustices, and even be willing to extend the financial assistance.
So, what’s so scary about the Meskhetians again?
Technorati tags: Meskhetian Turks, repatriation, Georgia
The EU eased visa regime with Russia. According to the EU ambassador to Russia,
the deal set a fixed visa fee of 35 euros, cut the issuing period to ten days, and reduced the number of documents required for the application. Students, schoolchildren, and the physically disabled will not have to pay visa fees… The document will make traveling easier for businessmen and people whose relatives live abroad.
The simplified visa regime is always welcome, but not by all. Georgia is especially concerned , as most residents in the conflict areas such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia ‘illegally’ hold Russian passports. The Georgians living in the breakaway republics and most Georgian refugees from the conflict areas, however, hold Georgian passports.
It so happens that now the Abkhaz and South Ossetians will travel to the EU much easier than the Georgians. It should be mentioned however, that the population in the conflict areas don’t travel much to Western countries anyways, but now in theory at least they can and easier than the Georgians.
The same way, the Abkhaz and South Ossetians can enjoy many privileges in Russia itself, whereas the Georgians can’t get Russian visas, have problems with residence and working permits, and even experience problems with transportation to Russia, as the sanctions imposed on Georgia froze the transport routes. It’s almost funny, when Russian delegation travels to Georgia, they have to land in Armenia, and then make their way to Georgia by a car.
Georgia’s ambassador to EU, published an exhaustive piece on the issue, criticizing the EU policy for indirectly punishing the law-abiding Georgian refugees — because now they are disadvantaged against the Abkhaz and South Ossetians. She went as far as to suggest that EU’s policy “endangers Georgia’s peace efforts”.
The Lithuanians also thought it was unfair, and promised to lobby the EU for better visa deal for Georgians as well.
Whether EU will buy this argument is unclear and unlikely. Foremost, many illegal Georgians have violated the immigration laws of the EU, and the fact that residents of the conflict areas accidentally benefit from EU-Russian agreement, does not solve the problem of illegal Georgians in the EU. I don’t have any statistics on illegal Georgians (would appreciate if anyone does) but have come across the instances multiple times in the news.
At the same time, Georgia’s pro-Western course should be rewarded in a way, especially that Russia has been hard on Georgia. So, visa? Please?
Technorati tags: EU visa, frozen conflicts, Georgia-Russia
The debates surrounding Kosovo’s independence top the news again. As the decision on Kosovo’s independence looms closer, the voices from elsewhere become louder and the disagreements sharper. Can’t help writing about it.
The Serbs are ‘disgusted’ by George Bush’s speech on Kosovo given during his visits to Albania and Bulgaria. While touring the Balkans, Bush tried to charm his Eastern European supporters by taking a firm stand on the Kosovo saga. “America believes that Kosovo ought to be independent.” he says, and that “endless dialogue” over Kosovo’s future status is pointless.
He has a point… in a way. There is a very little ground between “independence” of an enclave (Kosovo in this case) and “territorial integrity” of the parent country (Serbia). Something tells me that the minute NATO bombs were generously sprinkled over Serbia in 1999, Kosovo gained its independence. So the dialogue was finished back then.
So, in a way, there was nothing the dialogue could change, as Kosovo outcome was predetermined. The time between then (1999) and now, was used for implementing democracy, civil society, and all those nice things you need to have (or appear to have) to gain independence. Like a prerequisite before taking an advanced course in college. This is what the breakaway regions in the former Soviet countries also hope to achieve, before fate will smile in their direction (improbably, I should add).
Everyone knows that law has little to do with the outcome surrounding Kosovo, but still there is a wrangle about the precedents, applicability, legality and double standards. True, the law should apply uniformly to everyone, but in the matters of international relations, one simply can’t expect the same outcomes say, in Burundi and Japan.
The whole “Kosovo precedent” saga is thus a matter of interpretation. And the reaction depends on where it came from: the Kosovo Albanians are happy, the Serbs disgusted, the Georgians anxious to point out differences, Russians nostalgic about the good old days of power and the former Soviet breakaway regions are saddened. One blanket won’t fit everyone equally, so get used to it.
But what is to be done? There is no way out which would not upset some party, and please another. Think of it, give independence to all potential candidates, and you can have 200 more countries, anything between more visa restrictions and tiny football teams.
So, forget about a just solution.
Amidst all this I liked the position of Sergey Baburin, Deputy Speaker of the Russian Duma. Although openly advocating the recognition of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria and Nagorno Karabakh and by this, standing up for the bitterest and most nostalgic Russian sentiments, he says “I’m always trying to assure Russian President that it’s necessary to form diplomatic relationship among Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria. This question is not connected with Kosovo because there is another situation.”
Technorati tags: Kosovo Precedent, independence, Abkhazia, South Ossetia
About a week or so ago the Institute for War and Peace Reporting featured an article by Inal Khashig about the politics behind the removal of the mayor of Sukhumi (Abkhazia’s Anti-Corruption Drive). The article gives a rare insight into the internal politics of Abkhazia.
The mayor (Astamur Adleiba) and three other officials were fired on May the 2nd by president Sergei Bagapsh for the embezzlement of governmental funds. According to Khashig, Bagapsh may have been forced to do so against his will because the people involved were in fact political allies of his. The results of the investigation that had uncovered the corruption had been revealed at a time when Bagapsh was in Russia for medical treatment. Both vice-president Raul Khajimba and prime minister Alexander Ankvab are being said to have been behind the publication of the results. Both are important figures in Abkhaz politics and both would profit from being seen as acting against corruption where Bagapsh did not.
The arrival of Bagapsh to the presidency seemed and seems to have brought a new wind to Abkhaz politics in many ways not dissimilar to the change brought about by the colour and flower revolutions in other countries. Even though it now turns out that Bagapsh may have been unwilling to act against his political allies until public opinion forced him to, it is definitely a good sign that in the end he did act and that the suspects are being prosecuted. The most positive effect of the change in power is then not so much that the new politicians are better than the old politicians (indeed, in many cases, the new politicians are the old politicians), but rather that the system has changed. Power is more evenly spread and politicians can less easily engage in corruption without being challenged.
According to Khashig, the government has now promised to also inspect other local administrations for corruption. We will see whether they are serious about it.
This is something: it turns out I am a brainwashed soldier from the George Soros evil-Western-double-standard-hypocrisy department. Or so says a blog I just learned about, the Deciphering Transnistria, seemingly based in UK and very much pro the “truth” about Transnistria and anti the Western machinations. I wish they were correct, and indeed this blog was a spiraling web of cyber conspiracy, and I was heading it… Here is what it says:
One of the George Soros funded blogs, wholly in tune with Western policy wonks and the mood among handlers like ICG (International Crisis Group), is commenting on the Kosovo precedent.
Since I couldn’t leave a comment there (because the comments are disabled), I thought to reply here: before anything, the “Kosovo Precedent” debate is a very unclear issue and to argue either way leaves room to “claim” double standards, especially if they are “Western”.
If one really believes that Kosovo does leave a precedent, than, as sophomoric as this may sound, let’s apply this “precedent” further into the proponent of this “parallel” - Russia. I am sure than the writer of the “Decipherian Transnistria” must agree that there could be some places in the Caucasian part of Russia where this precedent would be appreciated. Well, since this is not going to happen for obvious reasons, let’s just not go that path.
Further:
Grudgingly acknowledging that, yes, there is actually such a precedent, the author (who is Georgian but doesn’t disclose this crucial fact in the blog) says…
Here in the about page - I don’t mean from Atlanta, Georgia. And what’s the big deal anyways - usually opinions are diverse and this blog looks to involve as many diverse opinions as possible: if you have a good argument, put it forward (I remember being commented somewhere for having “un-Georgian” sentiments).
If there is a proponent from Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria or Nagorno Karabakh, or wherever, his/her thought-through opinion would be greatly appreciated here - and I am looking forward to have someone genuinly interested in joining and writing about the so-called “other side”.
But, “Deciphering Transnistria” sounds very much like the “online magazine” - The Tiraspol Times. I know I am promoting it now, but, Jason Cooper, Karen Ryan, or Emily Wood (American sounding would be “journalists” writing for the Tiraspol Times”), try to be closer to… reality(?) I am tired of using “”.
Technorati tags: Transnistria
Music clips about the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-Ossetian conflicts, or a short version of the view on conflicts from Georgia. Both clips are rather self-explanatory, so I will limit myself on comments.
“Hymn to Georgian Ossetian Friendship” and “Hymn to Georgian- Abkhazian reconciliation.”
I wonder, if these mini-stories really work or get the message through… Would be interesting to hear some comments regarding these projects.
For a more detailed view, with stories from both sides included, I would recommend video conversation of a Georgian refugee from Abkhazia and his old Abkhaz friend. A series of tense conversations surpass the usual euphemisms and give a good view on both perspectives as they would work in a dialogue. I have posted this one before, but since it has been a long ago, it wouldn’t hurt anyone if I did it again. 48 Minutes, Russian, first half with English subtitles.
Also, as a bonus, I came across a part from the movie I mentioned in the last post - The Feast of Baltazar, or a night with Stalin - after two minutes, there is the scene with the Abkhaz dances.
Technorati tags: Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Clips, Reconciliation
The Russians changed their minds about the Kosovo precedent. Over the last few months there have been mixed signals about Russia’s position on the issue, and today Putin brought up the precedent debate AGAIN. A few months ago, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, in his address to the Duma on March 21 said something along the lines of Kosovo not really setting the precedent, and that it would be a gross mistake to think of it that way.
Now here is what President Putin says today:
We will find it difficult to explain to small peoples of the North Caucasus why, in one part of Europe, some people are given this right [independence], while here in the Caucasus they have no such right. Moreover, a part of, for example, Ossetian people lives in Russia, while the other part lives on the territory of Georgia and consider themselves to be an independent state… Why the Albanians can act this way, but Ossetians cannot? It is impossible to explain.
So, after all, Russia thinks Kosovo does set a precedent…(???) One could apply the same logic to the non-Russian people within the Russian Federation, but I think at this point it would be useless - may be during some major upheaval the logic would backfire at Russia - but, not anytime soon.
Only that the Kosovo precedent will not work in the Georgian case: in order for something to materialize, one needs to have a few influential members on his side - and US and EU have on many occasions said that they don’t see the parallel. Using a handful of “rebelious” allies would not help much.
Furthermore, the precedent won’t impose itself on other places by logic alone: it’s useless to argue the legality of the “Kosovo Precedent” because whatever the outcome, it’s certainly going to be political in nature, and not moral or legal.
Under these circumstances (+ the Missile defense Spat with the Westerners) I think Russia is simply flexing its muscles and nothing groundbreaking will take place. Precedent, not precedent, we’ll find out after the Kosovo status is set - before that we won’t know, though unlikely that Russia would risk spoiling its international image for, say, South Ossetia.
In the meantime, the breakaway leaders of de-jure Georgian autonomies of South Ossetia and Abkhazia signed yet another document about their inseperable closeness, saying:
If a “Kosovo Precedent” emerges, we will act more decisively and demand the observance of common standards while dealing with conflicts of similar types.
oookey…
Technorati tags: Russia, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Kosovo, precedent, Georgia
These days I have been heavy on research about the frozen conflicts in Georgia. I found an interesting passage from a famous Abkhaz writer Fazil Iskander’s story - Sandro of Chegem. Out of curiosity I checked if the book was available in the library nearby - and to my surprise, I actually found a few books by the author. Inside Sandro of Chegem, someone bothered to cut out and attach newspaper articles from the Western press dating back to 1983.
Apparently, Iskander’s humor wasn’t met with enthusiasm by his Soviet comrades - so it was banned. Instead it was picked up in the West, and quite appraised too. Fazil Iskander - nicknamed as Abkhazian Mark Twain (NYT, 5.15.1983), writes a skeptical account of the Soviet life, Stalin, Beria, present and past. The relations between the Abkhaz and Georgians also get a fair evaluation from the author, with some interesting revelations.
Sandro, a prominent member of an Abkhazian dance troupe, ends up at the banquet thrown by Stalin himself in Abkhazia in the 1930s. Sandro depicts Stalin’s sentimental ruminations at the sight and sound of folk dancing and music from his childhood home:
And he could appreciate these things as no one else could, stunning those who surrounded him by his unparalleled range - from demonic mercilessness down to tenderness over what were, in point of fact, very small joys.
Listening to a folk song, Stalin grows misty-eyed over the burden of power that has deprived him from love:
The minute you love a man you begin to trust him, but once you begin to trust, sooner of later you get a knife in the back… Damn life, damn human nature! If only you could love and not trust at the same time. But that is impossible… But, if you have to kill the ones you love, fairness demands that you make short work of the ones you don’t love, the enemies of the cause.
The argument is logical: a leader who makes the sacrifice of killing his loved ones, should not discriminate against his enemies. There is even a movie based on the scene from this story - Baltazar’s Feast, or a night with Stalin.
I got carried away - back to the conflict. In one of the passages Iskander describes the relationship between the “Chegemians” Abkhaz from the village Chegem, and “Endurskies” - the Georgians living there.
The Chegemians were sure that all of Abkhazia dreamed of becoming related to them. Not to mention the Enduskies who dreamed not so much about becoming related to Chegemians as of subjugating them, or not even subjugating, but simply destroying the flourishing village, turning it into a wasteland, and then taking off for home, so that they could go around saying that there had never been any Chegem, frankly speaking it was a fabrication.
Any response from the Enduskies was perceived as a crafty, but also a stupid, attempt to conceal their true, allegedly most often malicious, attitude towards everything that alarmed the Chegemians.
None of this prevented them from maintaining quite friendly relations with their Endursky aliens in normal times, but in difficult moment the Chegemians would begin to suspect the Endurskies of secret intrigues.
The last sentence sums up the pre-conflict relations - cautious co-existence only in normal times… and during the hard times, you might have heard what happened. In those times, the author was critical of both Abkhaz and Georgians for their ethnic prejudices. For his remarks, he was slandered by both sides…
Technorati tags: Abkhaz fiction, Georgians, conflicts
