Clinton Endorses Georgia’s Integration with the West

By David Iberi

On October 6-10, 2010, a high-level Georgian delegation headed by Prime Minister Nika Gilauri held important meetings in Washington, DC with top-level representatives of the Obama Administration and U.S. Congress. The central event of the five-day visit was the omnibus meeting under the U.S.-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership that was co-chaired by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The two sides also held separate closed-door sessions of the four earlier created working groups on the topics of: democracy; defense and security; economic, trade and energy issues; and people-to-people and cultural exchanges.

In her opening remarks, Clinton underscored the significance of “the vital friendship between [the two] countries,” which “stands on a foundation of shared values and common interests” and reiterated the United States’ longtime “commitment to enhancing Georgia’s future as a prosperous and secure member of the Western family of nations” and to strengthening “Georgian security and democracy.” Gilauri, for his part, underscored Georgia’s achievements in modernizing its institutions, economy, infrastructure and society, and streamlining its education system as well as energy and transit capabilities.

The world’s most powerful nation’s support for Georgian sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as NATO membership is essential as the Caucasus country is struggling to end the Russian occupation of parts of its territory and with that, Moscow’s role in shaping its destiny. “We continue to call on Russia to end its occupation of Georgian territory,” the State Secretary said, “withdraw its forces, and abide by its other commitments under the 2008 ceasefire agreements.” Incidentally, she was the first top-level U.S. official to publicly qualify in early summer 2010 Russia’s illegal presence on Georgian soil in Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia as occupation and request their removal. Furthermore, Clinton expressed U.S. support for Georgia’s State Strategy on Occupied Territories, and expressed readiness “to undertake activities that reinforce these important objectives.”

Analysts and political commentators have paid close attention to what the U.S. State Secretary had to say regarding Georgia’s defense needs. “[W]e continue to support Georgia’s efforts on defense reform and improving defense capabilities, including NATO interoperability and Georgia’s contributions to ISAF operations in Afghanistan.” As seen by at least some analysts in Tbilisi, Clinton’s endorsement of Georgia’s right to self-defense might herald a reversal in U.S. policy ostensibly refraining from providing lethal weapons to Tbilisi other than those needed for Georgia’s expeditionary forces in Afghanistan.

Touching upon Georgia’s contributions to war efforts in Afghanistan, Clinton thanked Tbilisi for maintaining nearly 1,000 troops in Helmand Province that serve “shoulder-to-shoulder with U.S. Marines” as well as soldiers from other NATO member states.

Praising Tbilisi’s achievements in strengthening democratic institutions and eradicating corruption, Clinton once again called Georgia “a role model for many other countries seeking to replicate the success that Georgia has had.”

The sentiments voiced by Clinton and Gilauri during their remarks at the Charter meeting as well as the congenial atmosphere that permeated the U.S. and Georgian delegations’ speeches were duly reflected in the State Department’s Factsheet issued after the talks. They also show that the U.S.-Georgia strategic partnership has gone a long way since the signing of the Charter “between [the] two democracies” in January 2009.

Georgia has been a crucial U.S. ally in the Caucasus in an immediate proximity to Central Asia’s hydrocarbon riches, Russia and Iran. Many in Georgia believe that a closer American engagement with Georgia would contribute to a more secure and peaceful Caucasus and an unimpeded flow of Caspian and Central Asian energy sources to European and world markets. Besides, Georgia’s significant achievements in building modern democratic institutions as well as the ongoing reforms in education and other spheres of public life need more support and endorsement, including through financial injections, so that Tbilisi can become more attractive for other actors in the region and beyond. There are several incentives that could help those goals to materialize from establishing an American university in Georgia to signing a Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and its Caucasus ally.

Secretary General’s Visit Rekindles Hopes in Tbilisi

By David Iberi

On October 1, 2010, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO Secretary General, paid a one-day visit to Georgia. He met with President Mikheil Saakashvili, Foreign Minister Gregory Vashadze, ministers of defense and Euro-Atlantic integration and opened a NATO liaison office in Tbilisi.

Rasmussen expressed a hope that the upcoming NATO summit in Lisbon will reiterate the pledge the Alliance made more than two years ago that “Georgia will become a member of NATO,” cautiously adding though, “after it meets all necessary criteria.” Although he called on Moscow to fully implement the provisions of the August 2008 ceasefire agreement, Rasmussen was prompt to note that “it was his clear intention” to improve ties between NATO and Russia, leading to strategic partnership. “If we succeed in developing strategic partnership between NATO and Russia,” the secretary general said, “then it will also improve Georgia’s security situation.”

Despite a set of almost unbearable punitive measures that Moscow started to impose on Tbilisi ever since Georgia decided to join NATO after the 2003 Rose Revolution, and then the full-scale military invasion in 2008, President Saakashvili’s government shows no signs of succumbing to Russian pressure and abandoning its stubborn pro-Western course. Saakashvili characterized Rasmussen’s visit as “extremely important” and reiterated that the NATO membership remained “a top priority” for the Georgian government. “There is one thing Georgia can never compromise on – that’s the issue of freedom and freedom of choice,” the Georgian president said during his press conference with the NATO secretary general.

Almost simultaneously with Rasmussen’s visit, bad news came for Georgia from war-torn Afghanistan. A roadside bomb killed four Georgian soldiers from a 1,000-strong military contingent fighting alongside the Alliance forces in Afghanistan’s Helmand province. This heavy loss has underlined the magnitude of sacrifice Georgia makes as it advances along a tortuous path toward a Euro-Atlantic integration. Expressing his condolences, Rasmussen added, “I highly appreciate you dedication to our common security, which is a testimony of strong partnership between Georgia and NATO.”

On October 6, there will be yet another test for Georgia, as its delegation, headed by Prime Minister Nika Gilauri and First Deputy Foreign Minister Giorgi Bokeria, will hold several important meetings in Washington with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other top-level U.S. officials within the framework of the U.S.-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership – a document aimed at deepening “friendship and partnership” between the two countries.

Analysts in Tbilisi believe that the atmospherics at the meetings as well as the concrete plans that will be designed for the future will portray how much the United States is dedicated to a secure and democratic Georgia that is fully integrated in Western institutions. As the United States seeks to reset relations with Russia – and now NATO appears to have started just the same – amid fears of the Iranian nuclear program and other outstanding threats such as international terrorism, a level of dedication toward a small country in the European periphery will showcase if Washington is really serious about not sacrificing Georgia for improved relations with Moscow.

Kyrgyzstan’s Free Mass Media Intensifies Political Competition

By Erica Marat

Free and diverse mass media have been playing a key role in election campaigns over the past few weeks. Competing political parties have sought to run ads and announcements in major media outlets. By doing so, they have significantly changed their campaigning methods by trying to send the most effective message to stay on top of the competition for the October 10 parliamentary elections.

As a result, televised debates, print interviews and interactive online discussion have flooded national mass media outlets. This freedom of expression contributes to and increases uncertainty about the outcome of the elections, in which 29 parties will compete.

Although most political parties’ programs are similar and are clustered around one or several personalities, the Kyrgyz public can still learn more about competing forces. Interactive websites like Vibirai.org allow voters to see a detailed comparison of what each political party promises. Kloop blog, on the other hand, details each political party’s electoral list.

In effect, freedom of speech is at its high in Kyrgyzstan. Never before were mass media outlets so free of government pressure and propaganda during the pre-elections period in Kyrgyzstan, let alone the Central Asian region. In such an environment political forces are indivertibly forced to formulate the most effective message. Political parties are also responsible for being different from competitors in order to be included in the news cycles in national media.

The message of avoiding falsification of election results and reducing corruption in the government has become central to most parties’ campaigns. Promoting economic development is another important issue in which political parties seek to be different. Finally, inter-ethnic reconciliation has been slowly, if not reluctantly, adopted by major political parties.

Competing political forces have avoided using black PR as an instrument against opponents. Thanks to growing popularity of social media, politicians are unable to exercise full control over their image. For this reason, most stay away from attacking others in order to avoid retaliation. Using media to attack opponents might end up being a counter-productive strategy, said one Kyrgyz politician to Jamestown. According to him, by criticizing others one might end up boosting the popularity of those politicians and losing one’s own credibility.

In the meantime, some major newspapers have run a disclaimer that their material is financed by political parties in order to separate campaign ads from original reports, a practice that has been rarely exercised in previous elections.

Furthermore, investigate journalism is becoming more popular as well. Newspapers like Delo Nomer are once again turning into the most reliable source of investigative reporting, helping the public understand corruption practices taking place among top officials.

On the flip side, with such an uncontrolled media environment, ethno-nationalists politicians and activists have also found an outlet. In the wake of the June ethnic violence, some Kyrgyz-language newspapers propagated nationalist views. Indeed, if those propagating ethno-nationalism manage to gain seats in parliament, it will be yet another exercise of democracy in Kyrgyzstan.

Russia Intensifying Annexation of Georgian Territories

By David Iberi

On September 29, 2010, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia made a statement accusing the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) troops stationed in the occupied Georgian province of Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia of conducting “illegal ‘border demarcation works,’” which will “further limit free movement in the region for the local population,” including areas adjacent to the line of occupation. The brief statement by the ministry was followed by Georgian media’s own reports claiming that the Russians started to advance deep into Georgian territory that was not previously held by the occupying forces. Some media sources say that the Russians seized “25 hectares” in one Georgian village and “five hectares” and “half a hectare” in two others, leaving some local farmers virtually without land.

A spokesperson for the European Union’s Monitoring Mission to Georgia (EUMM) – the only international body on Georgian soil to monitor the implementation of the 2008 ceasefire agreement between Russian and Georgia – told Civil.ge, Georgia’s online news agency, that the situation in the region was “calm and quiet” and declined to give details “at this stage…as EUMM monitors were currently “looking into the situation.” The EUMM headquarters in Tbilisi has since not made any public comments on the issue.

Representatives of the Russian FSB deployed in the occupied region told the Russian news agency that they are not involved in any demarcation activities on the “border between Georgia and South Ossetia.”

While Russia has put up myriads of obstacles to minimize contact between Georgian citizens on both sides of the occupation line, it has long intensified the process of annexation of the two Georgian territories – Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia and Abkhazia – by improving infrastructure connecting those regions with the Russian Federation. In addition to stationing nearly 10,000 troops in those provinces, almost completely subsidizing the local budgets and directly or indirectly appointing local apparatchiks, building roads, tunnels and bridges across the major Caucasus Ridge has become the important business for the Russian authorities.

On September 27, Gazeta.ru published an interview with Boris Ebzeyev, president of the Russian Republic of Karachay-Cherkessia, who said Russian authorities plan to construct a new road that will link his republic with Abkhazia. According to Ebzeyev, the road will help “Karachay-Cherkessia gain access to the Black Sea via Abkhaz ports… [and] attract more tourists to the region.”

The creation of new infrastructure in the high mountains that separate the North and South Caucasus is apparently part of a Russian military strategy aimed at facilitating faster movement of troops. But no less important are political, social and cultural aspects of those infrastructure projects, since they will further contribute to isolating the occupied provinces from the rest of Georgia and firmly chain them to the Russian territories in the North Caucasus.

Although, arguably, Georgia has limited means at its disposal to counter geostrategic schemes of its nuclear neighbor, it still can take some steps that would raise the international awareness of the situation on the ground and at least slow down Russia’s pace. Georgia should speak more openly on the world stage about Russia’s annexation efforts by making regular reports to the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe, of which both Georgia and Russia are members. Georgia might as well request that the European Union, as the guarantor of the ceasefire between Russia and Georgia, establishes a fact-finding mission to study the compliance of the parties with the provisions of the agreement.

Georgian, Russian Churches at Odds over Sovereignty Issue

By David Iberi

On September 19, 2010, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill I, sent a letter to Eduard Kokoity, a Russian-appointed leader of the occupied Georgian province of Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia. Congratulating Kokoity on the 20th anniversary of the “Republic of South Ossetia,” the Russian patriarch praised “the Russian-Ossetian relations aimed at strengthening the stability in the region and the friendship and cooperation between the peoples of our two countries.”

This highly politicized move angered the Georgian public, government and church leaders alike, especially since the words Kirill used in his message belonged more to a Kremlin or FSB official than to a patriarch of the Christian Church. On September 27, Georgian media reported that Patriarch Ilia II, the head of the Georgian Church, had already sent a letter to his Russian colleague “expressing discontent” over the support given to “the separatist regimes” that caused “an utterly negative reaction” in the Georgian society. The Georgian patriarch’s communication was announced on the day when Georgia marked the 17th anniversary of the fall of Sokhumi to Russian-supported militias in Abkhazia.

Russian authorities and representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church have frequently described religion as something that “unites the Russian and Georgian peoples.” And there still remain a considerable number of people within the Georgian Church that oppose Tbilisi’s pro-Western ties and hope for a restoration of “the old friendship” between Georgia and Russia. The irony is that steps similar to those that Kirill chose to take help reduce the prowess and moral authority of the pro-Russian Georgian clerics and further alienate the majority of the Georgian public.

The Georgian Church already complains that its priests and monks are not allowed by the Russian occupying forces into Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia, where many of the most ancient and revered Georgian churches and monasteries are located, not to mention the displaced people, victims of ethnic cleansing, who are forbidden to even temporarily visit their hometowns and villages or the graves of their relatives.

In an interview that caused quite a stir in Georgia, Andrei Kuraev, a professor at the Russian Patriarchate’s Academy, recently said that “the Georgian Church’s existing problems in its Abkhazia and South Ossetia eparchies could be solved by temporarily allowing the Russian patriarch to chair over those units.” In Kuraev’s words, this voluntary transfer would help “avoid any violation of the common Orthodox laws that includes noninterference into each other’s affairs as one of the most sacrosanct principles.”

Apparently, the Russian patriarchate leaders are contemplating some “legal mechanisms” that would help both avoid a schism with the Georgian Church and at the same time be in line with the Kremlin’s official Georgia policy. Under the incumbent leadership of the Georgian Church, that goal is hardly attainable.

Obama meets with Otunbayeva

By Erica Marat

Kyrgyz president Roza Otunbayeva had a busy schedule during her visit to the U.S. for the Millennium Challenge Goals summit that took place in New York last week. The president held over 60 official meetings, over 30 of which were with heads of states. Among others, she met with U.S. president Barack Obama and German chancellor Angela Merkel. Otunbayeva was the only Central Asian leader to meet with Obama in New York. The meeting took place on September 24.

Obama applauded Otunbayeva’s achievement of restoring democratic institutions in Kyrgyzstan, including allowing freedom of speech, independent mass media, and adopting a new constitution. The U.S. president also noted Otunbayeva’s efforts to end violence in June, adding that more needs to be done to install peace in the region. Obama reiterated that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe must deploy its 52- member Police Advisory Group and an international investigation of the violence must take place. Both leaders also discussed issues of bilateral cooperation, including cooperation on Afghanistan.

Positive U.S. feedback of Otunbayeva’s leadership comes at a time of uncertainty for Kyrgyzstan. The outcome of its upcoming elections is uncertain, competing political parties may still choose to resort to violence to contest elections results. Moreover, some political parties choose to use ethno-nationalist slogans to earn support. Uncensored media helps nationalists spread their own message.

Importantly, however, depending on the election’s outcome, the U.S. Transit Center at Manas airport in Bishkek might once again be challenged by the parliament. Leaders of at least three political parties are aiming to be elected to the prime minister post. Omurbek Tekebayev of Ata Meken, Almazbek Amambayev of the Social Demo Critic Party and Felix Kulov of Ar Namys are serious contenders, each assuming their party is going to receive the most support at the election. None of the three have openly supported cooperation with the United States, instead leaning toward cooperation with Russia. If successful, all three leaders will most likely challenge U.S. presence in the county.

Nonetheless, Otunbayeva’s meeting with the U.S. president was significant. This was the second time a Kyrgyz leader has met with a U.S. president. Former president Askar Akayev met with George W. Bush in 2002. Like Otunbayeva, Akayev scored support from the international community for democratic reform. Later, however, Akayev turned more authoritarian and was ousted by the opposition led by Otunbayeva in March 2005. Kurmanbek Bakiyev, who replaced Akayev, never visited the United States during his 5 years of service. Otunbayeva was the key opposition leader to challenge Bakiyev, who was ousted in April 2010. Many in Kyrgyzstan hope that Obama’s support of Otunbayeva signifies that things in the country are changing for the better this time around.

Georgia’s Focus on Regional Cooperation: Modernization by Example and Engagement

By David Iberi

Despite the Russian invasion in August 2008 and the ongoing occupation of 20 percent of Georgian territory, Tbilisi focuses more on the future than anything else. With Russian occupying forces stationed some 20 miles from the Georgian capital, concentrating on reform and development is not an easy task. But President Mikheil Saakashvili’s pro- Western liberal government thinks that modernization is the only way to counter its present challenges and walk the safest road into the future without sacrificing Georgia’s sovereignty and freedom of choice.

The task is complicated by Russia’s own version of modernization, but Saakashvili argued on Thursday that true modernization is always coupled with political freedom and laissez-faire economy, and is not as much about making more sophisticated weapons as making peace, transforming society and opening up to the world. This was the major topic of his speech before the United Nations General Assembly in New York on September 23, 2010.

“Peace is not only the goal; it is also the means to any goal,” the Georgian president told world leaders in an elaborate manner and, to the surprise of many analysts in Tbilisi, put unusually strong emphasis on the need for cooperation in the Caucasus region. Unlike most of his previous speeches, Saakashvili has now increased the scope of his discussion from talking about modernizing Georgia to transforming the entire Caucasus region. What the Georgian president apparently wanted to show was that Georgia’s “spectacular reforms” in law enforcement, public services, economy and education could serve as an example and point of attraction for all other countries in, and around, the Caucasus, including the Russian Federation. “For too long, [the Caucasus] has suffered from division, injustice, conflict, colonization and violence,” Saakashvili argued. “Today, however, change is possible. In fact, change is already taking place.” He then talked about his vision of a “free, stable and united Caucasus.”

The possibility of Georgia surviving as a nation after the full-scale Russian invasion two years ago was placed under a big question mark by many academics, political scientists and government officials in the region, Russia and the West alike. The fact that it has not only endured but has continued its modernization agenda and development projects has inspired even some in Russia. Georgia’s police reform that changed the Soviet-type corrupt and ineffective organ into a Western institution to service the public has been widely talked about in Russia, where the authorities are contemplating some makeover of the law enforcement.

Prime Minister Nika Gilauri said on September 22 that Georgia’s GDP was 8.4 percent higher in the second quarter than in the same period of time last year. The tourism industry and services have been the primary beneficiary of the economic recovery, as Georgia saw more foreign tourists this year than in the past 19 years of independence. Donald Trump, an American business magnate, told the Georgian president two days ago that he plans to build a Trump Tower in Tbilisi and develop a few other construction projects in Batumi, Georgia’s impressive Black Sea Riviera.

In the concluding part of his UN speech, the Georgian president made three appeals – to the people still living in the depopulated areas of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia, the Russian leadership and the Russian people, and to the international community. Saakashvili told the Russian government to care more about developing the Northern Caucasus, “a region that is exploding,” than about annexing the Georgian territories and he urged his fellow world leaders to help “secure peace in Georgia, but also in the broader region.”

Not only geographically but also historically, Georgia has been central to the Caucasus, and Tbilisi’s emphasis on multilateral energy projects and development could indeed help modernize the region and secure lasting peace there. For this process to succeed in the long run, however, the United States and the West have to play a more active role by engaging with Georgia and the Caucasus more closely and proactively.