Lincoln MItchell and Alexander Cooley's Memorandum to Secretary Clinton

Lincoln MItchell and Alexander Cooley wrote to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on May 1.2010.  They advised a revision in American policy towards Abkhazia.  In their view the U.S. and the European Union have failed to develop a realistic policy with regards to Abkhazia. They rightly point out that Abkhazia is "almost certainly lost to Georgia, possibly for decades".  If America and the West is concerned about Abkhazia being driven into Russia's embrace, letting Georgia determine policy is hardly going to slow the progress in their view.  They feel that Abkhazia is left with no option for economic development and security but with Russia.  Of course, this is true.  Mitchell and Cooley believe that the best policy is a policy of "engagement without recognition" on a political level.  They recommend this along with encouraging Abkhazia's development of other economic links in the Black Sea Region and the development of its coastline.  Finally someone with stature is taking on the status quo and recommending that the U.S. government follow a policy that is in someone's interest besides 

There are points in the memorandum that I disagree with and also some inaccuracies.  It is stated that Abkhazia's statehood is based upon an act of ethnic cleansing.  But, in reality, Abkhaz statehood is based upon a desire for self-determination, not unlike Kosovo and its long history.  The authors fail to make mention of the acts of genocide and cultural desecration against Abkhaz ethnics.  And they say nothing of the approximately 52,000 ethnic Georgians who have returned to Abkhazia or Georgia's harassment as traitors of those who have.  I refer to the Fact Sheet on Abkhazia's Refugee Program.

Cooley and MItchell do not directly address the idea of Abkhazia's sovereignty.  Their letter assumes that Abkhazia ultimately should "belong" to Georgia.  They understand that this is not reality and may never be. So they advocate a change of policy.  I agree with the direction of the proposed policy change.  But why not take a look at the case for Abkhazia's statehood?  They offer no rationale for why Abkhazia should not be independent....

Finally they feel that Abkhazia will eventually be absorbed by Russia if left on its own.  I disagree wholeheartedly with this.  Abkhazia is charting its own course.  That is clear to any observer who spends time there.

Despite the problems with the memorandum, I think is is a good sign when influential foreign policy thinkers advocate a change of American policy in the Caucasus.  Their conclusions are logical.  How can problems be resolved without political engagement?   Abkhazia should be encouraged to develop economically,too.   Economic stability and international political contacts are in the best interests of the people and the best guarantor of peace and stability in the region.  I hope that the both the U.S. government and the E.U, adopt the policy.  It would be a great step.

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

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.  

New York Times Coverage of Abkhazia Election

Yesterday in the New York Times, Ellen Barry wrote of the Presidential election held on Saturday in Abkhazia. Ms. Barry quoted analyst Nikolai Zlobin on the election and the situation in Abkhazia.  Mr. Zlobin makes the following point:  They know that the only thing they have is land.  It is not a big piece of land, but eventually it will be fantastically expensive."

Mr. Zlobin is spot on.  Abkhazia offers tremendous potential as a tourist destination.  It is probably the most desirable location on the Black Sea.

In general, Ms. Barry wrote a good article.  There is one point of substance that I would disagree on.  President Bagapsh is quoted as saying "We have chosen our path, whether the United States and the European Union like it or not.  Abkhazia will never again be part of Georgia."  Ms. Barry interprets that to mean that western recognition is not important to Abkhazia.  I have to disagree on this.  It is clear from my visits and discussions in Abkhazia that western recognition is very important to Abkhazia.  Because Abkhazia is not widely recognized there are no working ATM machines, it is impossible to view a film and there are no international flights at the moment.  Every citizen is very aware of this.  Also, Abkhazia's leadership knows that with recognition will come money for redevelopment of infrastructure, investment in tourist facilities and increased tourism.  My interpretation is that Mr. Bagapsh is simply stating that Abkhazia is free and independent of Georgia, regardless to the current mood in the west.

The article can be found at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/world/europe/14abkhazia.html?_r=1

Andy Garcia and Renny Harlin Film on the South Ossetia Conflict

Somehow I missed the reports last month that Director Renny Harlin is making a new film about the conflict in South Ossetia in 2008.  The title of the film at this moment is Georgia.  Apparently it is low budget and according to the director both anti-war and impartial.  The film is to star Andy Garcia as Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili.

Calling attention to the human rights disaster that Georgia unleashed when it attacked South Ossetia would be welcome.  I hope that it will really be an impartial look at the conflict and the events leading up to it.  However, the title does not give me confidence.  And one of the producers of the film is an MP from President Saakashvili's ruling party.

Several years ago as I was exiting the Musee d'Orsay in Paris, I happened upon Andy Garcia.  As I walked by, I heard him speaking to someone on his mobile telephone.  I am not prone to eavesdropping, but I could not help but hear him loudly admonish the listener to "stay in the moment" as they apparently discussed a film role.

I hope that Mr. Garcia and Mr. Harlin find the "moments" to research what really happened in South Ossetia last year.  It should not be too hard in light of the recent report from the E.U.

There are reports that Georgia has been involved in the financing of the film.  Goldinvest, a Georgian firm gets credited for sponsoring the film.  The Georgian government has lent government buildings and military personnel for film scenes.  President Saakashvili  has also made statements that Russia's actions are depicted unfavorably in the film.  And he has spent time with the cast and crew of the film.  This does not sound like an environment likely to produce an impartial view of the subject matter.

The conflict in South Ossetia is primarily a humanitarian disaster for the victims, including South Ossetian, Russian and Georgian, who lost their lives and also for all of the displaced persons caused by the conflict. Georgia would like the debate to be about i"territorial integrity" to distract from the actions of their government in trying to reintegrate a nation that wants no part of Georgian occupation.  If Georgia exploits the humanitarian disaster that it caused by attacking South Ossetia to make a propaganda film, it would be unconscionable.  I hope that this does not happen.