Πέμπτη 26 Απριλίου 2012
Πέμπτη 30 Οκτωβρίου 2008
Forward To The Past: Russia, Turkey, And Armenia's Faith
The recent race of strategic realignments reflects a real crisis in the world order and risks triggering a dangerous recurrence of past mistakes. Suffice the testimony of nearly all global and regional actors, which have quickly shifted gears and embarked on a collective reassessment of their respective strategic interests and, to that end, a diversification of policy priorities and political partnerships.
It matters little whether this geopolitical scramble was directly triggered by the Russian-Georgian war and the resulting collapse of standing paradigms for the Caucasus, or whether it crowned latently simmering scenarios in the halls of international power. The fact is that the great game -- for strategic resources, control over communications and routes of transit, and long-term leverage -- is on again with renewed vigor, self-serving partisanship, and duplicitous entanglement.
One of the hallmarks of this unbrave new world is the apparent reciprocal rediscovery of Russia and Turkey. Whatever its motivations and manifestations, Turkey's play behind the back of its trans-Atlantic bulwark and Russia's dealings at the expense of its "strategic ally" Armenia raise the specter of a replay of the events of more than 85 years ago, when Bolshevik Russia and a Kemalist Turkey not content with the legacy of the great Genocide and National Dispossession of 1915 partitioned the Armenian homeland in Molotov-Ribbentrop fashion and to its future detriment.
Time To Face Up
Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh, in Armenian) was one of the territorial victims of this 1921 plot of the pariahs, as it was placed under Soviet Azerbaijani suzerainty together with Nakhichevan. That latter province of the historical Armenian patrimony was subsequently cleansed of its majority Armenian population, and then of its Armenian cultural heritage. As recently as December 2005, Azerbaijan (like Armenia, a member of the Council of Europe) completed the total, Taliban-style annihilation of the medieval Armenian cemetery at Jugha that contained thousands of unique cross-stones.
Nagorno-Karabakh, by contrast, was able to turn the tide on a past of genocide, dispossession, occupation and partition and defend its identity, integrity, and territory against foreign aggression. In 1991 -- long before Kosovo, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia became buzzwords -- it declared its liberty, decolonization, and sovereignty in compliance with the Montevideo standards of conventional international law and with the Soviet legislation in force at that time.
Subsequent international recognition of Kosovo, on the one hand, and the later withholding of such recognition for South Ossetia and Abkhazia, on the other, demonstrate that there exists no real rule of law applied evenly across the board. On the contrary, such decisions are dictated by vital interests that are rationalized by reference to selectively interpreted international legal principles of choice and exclusivist distinctions of fact which, in fact, make no difference.
It's time to face up to the farce -- and that goes for Moscow and Ankara too, judging by recent pronouncements by high-level officials. And if the two countries are driven by the desire for a strategic new compact, then at least their partners on the world stage should reshift gears and calibrate their policy alternatives accordingly. Iran, the United States, and its European allies might find here an objective intersection of their concerns.
What Is Needed Russia and Turkey must never again find unity of purpose at the expense of Armenia and the Armenian people. The track record of genocide, exile, death camps, and gulags is enough for all eternity.
These two important countries, as partners both real and potential, must respect the Armenian nation's tragic history, its sovereign integrity and modern regional role, and Nagorno-Karabakh's lawfully gained freedom and independence.
Football diplomacy is fine, but Turkey can rise to the desired new level of global leadership and local legitimacy only by dealing with Armenia from a "platform" of good faith and reconciliation through truth; lifting its illegal blockade of the republic and opening the frontier that it unilaterally closed, instead of using it as a bargaining tool; establishing diplomatic relations without preconditions and working through that relationship to build mutual confidence and give resolution to the many watershed issues dividing the two neighbors; accepting and atoning, following the brilliant example of post-World War II Germany, for the first genocide of the 20th century and the national dispossession that attended it; committing to rebuild, restore, and then celebrate the Armenian national heritage, from Mount Ararat and the medieval capital city of Ani to the vast array of churches, monasteries, schools, academies, fortresses, and other cultural treasures of the ancestral Armenian homelands; initiating and bringing to fruition a comprehensive program to guarantee the right of secure voluntary return for the progeny and descendants of the dispossessed to their places and properties of provenance; providing full civil, human, and religious rights to the Armenian community of Turkey, including the total abolition the infamous Article 301, which has served for so long as an instrument of fear, suppression, and even death with regard to those courageous citizens of good conscience who dare to proclaim the historical fact of genocide; and finally, exercising greater circumspection in voicing incongruous and unfounded allegations of "occupation" in the context of Nagorno-Karabakh's David-and-Goliath struggle for life and justice, lest someone remind Ankara about more appropriate and more proximate applications of that term.
As for Russia, true strategic allies consult honestly with each other and coordinate their policies pursuant to their common interests. They do not address one another by negotiating adverse protocols with third parties behind each other's back; they do not posture against each other in public or in private; and they do not try to intimidate, arm-twist, or otherwise pressure each other via the press clubs and newspapers of the world. Russia, too, must deal with Armenia in good faith, recognizing the full depth and breadth of its national sovereignty and the horizontal nature of their post-Soviet rapport, its right to pursue a balanced, robust, and integral foreign policy, as well as the nonnegotiability -- for any reason, including the sourcing and supervision of Azerbaijani oil -- of Nagorno-Karabakh's liberty, security, and self-determination.
The Armenian government, in turn, must of course also shoulder its share of responsibility for creating a region of peace and shared stability, mutual respect and open borders, domestic democracy, and international cooperation. An ancient civilization with a new state, Armenia's national interests can best be served by achieving in short order a republic administered by the rule of law and due process, and an abiding respect for fundamental freedoms, good governance, and fair elections, which, sadly, has not been the case to date.
Armenia urgently needs a new understanding with its neighbors that will preclude once and for all its being cast again in the role of either fool or victim.
Initially published at RFE/RL
Copyright (c) 2008. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036. read also: Armenia: time for diplomacy Russia and Turkey: diplomatic struggle for Caucasus
Τρίτη 21 Οκτωβρίου 2008
Turkmen Gas Riches Revive Pipe Dreams
The announcement this week that Turkmen gas riches may exceed the West's wildest dreams is likely to focus attention back on pipeline projects that bypass Russia in pumping Caspian energy supplies to European markets.
White Stream, a pipeline first proposed by Ukrainian officials in 2005, is just one such project that looks set to come under the spotlight following a Western audit of a key gas field in Turkmenistan, which showed that the Central Asian country has enough reserves to become a "world-class" gas supplier. White Stream and proposed projects such as the trans-Caspian and Nabucco pipelines are aimed at enhancing Western energy independence by transporting Caspian gas supplies to Europe while skirting Russia.
"The interest and attention toward Turkmenistan will rise and we must expect even more heated competition for Turkmen gas," says Federico Bordonaro, a Rome-based energy analyst. "We will see how the European Union and United States are able to quickly react in such a way that the trans-Caspian, Nabucco, and White Stream pipelines will be more realistic."
But real work has yet to begin on any of those projects, which for now remain no more than pipe dreams. Indeed, the Caspian region still only has one route for energy exports that bypasses Russia: the relatively modest Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum (BTE) pipeline.
White Stream aims to change that. Formerly known as the Georgia-Ukraine-European Union pipeline, White Stream would run 2,000 meters under the Black Sea, its preferred route going from Georgia to Ukraine's Crimean coast and on to Europe. Plans call for building in three phases with an eventual output of 32 billion cubic meters (bcm) annually.
With Europe's thirst for energy supplies expected to double over the next two decades, the need for such a project is increasingly obvious, says Giorgi Vashakmadze, White Stream's corporate development chief.
According to the results of a British company's survey on October 13, one Turkmen field, Yolotan-Osman, appears to have enough gas to become the world's fourth- or fifth-largest gas reserve. But to tap into it and other Turkmen resources, Vashakmadze says it will take a much more determined show of Western political will to persuade Caspian countries -- already wooed by markets in Russia, China, and Iran -- to back projects like White Stream.
"We have enormous riches in the Caspian,” Vashakmadze told RFE/RL before the gas audit results were announced. "We have a huge demand in Europe, and the issue is why it's not linked yet and why supplies from the Caspian to Europe have not been achieved at a level which would correspond to supply and demand."
Russian Influence
The obvious answer is Russia. The Caspian power for more than 100 years, Russia had a monopoly over the region's gas exports to Europe until the BTE’s completion in late 2006. And now, through its gas giant Gazprom, Moscow is backing South Stream, a pipeline that would pump Caspian gas via Russia to Italy.
Because of Russia's influence over former Soviet republics like Turkmenistan, many analysts see South Stream as the pipeline most likely to be built, even if Gazprom recently delayed its planned launch by two years to 2015. Vashakmadze acknowledges that both White Stream and Nabucco, which he calls complimentary projects, face major hurdles. "Russia does not seem to be irritated by [Caspian gas] deals related to China or maybe even with Pakistan or India [TAPI], but it shows a negative attitude toward deals going to Europe," he says.
Gazprom is currently seeking to increase the amounts of gas it buys from both Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, eastern Caspian states with which it has long-term supply contracts. Those two countries have shown interest in alternative export routes but have only committed to the Russian one.
To win them over, Vashakmadze says Caspian countries will need to see concrete European interest for much larger amounts of gas and the possibility of unhindered and sufficiently low-risk transportation.
"These countries need to decide if they can afford to contradict what they understand is Russia's desire -- and would they do this for very small volumes -- for peanuts?" Vashakmadze says. "Is it worthwhile to irritate a neighbor and partner for something that really does not bring much benefit? Only in cases where countries can see that potential exports to Europe are sufficiently high, capable of providing a significant part of their future revenues, will they decide to go this way -- otherwise it is not worthwhile for them."
The EU currently sees the Nabucco project as a top priority. This month, however, the EU is considering according the same priority status to White Stream.
That would create an important multiplier effect. "This effect goes far beyond the simple result of establishing bigger combined potential capacity," Vashakmadze says. "A more important result is the dramatic reduction of perceived transportation risks, so important for governments in [the Caspian region] and potential upstream investors."
Planning For Conflict
Risk has risen, however, in the wake of the August war between Russia and Georgia. Some analysts, for example, have suggested that Ukraine's Crimea, the headquarters for Russia's Black Sea Fleet, could in the future become the object of a conflict between Moscow and Kyiv. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has called Crimea a possible "future South Ossetia," referring to the Georgian breakaway region that Russia says it defended against Georgian aggression.
An alternative, or possibly additional, route for White Stream includes a pipeline to Romania -- either directly from Georgia or from Crimea. White Stream would also make use of already-developed pipeline technology used in Blue Stream, a Russian pipeline to Turkey.
Vashakmadze says that while Russia has shown its willingness to influence the Caucasus, the conflict’s outcome may help push forward Nabucco and White Stream. He says an EU resolution passed on September 1 "cites very loudly the need to develop the alternative supply routes. This probably makes the countries in the Caspian much more confident.... Probably much more needs to be done, but this is the way for us to succeed."
Vashakmadze won't name the project's partners, but says they are "more than 10." He also says White Stream is in constant consultation with shippers and distributors and "all relevant parties who might have gas or might want to transport gas."
Initially published at RFE/RL
Copyright (c) 2008. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036.
διαβάστε επίσης στην Πολιτική Προσέγγιση: Κεντρική Ασία , nCa: Massive Gas Reserves: Dangers Ahead for Turkmenistan
Παρασκευή 10 Οκτωβρίου 2008
South Ossetia Floods European Rights Court With Georgia Cases
The European Court of Human Rights has received nearly 2,000 applications from South Ossetians complaining of illegal treatment at the hands of Georgia, the president of the court, Jean-Paul Costa, has said.
The complaints have been filed over the past two months, since Russia and Georgia went to war over the breakaway Georgian region on August 7.
They follow applications made by Georgia to the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights against Russia, accusing its neighbor of war crimes, including ethnic cleansing.
Russia has also made complaints to international courts against Georgia, and Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said last month Russia would help any citizens of South Ossetia wanting to make complaints against Georgia.
"There will be a massive increase in the workload of the court," Costa told Reuters. "We cannot just throw away these cases."
Asked if he thought Russia was part of a coordinated effort to overwhelm the court with applications, he said: "Yes, it's possible. It's difficult to say that it's obvious or it's likely. But it's possible."
The European Court of Human Rights also has two outstanding claims by Georgia against Russia, the first dating from 2007 and the second from the recent war. The 2007 case relates to allegations of forced expulsions of Georgians from Russia and is not expected to be completed until early next year. The other case, dealing with events in August, is only at the preliminary stage, Costa said.
Initially published at RFE/RL
Copyright (c) 2008. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036.
Σάββατο 13 Σεπτεμβρίου 2008
Ingushetia and the Caucasus
From time to time, we receive occasional contributions from the highly respected Russian human rights lawyer Stanislav Markelov, who heads up Russia's Rule of Law Institute. His most recent piece focused on the Olympics and the war. Mandatory disclaimer: Markelov's article does not necessarily represent my opinion, this blog, or its editors.
Ingushetia – the missed opportunity of the Caucasus?
By Stanislaw Markelov
A killing – is always more than just death. A killing raises the most painful and acute questions: “Who is at fault?”, “How will they answer?” and “Is the aggrieved party of relatives and like-minded people prepared likewise to cross the line of blood and death?”
This they know best in the North Caucasus, where besides the general pain of an unjust death there exists also the purely personal duty of blood vengeance. This duty very rigidly regulates all relations of disagreement and dispute. On the one hand, a person will think ten times before pulling out a weapon, inasmuch as not just he alone will answer for it, but also his children and dear ones; on the other, vendetta has so many times decimated entire kin-groups that direct war has probably looked more humane and peace-loving than the eternal slaughter of teyps [a unit of kin-tribe organization of the Chechen people consisting of several kin-group communities—Trans.] who despise one another.
With the killing of Yevloyev, something unexpected and horrible has taken place – something we were unable to assess right away, and are only gradually starting to feel on ourselves the result of the «Caucasusization» of all Russian politics. Into the orbit of blood vengeance now enter not only individual kin-groups or an entire people, the killing has touched upon all of Russian society, and, irrespective of the silence of our mass information media, real politics are already dictated both by the interests of the killers and by the question about the choice of the actions of those who will take vengeance.
You don’t even need to know the morals of the Caucasus in order to understand that there will be vengeance. The killing of Politkovskaya shocked, and, maybe, led immediately to big political consequences. But even with all her constant work in the Caucasus, she was still an outsider person, who had grown up in another milieu and in an absolutely different culture. The consequences of her killing for the Caucasus can be political, but not personal. With the killing of Yevloyev, personal consequences may turn into political ones for us all. In life, Yevloyev exceeded his significance as simply a respected person having his own business and sphere of influence. Even with all the contradictoriness of this personality, with his name are associated two phenomena which have become new pages in the development of the civic life of the Caucasus.
The first and most noticeable of his progeny – this is the literate organization of the information war. He was not the first in the Caucasus to understand the importance of media portals, including in the nets of the Internet. The separatist Chechen «Kavkaz-centr» always was a noticeable instrument of war. But still this was a decidedly secondary argument of the conflict, where first place was clearly given to the machine-gun and explosive devices. Yevloyev’s portal «Ingushetia.ru» was self-sufficient and did not fulfill the functions of serving an already erupted conflict.
On the contrary, this site itself became a center of the conflict, having transferred it into the informational plane and having made it much more significant than any other source of reports on Ingushetia. It is interesting that this was taking place in a republic where the majority of the inhabitants have only the vaguest idea about what the Internet is.
Unfortunately, in response to the informational attack there followed anything but informational retaliatory actions. The house of Yevloyev himself and of his comrades in arms was strafed with gunfire on numerous occasions, while the site they tried to cover up [the power attempted to shut down—Trans.] by decision of a court. I as a lawyer am not attempting to contest this decision, all the more so given that there were formal grounds – the publication examined by the court is indeed fiercely anti-Ossetian. But practically all of the political publications of Ingushetia printed anti-Ossetian material. Exactly the same way as in Ossetia the mass information media are no less strongly fired up with an anti-Ingush directionality. There have yet to be any incidents where some publication was shut down due to attacks by neighboring peoples on one another. This means, the publication being examined by the court too was not the reason, but the excuse. That same excuse because of which formally one could cover up [shut down] just about every one of the mass information media of both Ingushetia and Ossetia.
The second action of Yevloyev’s is less noticeable, because he did not stand at its sources, but precisely the significance of this factor greatly exceeds the boundaries of little Ingushetia, and, most likely, even all of the North Caucasus. I have in mind the organization and creation of a legal opposition.
In Russia there is no legal opposition. The so-called parliamentary opposition parties – are either the leading sycophantic toadies, like the CPRF, or don’t even attempt to declare about their oppositionality, jostling with the other parties at the feeding-trough of power (like «A Just Russia»). All the rest of the oppositioneers have been thrown overboard from official politics and are doomed to the destiny of remaining fringe groups.
In the North Caucasus there is also no legal opposition. Everyone whom the power has gotten its hands on in the Caucasus has an alternative: to immediately head for the forests and the hills or to pretend that you’re maintaining true allegiance, helping those who have headed for the forests and the hills with money, food, shelter.
So why should there suddenly appear a legal opposition in Ingushetia? And all the more so one that functions using classical opposition methods, i.e. gathering the people on the street, conducting information wars, audaciously criticizing the power, which, to put it mildly, has aught it can be criticized for. This legal opposition found itself a legal and respected leader in the person of Aushev, its businessmen, its civic support – everything about which a legal – and, most importantly, a peaceful – political force ought to be thinking about. But about what kind of phenomenon of a legal opposition can one speak in a republic where shots and explosions take place every day, while any operation by the special services turns into a pogrom, where it is already impossible to tell who is the “bandit” and who is the employee of the organs?
The appearance of a legal opposition in a republic of the North Caucasus, which has now become key at the intersection of political interests, could have become a chance. A legal opposition, by definition, must be open and officially advertise itself. It can not switch over to violent actions, inasmuch as this will create for it a most negative image. A legal opposition draws off all of the disaffected and all protest sentiments, transforming the steam of dissatisfaction into rallies, pickets, civic protest actions, in the extreme case into the closing of streets and peaceful takeovers of state buildings, but not into weapons and guerrilla brigades.
One should not even determine who was right in the dispute of Zyazikov and Yevloyev in order to understand how important was the Ingush example of civic protest for the whole of the North Caucasus. They killed Yevloyev at that moment when the forces standing behind him had united with Aushev and created their own literately constructed opposition vertical.
In consideration of the fact that it was precisely in Ingushetia that they had been intensively provoking the Russian community in recent years, jettisoning its informal leaders and arranging constant attacks on Russian houses, one could have expected that whether it wanted to or not, the opposition would have to reach out and make contact with the Russian community, at the very least on the principle of “against a common enemy”. And this would signify at least gradual distancing from the influence of radical Islamism and mountain nationalism.
The Ingush siloviki assert that the radical Islamism and armed underground in Ingushetia – are from Chechnya. The militants supposedly redeployed from the place of destroyed bases, in order to terrorize a neighboring republic. This is a pretty fairy tale for those who don’t know the Caucasus. For an entire underground to redeploy unnoticed from one republic into another is impossible. And besides, the majority of the objects of the operations of the siloviki – these are local Ingush people, who have come into the underground relatively recently.
Just yesterday they had a choice – to take up arms or to try to attain the truth at rallies and opposition gatherings. Will they have such a choice tomorrow?
Or will the blood vengeance announced by the father of the killed begin to be carried out not only by relatives of Yevloyev, but by the multitudinous army of the disaffected?
In the Caucasus there is a rule that if a person has pulled out a weapon, then he’s got to shoot already. And there, unlike in the Chechovian theatrical principle, the weapon is not a prop and it does not wait for the third act to be discharged – they fire from it right away. In this sense, the words of Zyazikov about how the killing of Yevloyev could be directed against the Ingush power look positively prophetic. His cousin has already added to the bloody score.
Having read this, many will ask if there is a way out or if the author is scaring readers, practically presaging a picture of massive machine-gun fire? Nothing of the sort; there is a way out and it was thought up long ago right in the Caucasus, so there is no need to invent anything new. If every blood feud did not stop, then the North Caucasus would long ago have become deserted and its slopes would be strewn with the graves of the blood-feuders.
When the fulfillment of blood vengeance would already start to infringe on the interests of society, the elders would “separate the kin-groups”, that is they would give an indication to one kin-group of blood-feuders to abandon native places and move to another place, so that the other kin-group would no longer have anyone to take vengeance on. Thus the vendetta would cease on its own.
As the culprit in the killing of Yevloyev they are naming only one person, and we will not even clarify if he is directly involved in the killing or not; this is not all that important any more now. To exonerate himself he can make any declarations, but as the leader person, responsible for everything in the republic, the death of the leading oppositioneer nevertheless remains on him.
The prevention of the banditization of Ingushetia – this is already not an Ingush task and even not a North Caucasian one, but a Russia-wide one. And there is not even any need to talk about the public interest in preventing collective vengeance for the killing of Yevloyev. This means, that person whom they call responsible for the killing must leave the republic, all the more so because he’s got somewhere to go. Prior to enthronement in Ingushetia, he had calmly lived in another region, remaining in the cadre reserve of the current power. Isn’t it about time for him to set off there into the reserve? This will be the most rational of the things he could do. And we will heave a sigh of relief and, maybe, we won’t receive reports quite as often about the latest bombings or killings in a region that threatens to become the “bandit underbelly of Russia”.
Originally posted at Robert Amsterdam's blog
διαβάστε επίσης: Διαδήλωση με αφορμή τη δολοφονία του δημοσιογράφου στην Ινγκουσετία, Η δολοφονία του Γεβλόεφ ανάβει φιτίλι στην Ινγκουσετία, Ινγκουσετία: Διαδήλωση με αφορμή τη δολοφονία δημοσιογράφου, Εξι ανθρωποκτονίες στην Ινγκουσετία, από την ανταλλαγή πυρών μετακινούμενων ενόπλων με τα σώματα ασφάλειας.
update #1, 20/9/08: source: RFE/RL Over the past two years, the security situation in Ingushetia has deteriorated to the point that shootings, explosions, and abductions have become an everyday occurrence. Indeed, Ingushetia has overtaken Chechnya and Daghestan to become the least stable of the seven North Caucasus republics. The Russian leadership, for its part, appears either unwilling to acknowledge the accelerating breakdown in law and order or at a loss how to reverse it.
The current crisis dates from June 2004, when Chechen and Ingush fighters under the command of Chechen field commander Shamil Basayev launched attacks on police and security forces in Ingushetia, killing up to 80 people in retaliation for the detention by security forces over the previous two years of numerous young Ingush men, most of whom have never been found. Since then, the resistance has continued to target Ingush police and other law enforcement officials who are viewed as collaborators, Russian Interior Ministry Internal Troops deployed to Ingushetia, and members of other security bodies, including border guards.
read the whole article here:
Παρασκευή 15 Αυγούστου 2008
Why Russia’s response to Georgia was right
γράφει ο Sergei Lavrov
For some of those witnessing the fighting in the Caucasus over the past few days, the narrative is straightforward and easy. The plucky republic of Georgia, with just a few million citizens, was attacked by its giant eastern neighbour, Russia. Add to this all the stereotypes of the cold war era, and you are presented with a truly David and Goliath interpretation – with all its accompanying connotations of good and evil. While this version of events is being written in much of the western media, the facts present a different picture.
Let me be absolutely clear. This is not a conflict of Russia’s making; this is not a conflict of Russia’s choosing. There are no winners from this conflict. Hours before the Georgian invasion, Russia had been working to secure a United Nations Security Council statement calling for a renunciation of force by both Georgia and South Ossetians. The statement that could have averted bloodshed was blocked by western countries.
Last Friday, after the world’s leaders had arrived at the Beijing Olympics, Georgian troops launched an all-out assault on the region of South Ossetia, which has enjoyed de facto independence for more than 16 years. The majority of the region’s population are Russian citizens. Under the terms of the 1992 agreement to which Georgia is a party, they are afforded protection by a small number of Russian peacekeeping soldiers. The ground and air attack resulted in the killing of peacekeepers and the death of an estimated 1,600 civilians, creating a humanitarian disaster and leading to an exodus of 30,000 refugees. The Georgian regime refused to allow a humanitarian corridor to be established and bombarded a humanitarian convoy. There is also clear evidence of atrocities having been committed – so serious and systematic that they constitute acts of genocide.
There can be little surprise, therefore, that Russia responded to this unprovoked assault on its citizens by launching a military incursion into South Ossetia. No country in the world would idly stand by as its citizens are killed and driven from their homes. Russia repeatedly warned Tbilisi that it would protect its citizens by force if necessary, and its actions are entirely consistent with international law, including article 51 of the UN charter on the right of self-defence.
Russia has been entirely proportionate in its military response to Georgia’s attack on Russian citizens and peacekeepers. Russia’s tactical objective has been to force Georgian troops out of the region, which is off limits to them under international agreements. Despite Georgia’s assertion that it had imposed a unilateral ceasefire, Russian peacekeepers and supporting troops remained under continued attack – a fact confirmed by observers and journalists in the region. Russia had no choice but to target the military infrastructure outside the region being used to sustain the Georgian offensive. Russia’s response has been targeted, proportionate and legitimate.
Russia has been accused of using the conflict to try to topple the government and impose control over the country. This is palpable nonsense. Having established the safety of the region, the president has declared an end to military operations. Russia has no intention of annexing or occupying any part of Georgia and has again affirmed its respect for its sovereignty. Over the next few days, on the condition that Georgia refrains from military activity and keeps its forces out of the region, Russia will continue to take the diplomatic steps required to consolidate this temporary cessation of hostilities.
Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia’s president, has stated that “unless we stop Russia, unless the whole world stops it, Russian tanks will go to any European capital tomorrow”, adding on a separate occasion that “it’s not about Georgia any more. It’s about America”. It is clear that Georgia wants this dispute to become something more than a short if bloody conflict in the region. For decision-makers in the Nato countries of the west, it would be worth considering whether in future you want the men and women of your armed services to be answerable to Mr Saakashvili’s declarations of war in the Caucasus.
Russia is a member of the Security Council, of the Group of Eight leading industrialised nations and partner with the west on issues as varied as the Middle East, Iran and North Korea. In keeping with its responsibilities as a world power and the guarantor of stability in the Caucasus, Russia will work to ensure a peaceful and lasting resolution to the situation in the region.
originally posted at Financial Times
Neocons Now Love International Law
γράφει ο Robert Parry
How can some justify the United States attacking Grenada or Nicaragua or Panama or Iraq or Serbia yet condemn the Russian involvement in Georgia? While major US news outlets may be comfortable wearing blinders that let them see only wrongdoing by others, the rest of the world views the outrage from Bush and the neocons over Russia as a stunning double standard.
It’s touching how American neoconservatives who have no regard for international law when they want to invade some troublesome country have developed a sudden reverence for national sovereignty.
Apparently, context is everything. So, the United States attacking Grenada or Nicaragua or Panama or Iraq or Serbia is justified even if the reasons sometimes don’t hold water or don’t hold up before the United Nations, The Hague or other institutions of international law.
However, when Russia attacks Georgia in a border dispute over Georgia’s determination to throttle secession movements in two semi-autonomous regions, everyone must agree that Georgia’s sovereignty is sacrosanct and Russia must be condemned.
US newspapers, such as the New York Times, see nothing risible about publishing a statement from President George W. Bush declaring that “Georgia is a sovereign nation and its territorial integrity must be respected.”
No one points out that Bush should have zero standing enunciating such a principle. Iraq also was a sovereign nation, but Bush invaded it under false pretenses, demolished its army, overthrew its government and then conducted a lengthy military occupation resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
The invasion of Iraq also wasn’t a spur of the moment decision. In the months after the 9/11 attacks, Bush proclaimed an exceptional right of the United States to invade any country that might become a threat to American security or to US global dominance. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Bush’s Grim Vision” or see our book, Neck Deep]
When asked questions about international law, Bush would joke: “International law? I better call my lawyer.”
The neocons’ contempt for international law goes back even further – to the 1980s and the illegal contra war against Nicaragua and the invasion of Panama. Only in the last few days have the neocons discovered an appreciation for multilateral institutions and the principles of non-intervention.
Despite this history, leading US newspapers don’t see hypocrisy. Instead, they have thrown open their pages to prominent neocons and other advocates of US-led invasions so these thinkers now can denounce Russia while not mentioning any contradictions.
originally posted at Byzantine Blog. Read the whole article here:
update #1, 16/08/08: As things fall apart, by Max Bergmann, Democracy Arsenal:
... Perhaps the biggest foreign policy challenge for the next President is attempting to restore U.S. credibility and prestige around the world. McCain this week has shown exactly the wrong way to go about it. His recent over-the-top rhetoric about Georgia is exactly the wrong approach and reeks of the same neoconservative inspired thinking that emanated from Bush's first term. Making hollow promises and defiant threats, when the Bush administration just showed that such rhetoric to be completely hollow, only makes the U.S. look less credible (Of course, if McCain were actually serious about following through on his reckless rhetoric and militarily confronting Russia then that would not only be insane but would further imperil our superpower status)...
Πέμπτη 14 Αυγούστου 2008
Σχετικά με τον πόλεμο στον Καύκασο...
... δεν θέλω να κάνω κανένα σχόλιο. Ούτε και να παρουσιάσω καμιά μακροσκελή ανάλυση, ικανοποιώντας έτσι την ματαιοδοξία μου ως "ειδήμονα" πάνω σε θέματα διεθνών σχέσεων. Ό,τι ήταν να ειπωθεί, έχει ειπωθεί και οτιδήποτε επιπλέον - νομίζω - περισσότερο κακό θα κάνει, παρά καλό. Εξάλλου, όπως είπε χαρακτηριστικά και ο Πρόεδρος Μεντβέντεφ: "ο σκοπός επετεύχθη..." ! Νέοι τάφοι ή ακόμη... καλλίτερα, νέα νεκροταφεία ανοίχτηκαν και θ' ανοιχτούν, για να υποδεχτούν όλους εκείνους που ήθελαν να ζήσουν αλλά στάθηκαν εμπόδιο στα σχέδια δυο-τριών τρελών της "παρέας της Τυφλίδας". Και είναι τόσο απλό.
Όμως, από αυτόν τον - όχι άδικο - παράλογο πόλεμο, βγήκε και κάτι καλό. Αποδείχτηκε πόσο έξυπνοι μπορούν να είναι οι Ευρωπαίοι όταν το θέλουν. Και αναφέρομαι στην διεύρυνση του ΝΑΤΟ προς τα ανατολικά. Τί θα είχε συμβεί αν η Γεωργία - μαζί με την Ουκρανία - είχαν ενταχθεί στη Συμμαχία και ξεσπούσε η κρίση, όπως και ξέσπασε;
Ενδεχομένως, θα είχαμε έναν γενικευμένο πόλεμο ανάμεσα στην "Δύση" και την "Ανατολή" όχι σε ένα, αλλά πιθανόν σε δεκάδες μέτωπα, με απρόβλεπτες συνέπειες που κανένας μας δεν θα ήθελε καν να φαντάζεται!
Ένα ερώτημα που θα μπορούσαμε να θέσουμε σε αυτό το σημείο ... έτσι ... αυθόρμητα ... οι Αμερικανοί - που επιθυμούσαν διακαώς την ένταξη Γεωργίας και Ουκρανίας στην Ατλαντική Συμμαχία - είχαν στα σχέδια τους ένα τέτοιο σενάριο πολέμου; Έναν πόλεμο που θα είχε ως χώρο εκδήλωσής του τον ευρωπαϊκό χώρο για ακόμη μία φορά μέσα σε εκατό χρόνια;
Υπερβολές, θα απαντούσε κάποιος. Ανοησίες, ίσως, ν' απαντούσε κάποιος άλλος. Όμως, η ηγεσία των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών - απ' αυτά που διαβάζω και που διαβάζουμε όλοι μας - συμπεριφέρεται σαν να μην κατανοεί τι ακριβώς έχει συμβεί... Και με δεδομένη και γνωστή την εξωτερική τους πολιτική, που επιδιώκει την δημιουργία ή την ανάπτυξη κρίσεων εκεί που δεν υπάρχουν ή που δεν θα έπρεπε να υπάρχουν ή εκεί που θα μπορούσαν να αποφευχθούν πολύ φοβάμαι πως, ό,τι κι αν υποθέσουμε ούτε υπερβολικό θα είναι, ούτε ανόητο, ούτε λίγο...
update #1, 14/8/08: Όπως αναφέρει ο Μιχάλης Εγνατίου σε άρθρο του στο φύλλο της εφημερίδας "Ημερησία" της 12ης Αυγούστου, με τίτλο: H «εκδίκηση» του Κοσόβου:
... Tη μεγαλύτερη ευθύνη για τη σημερινή κατάσταση, φέρει η κυβέρνηση των Hνωμένων Πολιτειών. Aναμείχθηκε απροκάλυπτα στις εσωτερικές υποθέσεις του Kαυκάσου, όταν η Mόσχα ήταν πατημένη στη γη. Mόλις οι Pώσοι συνήλθαν από το σοκ που τους προκάλεσε εκείνη η αρρωστημένη μορφή κομμουνισμού που τους επιβλήθηκε, οι πάντες γνώριζαν πως θα απαιτούσαν την πρωτοκαθεδρία στην περιοχή. Δεν συμφέρει στις HΠA η σύγκρουση με τη Pωσία, απλά και μόνο επειδή δεν είναι σε θέση να την αντιμετωπίσει. Oσοι γνωρίζουν τον τρόπο δράσης και αντίδρασης της Mόσχας, δεν έχουν την παραμικρή αμφιβολία πως σύντομα θα ξανανοίξουν και το θέμα του Kοσσυφοπεδίου, ακόμα και αν οι HΠA κάνουν μερικά βήματα πίσω στον Kαύκασο. H θύελλα, που έρχεται, ούτε στην Oυάσιγκτον συμφέρει, πολύ περισσότερο ούτε στα Bαλκάνια...
update #2, 19/8/08:
Στο blog "scraps of Moscow", μπορείτε να βρείτε μία πολύ ενδιαφέρουσα συλλογή χαρτών του Καυκάσου, η οποία μπορεί να σας βοηθήσει να κατανοήσετε λίγο καλλίτερα την πολιτική γεωγραφία της περιοχής, αφού παρουσιάζει τις μεταβολές που έχουν πραγματοποιηθεί, μέχρι σήμερα, στα σύνορα των χωρών της περιοχής καθώς, και στην πληθυσμιακή σύνθεση τόσο της Γεωργίας όσο και της Οσσετίας και της Απχαζίας.
Δευτέρα 4 Αυγούστου 2008
The Kremlin's Plan to Divide and Conquer Europe
Despite speculations in European Union capitals about a bright new dawn in Europe-Russia relations following the installation of President Dmitri Medvedev, dark clouds have already gathered. Europe faces an intensified challenge to its integrity, effectiveness and alliances from a Moscow buoyed by its oil wealth and fortified by claims that U.S. leadership is on the decline.
During a recent visit to Berlin, Mr. Medvedev proposed creation of a pan-European security pact that would sideline NATO and undermine U.S. influence in Europe. Mr. Medvedev asserted that "Atlanticism as a sole historical principle has already had its day. NATO has failed to give new purpose to its existence."
In reality, it is not Atlanticism that is effectively over but the post-Cold War era as the West and Russia are embroiled in a new strategic confrontation. Russia is reasserting its global reach by opposing further expansion of the Euro-Atlantic zone and reversing the United States' global role. The Kremlin believes the U.S. has passed its zenith as a global power and Pax Americana is crumbling. This provides an invaluable opportunity for a resurgent Russia to extend its interests in nearby regions, particularly throughout the wider Europe.
original post: BUGAJSKI: Medvedev's wider Europe
Τετάρτη 30 Ιουλίου 2008
Ο ρατσισμός είναι εκτός ελέγχου στη Μόσχα
Το blog La Russophobe αναδημοσίευσε ένα άρθρο σχετικά με το θέμα από την εφημερίδα The Moscow Times και το αναδημοσιεύω κι εγώ. Να σημείωσω ότι υπάρχει έντονος προβληματισμός για την έξαρσή του φαινομένου, όχι μόνο στην Ρωσσία, αλλά σε όλες τις χώρες της ανατολικής Ευρώπης, ακόμη και σε εκείνες που θεωρητικά απολαμβάνουν υψηλότερα επίπεδα διαβίωσης συγκριτικά με άλλες, όπως η Ουγγαρία και η Τσεχία.The Moscow Times reports that racist violence is "exploding" in Russia's largest and supposedly most sophisticated city, supposedly booming with wealth and happiness, right in Vladimir Putin's backyard. Do you dare imagine what might be going on in a place like Chelyabinsk -- that is, if any dark-skinned people were foolish enough to go there?
The number of hate crimes committed in Moscow has exploded this year, rising sixfold compared to the same period last year, Investigative Committee head Alexander Bastrykin said Friday. The authorities registered 73 hate crimes in Moscow in the first six months of this year, a trend Bastrykin said must be halted with "decisive and systematic efforts."
"We are worried that while the overall number of crimes registered in Russia has shrunk by 9 percent, crimes of an extremist nature are increasing year after year," Bastrykin said, Interfax reported.
Διαβάστε ολόκληρο το κείμενο εδώ:
Διαβάστε επίσης:
Racist Crime Numbers Explode
Russia for Racists
Let Russians Be RussiansΜεγάλη έξαρση ρατσισμού...
Η άνοδος του νεοναζισμού στη Ρωσία
6 επιθέσεις νεοφασιστών στη Ρωσία
Πέμπτη 24 Ιουλίου 2008
Iran Isolation Attempts Backfire
At the eleventh hour, even the Bush administration seems to have realized, albeit in a limited way, the inherent failure of the containment approach. In an important about-face, the White House not only agreed to direct talks between U.S. and Iranian officials in Geneva this weekend but also held out the prospect of soon opening an American interest section in Tehran. This sea change suggests that the realists around Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates having finally gained the upper hand over the faction around Vice President Dick Cheney in the intra-administration feud. The reversal also acknowledges that the dual approach of sanctions and military threats have produced nothing but America’s own isolation. The far-reaching repercussions of these counterproductive sanctions against Iran and America’s increasing isolation in Asia are best illustrated by this month’s breakthrough on the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline.
It’s the Gas, Stupid
The Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline (IPI) is a $7.5 billion project designed to supply Indian mega-cities with natural gas from Iran’s Persian Gulf fields via a 1,700 miles long pipeline across Pakistan. The project has been repudiated and boycotted by one project partner or the other uncounted times since its conceptualization. But on July 3, Indian Oil Minister Murli Deora affirmed on the sidelines of the World Petroleum Congress in Madrid that India expects to finally sign the deal next month. This long-time-in-coming breakthrough constitutes a crucial step toward energy security for India.
For the United States, on the other hand, it deals a resounding blow to the fragile international sanctions front the Bush administration has crafted to contain Iran. What is more, with China keen on joining the project, a new geo-strategic axis – Tehran-Islamabad-New Delhi-Beijing – is about to emerge. This axis will radically reshuffle the power structure in Asia and, with it, the global balance of power.
Despite the Cheney faction’s saber-rattling, the Bush administration has banked on economic sanctions strangling investment and beating a technology-dependant Tehran into submission. This strategy of tightening the economic corset choking Iran and thus forcing it to renounce its nuclear ambitions, however, has isolated the United States and its allies more than Iran. For the time being, Washington has succeeded in cajoling French Total SA, Anglo-Dutch Shell, and Spanish Repsol to withdraw their bids to exploit the Iranian South Pars field, the world’s largest gas field, and the EU approved freezing the assets of a major state-owned Iranian retail bank, Bank Melli, last month.
But Iran’s countermeasures have been in the works for quite a while. After all, the country has long suffered from the effects of sanctions and the reluctance of Western companies to invest in its energy sector. So it has increasingly looked eastward for new financiers and partners. The most striking example is Iran’s March 24 bid for membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Central Asian security group dominated by Russia and China.
This new “looking east” -- negahe be shargh -- policy concept is the brainchild of Bangalore-educated, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. While an Iranian SCO membership is still in the future, Asian dominance over the Iranian market is a current reality. China already ranks as the number one foreign investor in Iran. Malaysian Petronas and LG Korea feature prominently in the exploitation of South Pars. The new IPI would be a final nail in the coffin of the sanctions regime.
The Empire Strikes Back
The United States has fought hard against the new pipeline linking Iran, India, and Pakistan. As recently as July 15, Senators Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Richard Shelby (R-AL) threatened to strengthen the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 that allows for the litigation of foreign firms investing in sanctionable business in Iran – a clear warning signal to India. Meanwhile, since the three countries could not bear the projected costs of $7.5 billion on their own, Washington has also used its considerable influence at the World Bank in the person of former president Paul Wolfowitz. He bluntly informed Pakistan that the bank would not allow any international institution to finance the project.
In its attempts to destabilize Iran and disrupt the possible route of the pipeline, the United States is allegedly supporting Jundallah. This militant insurgency in the Iranian Sistan and Baluchistan Province, has suspected links to the Taliban and the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), which has been fighting a guerilla war against the Pakistani army since 2000. This clandestine Baloch connection – recently exposed by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker – undermines America’s fragile, always-on-the-brink-of-a-coup ally, Pakistan. Washington is also pushing for the alternative of a Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI), the construction bids for which, as a side benefit, would go to U.S. companies. This alternative scheme is strikingly similar to the pipeline deal Unocal struck with the Taliban in 1996.
U.S. obstruction is not the only problem facing the IPI project. Iran is asking for a lot of money; India and Pakistan have notorious difficulties cooperating. But this cluster of American threats and coercions proved until recently to be pivotal in preventing the project from getting off the ground. Former Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns cited preventing IPI as one of his greatest accomplishments at a conference at Harvard University in March.
Push Factors
India, however, desperately needs energy for its growing economy. And it will risk its relationship with the United States to get this energy. Moreover, its heavily subsidized low gas prices are no longer sustainable, especially now before an election year. After all, with oil around $140 per barrel and a global recession looming on the horizon, the United States no longer has the ability to pressure countries to sever energy ties with Iran, as it did when a fire-breathing John Bolton forced Japan to withdraw its bid to exploit the Iranian Azadegan oil field. It is now every country for itself in the new energy environment.
Despite U.S. opposition, then, the IPI pipeline is back on line. The last commercial difficulties between Pakistan and India concerning transit fees have been cleared away, and only minor technical details remain for a trilateral meeting in Tehran scheduled for the coming weeks. If an agreement is reached this summer, construction could commence in 2009 and be completed by 2012. Pakistan is eager to expand its new role as the energy corridor of the future. It expects an annual $600 million in transportation fees from IPI and is vigorously politicking for China to join the project in order to increase those revenues. Until Indian consent was secured, Pakistan used the Chinese wild card as a bargaining tool to force a wavering India’s hand. But now it seems that Islamabad and Tehran can have it both ways. If World Bank financing is off the table, China can step in to foot the bill.
Finalization of IPI in the coming weeks would be more than a slap in the face for President Bush. After all, in 2006 he personally fought for a nuclear cooperation pact with India designed to meet India’s energy needs while tying it closer to the United States as a counterweight against a rising China. Now however, not only has the Indian government so far failed to get the pact ratified in the Indian parliament, but India is about to collaborate with China in undermining America’s sanctions on Iran. Pakistan, beefed up with more than $10 billion in military aid by the Bush administration, is also giving the cold shoulder to Washington. And Iran, soon to be the number one energy supplier for East Asia, becomes more untouchable by the day.
The Bush administration’s lofty design to keep Iran in the box and use the Indian tiger to tame the Chinese dragon runs the risk of collapsing in the last months of his presidency. In fact, the American sanctions regime is driving Iran into China’s arms and facilitating a Sino-Indian rapprochement. Even worse, America is facing the rise of a new strategic axis in Asia that stretches from Tehran to New Delhi to Beijing, with Islamabad as a central hub, and financed by petrodollars. Then again, the Bush policy, by giving a lift to this new strategic energy alliance, may ultimately strengthen support in Washington for a military strike against Iran: to accomplish what containment failed to do.
initially published at Foreign Policy in Focus
διαβάστε επίσης:
Η Κεντρική Ασία στο επίκεντρο του ενεργειακού ανταγωνισμού
Σάββατο 28 Ιουνίου 2008
Do Azerbaijan's Ethnic Minorities Face Forced Assimilation?
The ethnic groups in question are the Avars, Tsakhurs, and Lezgins, and according to official statistics together they constitute less than 1 percent of Azerbaijan's total population of 8.65 million. They live compactly in several districts of northern Azerbaijan bordering on the Russian Federation. Avars are the largest ethnic group in neighboring Daghestan, where they account for approximately 29 percent of the population, and Lezgins the third largest (13 percent). The Tsakhurs, who number around 8,000, constitute less than 0.5 percent of Daghestan's population.
Estimates of the number of Lezgins in Azerbaijan range from 178,000 to 400,000 or even 850,000. Azerbaijan's Lezgins have lobbied sporadically for greater protection of their rights since the early 1980s; some Lezgins in both Daghestan and Azerbaijan have gone so far as to propose creating an independent state that would encompass their historic homeland to the north and south of the Samur River that forms the border between Russia and Azerbaijan. A conference on the Lezgins organized in Moscow last month under the aegis of the Russian Foreign Ministry was construed by some Azerbaijani commentators as possibly heralding a new Lezgin separatist threat.
On June 16, the website rossia3.ru posted an appeal "To all people of good will" signed by eight separate organizations representing the Avars, Lezgins, and Tsakhurs. One of those organizations is the Imam Shamil Avar National Front headed by Dagneft President and Russian State Duma Deputy Gadji Makhachev, who many observers believe has close ties with, and on occasion acts on orders from, the Kremlin.
The appeal deplored the fact that the creation in 1918 of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic effectively split the ancestral homeland of the three ethnic groups, and that during the seven decades that those lands were part of the USSR, they were subjected to "nightmarish" discrimination. It claimed that they were the only ethnic minorities in the entire Soviet Union who were obliged to pay for secondary and higher education. It further argued that Azerbaijan's secession in 1991 from the USSR was illegal as it was not preceded by a referendum, in which they would have voted against (Armenia was in fact the only Soviet republic to comply with the referendum requirement), and that "twice during the 20th century Azerbaijan occupied our homeland and unlawfully seized power there."
The appeal claimed that the leadership of the newly independent Azerbaijan Republic then embarked on the systematic annihilation of the three ethnic groups, sending "tens of thousands" of young men to fight in Nagorno-Karabakh, of whom "thousands" were killed. (That figure is difficult to reconcile with official population figures.) Members of the intelligentsia from all three ethnic groups were allegedly thrown into prison, and Azerbaijanis from other regions of Azerbaijan or from Georgia resettled in their abandoned homes in what the appeal terms a systematic "Turkicization" process. Those resettlers allegedly hold most official posts in the districts where the three groups constitute the majority of the population. The most recent crackdown was in March 2008 against the predominantly Lezgin population of the Kusar and Khachmas raions of Azerbaijan. The appeal concluded by requesting help in clarifying what has happened to those arrested and support for the creation of autonomous regions for the three groups.
Two days later, on June 18, the Daghestan-based Avar National Council, which was not a signatory to the June 16 appeal, addressed an open letter to Daghestan's President Mukhu Aliyev (himself an Avar) to "protect" Azerbaijan's Avar minority from the threat of "genocide," kavkaz-uzel.ru reported. The agency quoted Magomed Guseinov, a leading Council member, as estimating the size of Azerbaijan's Avar minority at 200,000, and the number of Avars currently imprisoned in Azerbaijan at almost 300. Guseinov repeated the claim that in the Zakatala, Belokany, and Kakh raions Azeris, mostly resettlers from the Naxcivan Autonomous Republic, occupy most prominent political posts even though they account for just 27 percent of the population. He contrasts the plight of the Avars in Azerbaijan unfavorably with that of Daghestan's Azerbaijani minority, which at the time of the 2002 Russian Federation census numbered 111,656 people, or approximately 4 percent of the republic's population. As one of Daghestan's 14 titular nationalities, the Azeris have the right to radio broadcasts and education in their native language.
Guseinov recalled that during a visit to Baku in late April 2007, President Aliyev discussed the plight of Azerbaijan's Avars with President Ilham Aliyev, who declared on that occasion that the Avars have no grounds for complaint and accused unnamed "forces" of seeking to stir up unrest among Azerbaijan's ethnic minorities. Mukhu Aliyev is scheduled to visit Azerbaijan again on June 26.
Meanwhile, political scientist Vafa Quluzade, who served as an adviser to Ilham Aliyev's late father Heydar, was quoted by kavkaz-uzel.ru on June 19 as accusing Russia of deliberately seeking to fuel disaffection among Azerbaijan's Avar, Lezgin, and Tsakhur minorities on the eve of a visit to Baku by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Quluzade suggested the objective is to coerce Azerbaijan into accepting a recent offer from Gazprom to buy natural gas from Azerbaijan's offshore Shah Deniz field. A commentary published on June 19 in the online daily zerkalo.az similarly argued that separatism on the part of the Lezgins, the Kurds, and the Talysh (who live in the southern districts of Azerbaijan bordering on Iran) constitutes a very real threat to Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, and compared the Lezgins in Azerbaijan with the Ossetian population of the breakaway Georgian republic of South Ossetia.
Copyright (c) 2008. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036.
useful links:
Τρίτη 11 Μαρτίου 2008
Το σύνδρομο της «παιδικής χαράς» στην εφαρμογή του Διεθνούς Δικαίου
Η αμερικανική εξωτερική πολιτική έχει επίγνωση των επιπτώσεων της παρέμβασής της στο Κοσσυφοπέδιο και αναγνωρίζει την συμβολή της στην αμφισβήτηση της διεθνούς νομιμότητας, προσπαθώντας να περιορίσει αυτές τις επιπτώσεις μέσα στα στενά όρια ενός - κατά πως φαίνεται - θνησιγενούς κρατικού μορφώματος, το οποίο δεν διαθέτει τα απαιτούμενα «υλικά» σύνθεσης, συνεργασίας άρα και ισότιμης συμμετοχής των διαφόρων εθνικών ή άλλων ομάδων πληθυσμού του, στην διακυβέρνηση στο εσωτερικό… κατ’ επέκταση και ισότιμης συμμετοχής στο διεθνές πεδίο.
Αυτό, ασφαλώς το γνωρίζουν οι Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες. Ασφαλώς και το γνωρίζουν όλα τα κράτη-μέλη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Το «ενδιαφέρον» για την «αναβάθμιση» των Σκοπίων, αιτιολογεί και διευρύνει τον γεωγραφικό ορίζοντα των παραπάνω επιδιώξεων. Όμως, το ζήτημα των Σκοπίων και η πιθανή ή μη ένταξή τους στο ΝΑΤΟ ή την ΕΕ, δεν θα μας απασχολήσει σε αυτό το άρθρο.
Όπως έχω δηλώσει κατ’ επανάληψη, καθώς η Ελλάδα - όπως στην προκειμένη περίπτωση - είναι η άμεσα ενδιαφερόμενη και καθ’ όσο διαρκεί η διαπραγματευτική διαδικασία επίλυσης του ζητήματος του ονόματος της γειτονικής χώρας και των παρελκόμενων αυτού, που συνιστούν αιτία αποσταθεροποίησης στην περιοχή των Βαλκανίων, υπάρχουν συγκεκριμένα πρόσωπα και όργανα που νομιμοποιούνται θεσμικά στην άσκηση της εξωτερικής μας πολιτικής. Θεωρώ πως κάθε άλλη παρέμβαση η οποία ενδεχομένως θα περιείχε μια υποψία υποστήριξης ή το αντίθετο στην άσκηση της από τον οποιονδήποτε, συμπεριλαμβανομένου και του γράφοντος, θα ήταν τουλάχιστον περιττή… έστω και αν θα χαρακτηριζόταν ως χρήσιμη. Επιμένω σε αυτή την άποψη και ελπίζω στην κατανόησή σας.
Κάθε τι το οποίο πράττουμε και δεν νομιμοποιείται από συγκεκριμένους κανόνες ή αν αυτοί οι κανόνες δεν λαμβάνονται υπόψη και δεν υπάρξει αντίδραση σε αυτήστάση από την διεθνή κοινότητα, ως αποτέλεσμα θα έχουμε την χρήση του ίδιου ακριβώς σκεπτικού στην επίτευξη παρόμοιων επιδιώξεων, από τον οποιονδήποτε.
Το γεγονός ότι, αρκετές Ευρωπαϊκές και τρίτες χώρες στήριξαν και αναγνώρισαν ευθύς αμέσως την παράνομη και παράτυπη (με βάση το Διεθνές Δίκαιο) απόσχιση του Κοσσυφοπεδίου από την Σερβία, ουσιαστικά, νομιμοποίησε παρόμοιες περιπτώσεις οπουδήποτε στον κόσμο. Με δεδομένη όμως την αμφισβητούμενη οικονομική / κοινωνική / πολιτική / πολιτισμική βιωσιμότητα τέτοιων κρατικών μορφωμάτων, πώς η διεθνής κοινότητα θα μπορεί φέρει στους ώμους της το βάρος τέτοιων αποφάσεων και μάλιστα, του όποιου κόστους διατήρησης και συντήρησής τους; Κι αν το νεοσύστατο αυτό κρατικό μόρφωμα ή όπως αλλιώς θέλετε ονομάστε το, δεν τα καταφέρει να «επιβιώσει», τότε ποιος θα πληρώσει τη ζημιά; Επιπρόσθετα, ποιός θα μπορούσε να εγγυηθεί, στο ελάχιστο, την ευημερία των πολιτών του αλλά, και των λαών τριγύρω αυτού, γνωρίζοντας τον τρόπο με τον οποίο η «ανεξαρτησία» του επιτεύχθηκε; Παράλληλα, ποιός μπορεί να εγγυηθεί την αποτροπή ή έστω ελαχιστοποίηση πιθανών «παράπλευρων» κινδύνων αποσταθεροποίησης, όπως οι επακόλουθες εδαφικές διεκδικήσεις έναντι των γειτονικών κρατών, που συνηθίζονται σε τέτοιες περιπτώσεις; Εν πάση περιπτώσει, νομίζω, πρέπει να σοβαρευτούμε.
Και τα Σκόπια, αποτελούν ένα πρώτης τάξεως παράδειγμα που ενισχύει αυτόν τον προβληματισμό, αν αναλογιστούμε ότι ο πληθυσμός της χώρας δεν είναι ομοιογενής ούτε θρησκευτικά, ούτε εθνικά, ούτε ιστορικά, ούτε καν πολιτισμικά, ενώ προσπαθεί να «επιβιώσει», να αποκτήσει ταυτότητα και συνοχή με τον σφετερισμό χαρακτηριστικών και συμβόλων γειτονικού τους λαού, δηλαδή, εις βάρος αυτού του λαού, βάζοντας σε περιπέτειες και τον δικό τους!
Πολλοί εκφράζουν τον φόβο ότι, ανάλογες εξελίξεις μπορούμε να αναμένουμε στο μέλλον για περιοχές εντός της επικράτειας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.
Λίγο πιο πέρα, έχουμε το ζήτημα της Νότιας Οσετίας, η οποία το 1990 κήρυξε μονομερώς την ανεξαρτησία της από την Γεωργία ενώ, μόλις προχθές για μία ακόμη φορά το Κοινοβούλιό της ζήτησε από τον ΟΗΕ, την Ρωσσία και την Ε.Ε. να αναγνωρίσουν την ανεξαρτησία της. Μέχρι στιγμής κανείς δεν έχει προχωρήσει στην αναγνώρισή της ως ανεξάρτητο κράτος. Δεν αποκλείεται όμως να επιτευχθεί η απόσχισή της σύντομα, αν αυτό εξυπηρετεί ευρύτερα συμφέροντα και όχι μόνον εκείνα του πληθυσμού της.
Το ελεύθερο, ανεξάρτητο και κυρίαρχο Κουρδιστάν. Αποτελεί πονοκέφαλο και για την Τουρκία και για τις υπόλοιπες χώρες της περιοχής με έντονο το Κουρδικό στοιχείο στο εσωτερικό τους. Αν και οι Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες, θα επιθυμούσαν ένα ανεξάρτητο Κουρδικό κράτος μέσα στην καρδιά της Κεντρικής Ασίας, με σκοπό την πιο «βολική» διαχείριση των φυσικών της πόρων εν τούτοις, δεν έχουν αποφασίσει αν κάτι τέτοιο θα μπορούσε να εξυπηρετήσει καλλίτερα τα συμφέροντά της.Γι’ αυτό άλλωστε, η Τουρκία έχει μείνει μόνη της στον αγώνα ενάντια των Κούρδων.Το Κουρδικό, δεν αποτελεί πρόβλημα εσωτερικής κοινωνικής συνοχής και ασφάλειας της Τουρκίας - όπως ισχυρίζεται - αλλά, βασικό ζήτημα εξωτερικής και οικονομικής πολιτικής καθώς, πιθανή ενίσχυση των Κούρδων στην ευρύτερη περιοχή και μάλιστα με δικό τους κράτος, θα έθετε σε κίνδυνο τον ηγεμονικό ρόλο της στην Κεντρική Ασία! Και σε αυτή την περίπτωση, η Τουρκία θα βρισκόταν μόνη της, απέναντι στις ΗΠΑ και την διεθνή κοινότητα, δεδομένου ότι η πολεμική της πολιτική δεν τυγχάνει αποδοχής, παρά ανοχής καθώς, προς το παρόν, δεν έχει αποσαφηνιστεί ο ρόλος που θα μπορούσαν να διαδραματίσουν οι Κούρδοι στο διεθνές πολιτικό / οικονομικό παιχνίδι.
Το παράδοξο, βρίσκεται στην επιδοκιμασία και αναγνώριση του δικαιώματος των Αλβανών του Κοσόβου για ανεξαρτησία, από την πλευρά της Τουρκίας καθώς, έτσι επιβεβαιώνει από μόνη της την νομιμότητα της επιθυμίας του Κουρδικού Λαού για ανεξαρτησία! Αρνούμενη να αποδεχθεί αυτή την πρώτου μεγέθους «γκάφα» της εξωτερικής της πολιτικής, θα χάσει σε αξιοπιστία και θα ενισχύσει τα σενάρια που θέλουν σύντομα τμήματα της Τουρκικής επικράτειας να ενσωματώνονται σε μια νέα κρατική οντότητα, με έντονο το Κουρδικό στοιχείο.
Υπάρχουν ένα σωρό συγκριτικά παραδείγματα, με σημείο αναφοράς το Κόσσοβο, που θα μπορούσαν να επιφέρουν ανάλογες εξελίξεις και μεταβολές στον παγκόσμιο χάρτη. Θα ήταν αδύνατο, μία τέτοια πιθανότητα, να μην αποτελεί καταστροφική προοπτική για την διατήρηση της διεθνούς νομιμότητας! Αυτή ασφαλώς, είναι η μία πλευρά των πραγμάτων.Η άλλη πλευρά, υποδεικνύει την ανάγκη ακόμη περισσότερης δημοκρατίας, διασφάλιση του δικαιώματος της αυτοδιάθεσης εθνικών πληθυσμιακών ομάδων και μεταβολή συνόρων που ενδεχομένως, θα διάνοιγαν πιο ασφαλείς ενεργειακούς δρόμους. Η «μαγιά» χαλάει εκεί όπου κάποιος ή κάτι επιβάλλει την λογική αυτή όχι προς όφελος της διεθνούς κοινότητας, αλλά για την ικανοποίηση των δικών του και μόνο εθνικών(;) συμφερόντων! Άραγε, είναι τυχαίες οι «Ευρωπαϊκές παρεμβάσεις» των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών, έπειτα από τις συνεχείς τους αποτυχίες στο Αφγανιστάν και το Ιράκ με το αιτιολογικό της καταπολέμησης της τρομοκρατίας;
Όπως σε όλα τα θέματα, έτσι κι εδώ, η αλήθεια βρίσκεται κάπου στη μέση. Ένα είναι σίγουρο. Θα πρέπει να συμφωνήσουμε σ’ ένα συγκεκριμένο θεσμικό πλαίσιο, το οποίο δεν θα αδικεί οποιοδήποτε κράτος, δεν θα θέτει σε κίνδυνο την εδαφική του ακεραιότητα και θα εξασφαλίζει το απαραβίαστο της εθνικής του κυριαρχίας! Παράλληλα, θα πρέπει να κατανοηθεί ότι η ανάγκη αυτοδιάθεσης εθνικών μειονοτήτων που ζουν εντός των ορίων μιας χώρας, μπορεί να υποστηριχθεί αν και εφόσον συντρέχουν ειδικοί και πολύ συγκεκριμένοι λόγοι, για τους οποίους η διεθνής κοινότητα (και όχι ένα κράτος ή ομάδα κρατών) μπορεί ν’ αναλάβει την ευθύνη της διευθέτησης του όλου ζητήματος, χωρίς να τίθεται σε κίνδυνο η κοινωνική συνοχή και η ειρήνη εντός, γύρω και πέρα των ορίων του συγκεκριμένου κράτους.@
"Διπλή παραβίαση του Διεθνούς Δικαίου", Γ. Δημητρακόπουλος, "Ελευθεροτυπία" 2 Μαρτίου 2008
"Φρένο στις αποσχιστικές τάσεις", Θάνος Ντόκος, "Ελευθεροτυπία" 2 Μαρτίου 2008
update #1, 05/07/08:
update #3, 08/08/08, 21:10μμ:
Η ανανέωση έρχεται να συμπληρώσει την αναφορά στην διένεξη ανάμεσα στην Γεωργία και την αυτόνομη περιοχή της Ν. Οσετίας καθώς, σήμερα είχαμε εκτεταμένες πολεμικές επιχειρήσεις μεταξύ γεωργιανών και ρωσσικών στρατευμάτων, για το έλεγχο της περιοχής (λόγω της εισβολής των γεωργιανών δυνάμεων), με εκατοντάδες νεκρούς και τραυματίες. Ακόμη οι πληροφορίες είναι συγκεχυμένες και τα links που παραθέτω στην συνέχεια έχουν σκοπό να παρουσιάσουν όσο το δυνατόν πιο ολοκληρωμένα το ζήτημα στην εξέλιξή του.
Πιθανόν να επανέλθω στο θέμα τις επόμενες ημέρες με νεώτερη ανάρτηση και όχι με ανανέωση του ήδη υπάρχοντος υλικού, ανάλογα με τις εξελίξεις.
Russia Warns Georgia Over Breakaway South Ossetia
SOUTH OSSETIA CRISIS STOKES TENSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND GEORGIA
Russia Profile - South Ossetia Looks North
Russia and Georgia Come to Blows
Mεγάλης κλίμακας στρατιωτικές επιχειρήσεις στη Νότια Οσετία
Well, That Didn't Last Long--Fighting Resumes in the Caucasus
Troops move in to South Ossetia
Δραματικές ώρες στη Νότια Οσετία
Πολεμική αναμέτρηση Γεωργίας - Ρωσίας την ώρα της έναρξης των Ολυμπιακών Αγώνων
Στα πρόθυρα πολέμου!
Update on the Caucasus War