Response to Jamestown
This is written in response to a recent article by the Jamestown Foundation (http://jamestownfoundation.blogspot.com/) on Georgia and the issues surrounding the potential recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia by Belarus. I would like to respond directly to points raised in the article.
There is much for me to take issue with. The first thing that jumps out at a reader with a knowledge of the region is this statement: "The puppet regimes established by Moscow in Abkhazia and Tskhinvali...."
Where is the evidence these are puppet regimes? Are we supposed to assume this is true simply because you say so? Has the writer been to Abkhazia or South Ossetia? I have spent considerable time in Abkhazia and their elections are certainly more transparent and fair than anything that has ever happened in Georgia. I see no evidence that these are puppet states. They have their own democratic institutions and make their own decisions regarding the development and leadership of their country. In fact, the candidate that most observers thought the Kremlin favored did not win the last Presidential election held there. There are no political prisoners in Abkhazia, as opposed to Georgia. Georgia's human rights record has actually declined, according to Freedom House, since President Saakashvili took power in the most recent revolution in Georgia. Abkhazia has its own democratically elected government. However, because of undue influence by the Georgian lobby on the U.S. Government, it is not widely recognized. Abkhazian citizens must use Russian codes for their telephones to communicate, there are no working ATM machines in the country and it is impossible to get a license even to show films because of Georgia's pressure. So, both countries live in poverty and relative isolation because Georgia wishes them to fail as states. Abkhazia and South Ossetia now receive aid and protection from Russia because of the Georgian military threat. Recognition by other nations would reduce their dependence upon Russia and bring in investment capital and redevelopment money from outside institutions. Since Russia is eager for this, it seems obvious their motives are not as dark as you assume.
Next your article states in relation to Belarus: " Even more importantly it has been in alliance with Russia as a constituent state of the Russia-Belarus Union – and feels obligated to support its powerful ally. "
If Belarus is so tightly inclined to follow Moscow's lead, why have their relations suffered so much recently? Belarus is hardly tied to the hip with Russia. Witness the recent rows over dairy products and natural gas. Belarus has issues related to credibility and its democratic institutions, but clearly sets its own course. One might even argue that Belarus is in a position of leverage with both the E.U. and Russia over the issue.
And on recognition of the two nations: "It is no secret that by recognizing “the independence” of the Georgian provinces of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali one in fact recognizes not their independence per se but Russia’s hegemony in the post-Soviet space and the emergence of its sphere of influence."
This is hardly clear. In fact, I would argue the exact opposite. If other nations recognize the independence and sovereignty of the two nations, both can move more quickly to develop and chart their own futures. But, if recognition is not forthcoming, it will push South Ossetia and Abkhazia closer to Moscow for the reasons outlined above. If Moscow wanted to dominate the new nations, a course of inaction would be in Russia's interest.
The default media narrative on Russia is negative. That is an easy one to sell. The truth is far more complicated. Russia clearly has interests in what happens on its borders, just as the United States does on hers. There are large numbers of Caucasian nationalities, including more than a million Georgians in Russia and many millions of Russians in all of the nations of the former Soviet Union.
But the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia will free them to develop independently.
I do agree that every time a nation recognizes South Ossetia and Abkhazia, it will be seen as a blow by the Republic of Georgia. But it scarcely matters in the long run. Only a military assault by Georgia, which would almost certainly be futile, will reintegrate South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Both nations would resist this fiercely and Russia has militarily guaranteed their borders. I hope there is no Georgian attack. There would be Further carnage and it would be the result of irresponsible Georgian leadership. Georgians should be asking why so much of their budget and time is being wasted on such a quixotic enterprise. Both nations are de facto independent and will remain as such.
Finally, as an American citizen, I am saddened that American aid was used by Georgia to arm itself and to attack South Ossetia. Georgia contributed troops disproportionately to the war in Iraq. In return, the U.S. lavished billions in aid on Georgia. Some was used to lobby the U.S. government to keep the tap turned on. Much of it went to increasing military expenditures nearly 30 times Without American aid, Georgia would not have been able to increase its military spending at the fastest rate in the world in 2008 and subsequently attack South Ossetia. This attack was primarily a humanitarian catastrophe and not a question of "Georgian territorial integrity". The lives of the Russian peacekeepers and soldiers, Ossetian civilians and Georgian soldiers are forever forfeit to unprincipled political ambition.
Abkhazia has survived long periods with its borders closed and without aid or, at times, electricity. Clearly this is population that is willing to sacrifice for its freedom. On the other hand, without American aid, Georgia would likely be seen as a failed state.
5 Comments
Reader Comments (5)
Bruce,
You're clearly up to scratch on the Abkhazia situation, and I agree that increased global recognition will allow futher growth in the two countries. Unfortunately, most of the people I know have the knee-jerk reaction that Russia is a communist country and does nothing good.
Interestingly enough, I was in Latvia two weeks ago and in their war museum in Riga, they still had posters and videos stating that Russia was the aggressor in the conflict. I asked the people that supervise the floor if they were ashamed to show such blatant lies to tourists, unfortunately, they weren't/
Ivan,
Thanks! I appreciate your readership and welcome your comments. It is a shame to me that the default narrative on Russia is negative. The Georgian leadership has been very skillful at using that to their advantage. Hopefully, more people will see the truth.
Please feel free to read/ refer/ comment.
Regards,
Bruce
i would thank you for your interesting insights. I am quite often in the region (krasnodar) as well, have been in Georgia etc. and therefore i am always interested in news about this region. Just two small remarks from my side: i strongly agree with your comments on the jamestownfoundation article. But to be very honest, you can't expect another point of view or interpretation from their side. Still i do quite often appreciate their work as well. second: on the situation in South Ossetia i can't fully agree with you. If you look at their "government" and especially on the persons who are leading the ministeries and army then it's obvious that most of them have very strong links to russian security offices, from the army or the secret services. Further, there is almost no civil society ... why? there are so few habitants, after the august war even less ... with a population of less than 50 000 and under such conditions people can only live from russian help, contraband trade etc and that's really not great for developping a civil society and democracy ... not speaking about independance from Russia.
Excuse for that I interfere … here recently. But this theme is very close to me. Is ready to help.
[url=http://www.bezprovisov.com/]веб хостинг[/url]