Don’t play games with Georgia
Turbulent times in my mother-country. Recent discussions with Russian and Americans as well as Georgians confirm the suspicion the Georgia’s turbulent relationship with Russia has little to do with democracy but a great deal to do with ensuring that former USSR territories are kept in Western hands, so that natural resources, particularly oil, flow freely to the West without paying any duty to the Russians.
Looked at closely it’s evident that the current Georgian President, Saakashvili has behaved like an autocrat not a democrat. He has closed down newspapers, bullied the media, locked up many dissidents who are supporters of democracy and has now even imprisoned the son of Gamsakhurdia, the very first president of Georgia after the break up of the Soviet Union. In point of fact, his attack on South Ossetia is just one of a series of similar attacks.
The Russians had little alternative than to try to protect ‘their own’ people and I suspect that this is what they will continue to do. It appears that Saakashvili, working together with Western interests and particularly American and British intelligence, positioned the attack on Ossetia to induce a response from the Russians such that Russians could be presented in a negative light and thereby lose further credit in the PR war, while defending rights and obligations of citizens of another state.
In my view, this is no way to deal with a strengthening Russia which has the largest concentration of natural resources in the world. Instead of this geopolitical gamesmanship, we should be forming productive partnerships – certainly not accelerating an military aggressive position. Yes, the West should encourage democracy in Georgia but then it must ensure that this formal democracy is accompanied by proactive social integration programmes and policies which protect minorities. Critically it must allow for representation of the various ethnic groups that are present on Georgian soil. There are probably now as many Georgians in prison under Saakashvili as there were in the worst days of the Soviet Union.
Batono Kakabadze,
Rusetis mier dachagruli Saqartvelos tqveni kritika aklioda, gilocavt. Tkveni sitkvebit Saakashvili tu Amerikisa da Didi Britanetis interesebs icavs, am statiidan gamomdinare sheizleba tkvat rom tkvenc Rusetis interesebs icavt, ratomac ara… Saqartveloshi Rusetis shechraze ar da Samxret Osetshi Saqartvelos shechraze saubrobt? Samxret Oseti Rusetis teritoria aris?
Ra gitxrat… Ramdenime dgit adre Baton Orhan Yavuzi gavicane da bevri mokkva tkvenze, magram ar megonat rom aseti mosazrebis adamiani ikavit.
Kargad brdzandebodet…
Dear Andrew,
having read your article I decided to ask you three questions:
In your article you support Russia’s decision to protect its own people. Whom do you mean by “its own people”? Do you mean ethnic Ossetians and Abkhaz (not even ethnic Russians) from the Russian-controlled enclaves in Georgia who were illegally give Russian passports just before the war?
If so you must be really admiring Hitler’s decision to protect the Sudeten Germans in the Czech Republic in 1939, as they were at least ethnic Germans (who ended up within the borders of the Czech Republic as a result of First World War)…
Of course Putin’s Russia, being a “great Democracy”, could not tolerate “Autocrat Saakashvili” “locking up many democratic dissidents”. When you say that “there are probably now as many Georgians in prison under Saakashvili as there were in the worst days of the Soviet Union,” can you give any numbers or name any of them?
For your information, the son of ex-president Gamsakhurdia has never been imprisoned, he was only detained and questioned by police for 2-3 days as he urged the Georgian opposition to overturn Georgia’s government. I am sure you know the difference between detention and imprisonment.
You reckon that Western countries should be paying some duty to Russia while transporting Azerbaijani and Central Asian natural resources through Georgia. Fair enough, and they are very much doing so. But who should pay duty to your “mother-country’s” (Georgia’s) aspiration to decide its orientation by its own? Why should Georgian be destined to be Russia’s satellite if in January this year 77% of its population voted in favour of joining NATO?
Dear Andrew, please do not play and do not let others play with Georgia especially if it’s your mother-country…
Dr Zaza Meskhi
Dr Meshki, thankyou for your comment.
It is true that I used the term ‘Russia protecting its own people’ in a general sense. Yes, the Ossetians and Abkhaz are separate ethnic groups, but their allegiance to Russia and identity with Russia is a long established issue. And certainly the tensions between Ossetians and Abkhaz against the Georgians is nothing new.
The questions that have to be asked are: As a sovereign nation what did Georgia do to integrate ethnically different populations in a way that those populations were satisfied? Where is the policy on Georgia’s part for dealing with ethnic and community diversity issues? Why resort to attacking a minority group with such military force despite the tensions between the communities? What attempts were made by the Georgians to actively and transparently negotiate with the Russians to find a way forward that would satisfy these minority communities?
Concerning the autocratic nature of Saakashvili, even commentators in America have spoken openly on television about the closing down of press and media outlets. Discussion amongst many of the Georgian communities in Europe highlights that if you do not agree with Saakashvili’s position and you are actively promoting an alternative position you may find yourself in trouble. In relation to Gamsakhurdia’s son – to even be detained for two or three days for expressing political opinion – amounts to imprisonment.
The whole point of my comment-piece is to no prescribe which direction Georgia should face, but that Georgia should prepare itself for integration with any part of the world that it so desires. If becoming a member of NATO and the European Union is the vision, then great. I for one would totally support that. But how would any credible public institution such as the EU or NATO accept a state that attacks its minorities, closes down the press and media, detains those individuals who by nature are democrats because they express a contrary political view.
How can these activities be described as the actions of a responsible and credible government and sovereign nation? I do not see any diversity policy in Georgia. In truth, all I see is a crude nationalism accompanied by a heavy hand and the actions of the state are comparable to the actions of a repressed and neglected minority who feel they have no way forward other than to fight.
Having said all this, I haven’t even mentioned the potential behind the scenes influence of the Americans and British in helping positioning Georgia to attack a minority in order to induce a combative response from Russia, thereby embarrassing the Russians. This is no way to show that you are ready to join a civilised community that handles its tensions with diplomacy and sophistication and responds to its minorities in a sympathetic and positive manner.
Whatever the Russians have done wrong, the Georgian response should have been – “let us use diplomacy to show how able we are to work through all these tensions and thereby win the confidence of NATO and the European Union”.
The fact that 77% of the Georgian population wants to join NATO means nothing. The real question is; Do the NATO members feel that Georgia is ready to join and has actively worked to ensure that its membership is sustainable – not jeopardised by a legacy of ethnic tension, border disputes and military aggression?
The real question that needs to be addressed is not the role of the Russians but the Georgians committing to enter into the world community in a way that the wider world finds acceptable. I have just not seen that commitment in evidence.
Dear Zaza,
As a Georgian, I have been following events taking place in and around Georgia with interest. It is such a challenge to lead and manage paradoxes in todays world where all parties are happy with the chioces made and tangiables are delivered. Having leadership that leads organisations and countries today into future is not a space science. Every single organisation has a role of leadership. What matters is that; do we have the leadership who could provide wealth, equality, justice and all above security for its citizens/stakeholders. Or do we have one which leads into failures, and gloomy future. No difference in that instance between state structures or banks.
Throughout the history Georgia produced a great number of diplomats and political leaders. And most successful times achieved under able political leaderships. Putting in content what competitive edge Georgia had against Russia in the firts place. Not certainly military means anyway. Could not Georgian Leadership see the certain elements in the west as well as Russia were driving towards playing POKER in Georgian territories.
It is my opinion that Georgia has to elevate its political leadership position from waht it is today of “reactionary/responsive to single polar” to the level where it could lead.
I for one strongly support Georgian territorial integrity. Aiming for such, options are limited. This could be delivered either through diplomacy and by way of able political leadership or by way of military action.
Lets note that in both scenarios the peace should me made with ethnic minorities as well as with Russia as a closure at some point.
Observing, the current political climate both in Georgia and Russia we are miles away from closure of hostility and making peace.
Further I never understood, how Georgia accepted Russian military force once fighting with Georgians as a PEACE KEEPING FORCE in the firts place.
To sum it up and as a hope; Georgian Leadership should get back to drawing table and assess the situation rationally in order to re-align its position not only in terms of conflict resolution but also strong emphasise on wealth creation, equality and democratisation.
There is a say that “there are forty way to kill the cat”, which path one chooses matters.