World Russia Forum Washington D.C. April 25-27, 2010

April 25- 27, 2010, I attended and spoke at the World Russia Forum http://www.russiahouse.org/wrf/wrf2010.html in Washington D.C.  Monday the 26th a session was held at the Hart Senate Building.  That evening the Russian Embassy hosted a cocktail party.  April 27th, Nadir Bitiev, Assistant to the President of the Republic of Abkhazia and I spoke at the Forum.  That day's event was held at George Washington University.  Nadir gave an overview on Abkhazia and the opportunities for outside investment.  Afterwards, we took questions from the audience for about an hour.  The questions revealed the audience to be well-informed about Abkhazia.  One of the most interesting things to me was the very strong reaction that most of the Russians have to Abkhazia.  Several of the audience spoke about Abkhazia in the same way that an American might speak about Hawaii or even Tahiti. There is clearly a strong cultural memory of Abkhazia as a subtropical tourist paradise for Russians.

Immediately after the session, I had the opportunity to speak to Nicholas V. Sluchevsky, Chairman of the non-profit Stolypin Memorial Center.  He had interesting insights into Russian business and the differences in business practices in the Caucasus, specifically as to how Abkhazia's international isolation and their desire for integration makes it safer to invest in for western investors than many would assume.

I was grateful to have the audience and the opportunity to speak about Abkhazia.  Thanks to Edward Lozansky for inviting me to speak. Nadir was interviewed several times afterwards and we were jointly interviewed by Joshua Kucera of EurasiaNet.org.  

Russian Northern Palmira Navy Band performs at the Lincoln Memorial, April 25, 2010

Turkey Emerges as Major Regional Player

I have just read an excellent article from the China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly, Volume 7, No. 4 (2009) pp. 73-94 entitled  Between Russia and the West: Turkey as an Emerging Power and the Case of Abkhazia 

The writer is Laurent Vinatier, PhD, Institute of Political Studies, Paris, France, is Research Fellow at Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey.  He has a deep understanding of the conflicts in the Caucasus and Turkey's potential role as a mediator between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno Karabakh.  Mr. Vinatier also writes about Turkey , Russia, Georgia and Abkhazia.  He seems to have a good understanding of the role of the Abkhaz diaspora, too. Mr. Vinatier feels that Turkey's role as an important regional player will grow since it has a proactive foreign policy and it sits at an important energy crossroads between the Middle East and Europe.

I have felt for some time that Turkey is an a very interesting position.  Their government has developed a "zero problems with neighbors" policy that seems to be very effective and they are a natural go between with Iran.  The writer feels that Turkey will have an increasing role to play in the Black and Caspian Sea Regions, along with Russia and Iran.  I think anyone with an interest in the region should read this.  It is the best I have read on the subject.  Please note that the entire quarterly publication is worth reading, there is fascinating reading on Central Asia, but the section dealing with the Caucasus Region begins on page 73.

Scathing Critique of Saakashavili by US Foreign Policy Analyst

Yesterday I read a very good post by James Jatras, a former Foreign Policy Analyst and US Foreign Service Officer.  The post was entitled "The Georgian Imbroglio- And a Choice for the United States".  I recommend that anyone interested in the Caucasus read his column.  In it, Mr. Jatras points out that Abkhazia and South Ossetia have long struggled for independence from Georgia and that there is a better legal case for their independence than that of Kosovo (I personally support this, also), which the U.S. has already recognized.  He then details Georgian President Saakashvili's order to attack South Ossetia in August, 2008 which he feels was done to distract the Georgian electorate from the economic problems, human rights abuses and corruption under his administration.  Mr. Jatras notes what is widely accepted in Russia, that Saakashvili has been harboring and aiding jihadists who are active in nearby Dagestan and Chechnya.  He also poses the question "what stake does the United States have in backing Saakashvili’s increasingly unpopular regime in any new adventure – especially if it derails progress the Obama Administration has made in “resetting” our relationship with Russia?"

Saakashvili has no credibility with either Russia or the Republic of Abkhazia.  President Bagapsh of Abkhazia has made it clear that he and Abkhazia bear no ill will towards the Georgian people, but that they view Saakashvili responsible for the present situation and the bloodshed in South Ossetia.  After President Bagapsh met with President Medvedev of Russia this week, President Medvedev said "we have always had and will always have the friendliest feelings for the Georgian people" and "Even the grave conflict that broke out in 2008 will not spoil our relations, I am convinced.  The Saakashvili regime, Georgia's governing regime, is directly responsible for what happened."

The United States has pumped billions into Georgia.  In return, Georgia increased its military spending at the fastest rate in the world and without provocation attacked South Ossetia.  Because of Saakashvili's enmity towards Russia, Mr. Jatar believes that his government is helping jihadists travel from the Middle East to Georgia and from there they are infiltrating Russia.  

Mr. Jatras mentions the US support for the Islamic rebels in Afghanistan against the Soviets 30 years ago and the US support for jihadists in the Balkans in the 1990's.  He wonders if our government has learned anything and will we "repeat the same mistake in the Caucasus?"

Withnail and Corum (Telegraph UK)

As I read Mr. Corum's post "The neo-Tsarist Russian empire is an increasing security problem for the West" in the Telegram, I thought about a British film I saw years ago, Withnail and I.  The main character and his friend, Wtihnail, are two actors struggling to survive in 1969 London.  The film was very funny and eventually became a cult hit.  As I read the post, I found myself repeatedly thinking of Withnail's answer to a statement he found absurd and pretentious:  "What absolute twaddle!"

Of course, there is an American expression that is roughly equal, but I think that Withnail's comment pretty well sums up what I think about Mr. Corum's column, except  that I believe his points are much more dangerously askew than those of Withnail's friend.

I lost count of the number of times that Mr. Corum states conclusively that some future event "will" happen. Even the most seasoned analyst usually writes in less certain terms.  There are too many variables to state with such certainty so many future outcomes.

He describes Russia outside of Moscow and Saint Petersburg as a "Third World" of poverty and misery.  I live in Russia and outside of those two cities.  While it is not Malibu or Park Avenue and there are many problems, it is not the place of Third World misery that he imagines.  He also wonders why Russia has a belief in itself as a great power.  How about the largest land mass in the world?  145 million people with a very important cultural, historical and intellectual legacy? The most natural resources of any nation? 

In Mr. Corum's post, he says "Russia will adopt a more aggressive policy in the Caucasus in regards to Georgia and the two Russian-occupied breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia."  Has Mr. Corum even been to either place?  I have been to Abkhazia and know it well.  Abkhazia is not an occupied nation.  In 1992, Georgia attacked Abkhazia,  Earlier, Georgian leaders made genocidal threats and spoke of the illegitimacy of the Abkhaz in their own land.  After the Georgian Army was driven out, the Russians acted as peacekeepers in both South Ossetia and Abkhazia for 15 years.   Russia actually enforced an economic blockade on Abkhazia until 1999 in deference to Georgia and the CIS.  After years of Georgian threats and the unprovoked attack on South Ossetia  (confirmed by an EU Commission report) by Georgia in 2008, Russia has recognized both nations and has given aid and military protection, including an army base in Abkhazia,  to prevent further Georgian aggression and bloodshed. Abkhazia has a democratically elected government and sets its own course, just as many nations with protective American bases set their own course.  But a double standard is applied to Russia.

Mr. Corum calls Belarus a "satellite state" of Russia, but gives no evidence. Belarus has a different political and economic system than Russia and pursues its own domestic and foreign policy. While there has been cooperation, the recent dairy product and natural gas rows show that Moscow does not call the shots.  I am not endorsing the Communist Belarusian government, only pointing out what is obvious. Mr.Corum also states that Ukraine "will" become a "satellite" of Russia because of the recent Ukrainian election, but he ignores the centuries of shared historical, political, religious, linguistic and familial history of the two nations. I spend a lot of time in Russia and Ukraine and many in both nations have ancestors in the last 2-4 generations from the other. It is difficult for those unfamiliar to understand the special relationship between Russians and Ukrainians.  While Ukraine may turn its orientation more towards Russia, sooner or later that was likely to happen.  It does not necessitate that Ukraine will become a Russian satellite.  But here, as in most of Mr. Corum's claims, there is an entirely different standard applied to Russia.

He sees ill intent on Russia's part in the customs union with Kazakhstan and Belarus.  Should Russia not be free to do this, just as the US has joined NAFTA, the WTO and European countries have formed the EU? The Kazakh President believes that the 3 nations will enjoy a 15% increase in GDP by 2015 as a result of the customs union.  But in this, Corum visualizes a neo-Soviet state arising.  

The same holds true for Russia's naval base in Ukraine.  Despite the ties between Russia and Ukraine and the long Russian presence in Crimea, Mr. Corum sees this as evidence of Russia dominating Ukraine.  America has bases in a lot of countries and I don't recall anyone describing Japan or the U.K. as satellites.   In reference to Ukraine, he even calls it " the Ukraine", the common usage of which ended shortly after the Soviet Union dissolved and the Cold War ended.  But then Mr. Corum's mindset is firmly grounded in a Cold War mentality.

In Mr. Corum's view, all about Russia is a zero-sum, Cold War, neo-Tsarist scenario. He talks about the usage of a centuries old Russian symbol, the two-headed eagle as evidence.  However, he ignores what any serious discussion about Russia should not: the invasions and catastrophic, unparalleled losses that inform Russian views.  For 50 years or so American foreign policy was dominated by realpolitik.  American policy-makers, left and right, thought about how their actions would be viewed and the resulting reactions.  However, the neo conservative ideologues who dominated the Bush Administration pursued policies that have severely damaged America's economy, her prestige and resulted in much higher tensions with Russia.   

Russia's leadership  and its population have concerns about encirclement and attack.   For this reason, the American bases in the former Soviet satellites of Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania and Hungary,those nations acceding to NATO and the proposed bases in Georgia and Central Asia (parts of the former Soviet Union) are a nightmare to the Russians (imagine if Arkansas, Mexico and Puerto Rico had joined the Warsaw Pact).  At the same time, writers like Mr. Corum hypocritically condemn Russia for doing exactly what America is doing: seeking military bases in former Soviet Republics. 

In return for the reunification of Germany, the first Bush Administration promised the Soviet Union there would be no enlargement of NATO east.  Not one inch.  The promise was broken.  I am not sure if it was a good idea to expand east or not, but it certainly is viewed as a "broken promise" by the Russians.  America and its advisors are widely blamed for the post-Soviet economic shocks which led to a huge increase in poverty, the concentration of wealth in a few hands, rising death and falling birth rates.   Richard Cohen has written extensively about how in the Post-Soviet period American triumphalism and broken promises, condescending lectures and demands for unilateral concessions have resulted in an unnecessary and dangerous remilitarizing of American- Russian relations.

The recent decision by the Obama Administration to drop the missile shield alignment in Poland was widely praised in Russia.  As a result, the Russian government has given the U.S. reason to hope they may help apply leverage with Iran. Prominent neo-cons and hawks at the time excoriated the Obama Administration, but paid no attention to the fact that majorities in both Poland and the Czech Republic were in favor of scrapping the plan.  The reason?  They know that encircling and provoking confrontation with Russia is a bigger risk to their security, their economies and energy sources.  it is quite obvious that the Bush Administration lost all leverage and persuasive powers with Russia due to their policy of encirclement and isolation.  But Mr. Corum's prescription is to pour the coals on and double down on a policy that has absolutely failed.  Not only that, but many in Russia think that these policies are evidence of a new Cold War.  Is Russia truly the enemy of the United States?  Or are people like Corum still stuck in  the Cold War paradigm? Or is it just that the military-industrial complex needs to find enemies?  

As an American patriot, I do not like policies that damage our standing in the world and, however well-intentioned ,make it a less safe and more hostile place.  As an American in Russia, I am often asked by Russians "Why does America not want to be friends with Russia?"  I always tell my Russian friends that I have a  fundamental disagreement with my countrymen who support policies that isolate and escalate a new Cold War with Russia.  

A Brief History of (Abkhazian) Time

By Bruce Talley


2008 Events

The August 2008 conflict in South Ossetia was the first time that many in the West were aware of either South Ossetia or Abkhazia.  Both regions fought bloody wars of independence with Georgia in the aftermath of the breakup of the Soviet Union.  Between 1992 -94 thousands died. There were allegations of atrocities and ethnic cleansing on both sides.  Buildings and infrastructure suffered great damage.   Abkhazia and South Ossetia both later declared their independence.  Georgia has refused to recognize them and has enforced an economic blockade to force reintegration.   The international community, with the exception of Russia, has turned a blind eye. Without widespread international recognition, the airports are closed, the economies have stagnated and the people live in poverty.

History of Abkhazia

Abkhazia has a long history.  It is a small country on the southeast shores of the Black Sea.  With dramatic mountain scenery, beautiful beaches and a subtropical climate it has been a destination for travelers since the era of ancient Greece.  An Abkhazian Kingdom was established there more than 1,000 years ago.  When the Abkhazian region was absorbed by the Russian Empire in the 19^th Century many Abkhazian Muslims fled to Turkey, where there is still a sizeable Diaspora.  Those who remained in Abkhazia were mostly Christian.   In the chaos following the Russian Revolution of 1917, the South Caucasus region was briefly included in an independent state.  Eventually, the Soviet Union established control.  Later, the Soviet dictator, Josef Stalin, a Georgian, decided that Abkhazia should be included in the borders of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic.  The Georgian S.S.R. was one of the 15 republics that constituted the Soviet Union.  However, power still devolved from Moscow.  During this period the Soviet government moved thousands of ethnic Georgians into Abkhazia.

Unique during Soviet times, Abkhazians protested to be given Republic status and, while remaining an integral part of the Soviet Union, to be outside of Georgia’s borders.

After the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, only the 15 Soviet Republics were allowed to apply for recognition by the United Nations.  So Russia, Ukraine, Georgia and others could apply, but Abkhazia could not.  This meant that Abkhazia was condemned to be included inside the borders of a nation that many residents viewed as an occupier.

Effectively, the United Nations accepted Josef Stalin’s decision on Georgia’s borders.

What really happened in 2008?

The overwhelming narrative in the Western press since the August 2008 conflict was that Russia invaded Georgia.

Events do not agree.

Mikhail Saakashvili was reelected President of Georgia in 2008 on a promise of reintegration of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

August 8, the day of the start of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Georgia shelled Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia.  Russian peacekeepers, who had been in place since the conflict of the mid 1990’s, and hundreds of Ossetian civilians were killed.  OSCE monitors have stated that they believed that Georgia started the conflict with indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets.

South Ossetia and Abkhazia have significant Russian minorities and have long looked to Russia for protection.  Despite President Saakashvili’s apparent belief to the contrary, it was absolutely predictable that Russia would respond militarily.

Condition of Abkhazia and Ossetia Today

In the aftermath, Russia and Nicaragua became the first nations to officially recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia.   Widespread recognition will bring investment and rebuilt infrastructure.  Tourism and economic development will follow.  There is no reason for Abkhazian citizens to live in poverty when their country has so many natural advantages.

I support international recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.