Response to Jamestown

This is written in response to a recent article by the Jamestown Foundation (http://jamestownfoundation.blogspot.com/) on Georgia and the issues surrounding the potential recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia by Belarus.  I would like to respond directly to points raised in the article.

There is much for me to take issue with.  The first thing that jumps out at a reader with a knowledge of the region is this statement: "The puppet regimes established by Moscow in Abkhazia and Tskhinvali...." 

Where is the evidence these are puppet regimes? Are we supposed to assume this is true simply because you say so?  Has the writer been to Abkhazia or South Ossetia?   I have spent considerable time in Abkhazia and their elections are certainly more transparent and fair than anything that has ever happened in Georgia.  I see no evidence that these are puppet states.  They have their own democratic institutions and make their own decisions regarding the development and leadership of their country.  In fact, the candidate that most observers thought the Kremlin favored did not win the last Presidential election held there.  There are no political prisoners in Abkhazia, as opposed to Georgia.  Georgia's human rights record has actually declined, according to Freedom House, since President Saakashvili took power in the most recent revolution in Georgia. Abkhazia has its own democratically elected government.  However, because of undue influence by the Georgian lobby on the U.S. Government, it is not widely recognized.  Abkhazian citizens must use Russian codes for their telephones to communicate, there are no working ATM machines in the country and it is impossible to get a license even to show films because of Georgia's pressure.   So, both countries live in poverty and relative isolation because Georgia wishes them to fail as states.  Abkhazia and South Ossetia now receive aid and protection from Russia because of the Georgian military threat. Recognition by other nations would reduce their dependence upon Russia and bring in investment capital and redevelopment money from outside institutions.  Since Russia is eager for this, it seems obvious their motives are not as dark as you assume.

Next your article states in relation to Belarus:  " Even more importantly it has been in alliance with Russia as a constituent state of the Russia-Belarus Union – and feels obligated to support its powerful ally. "

If Belarus is so tightly inclined to follow Moscow's lead, why have their relations suffered so much recently? Belarus is hardly tied to the hip with Russia. Witness the recent rows over dairy products and natural gas. Belarus has issues related to credibility and its democratic institutions, but clearly sets its own course.  One might even argue that Belarus is in a position of leverage with both the E.U. and Russia over the issue.

And on recognition of the two nations:  "It is no secret that by recognizing “the independence” of the Georgian provinces of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali one in fact recognizes not their independence per se but Russia’s hegemony in the post-Soviet space and the emergence of its sphere of influence."

This is hardly clear. In fact, I would argue the exact opposite.  If other nations recognize the independence and sovereignty of the two nations, both can move more quickly to develop and chart their own futures.  But, if recognition is not forthcoming, it will push South Ossetia and Abkhazia closer to Moscow for the reasons outlined above.  If Moscow wanted to dominate the new nations, a course of inaction would be in Russia's interest.

The default media narrative on Russia is negative.  That is an easy one to sell.   The truth is far more complicated.  Russia clearly has interests in what happens on its borders, just as the United States does on hers.   There are large numbers of Caucasian nationalities, including more than a million Georgians in Russia and many millions of Russians in all of the nations of the former Soviet Union.

But the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia will free them to develop independently. 

I do agree that every time a nation recognizes South Ossetia and Abkhazia, it will be seen as a blow by the Republic of Georgia.   But it scarcely matters in the long run.  Only a military assault by Georgia, which would almost certainly be futile, will reintegrate South Ossetia and Abkhazia.   Both nations would resist this fiercely and Russia has militarily guaranteed their borders.  I hope there is no Georgian attack.  There would be Further carnage and it would be the result of irresponsible Georgian leadership.  Georgians should be asking why so much of their budget and time is being wasted on such a quixotic enterprise.  Both nations are de facto independent and will remain as such.

Finally, as an American citizen, I am saddened that American aid was used by Georgia to arm itself and to attack South Ossetia.   Georgia contributed troops disproportionately to the war in Iraq.   In return, the U.S. lavished billions in aid on Georgia.  Some was used to lobby the U.S. government to keep the tap turned on. Much of it went to increasing military expenditures nearly 30 times   Without American aid, Georgia would not have been able to increase its military spending at the fastest rate in the world in 2008 and subsequently attack South Ossetia.   This attack was primarily a humanitarian catastrophe and not a question of "Georgian territorial integrity".   The lives of the Russian peacekeepers and soldiers, Ossetian civilians and Georgian soldiers are forever forfeit to unprincipled political ambition.

Abkhazia has survived long periods with its borders closed and without aid or, at times, electricity.  Clearly this is population that is willing to sacrifice for its freedom.   On the other hand, without American aid, Georgia would likely be seen as a failed state.

Andy Garcia and Renny Harlin Film on the South Ossetia Conflict

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

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

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

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

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

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

November Trip to Abkhazia

I always feel like I learn quite a bit when I am in Abkhazia.  I spent time with officials of the government and was struck by several things.  One is that  when leaders met members of the political opposition, everyone greeted each other in a warm and friendly fashion.  Abkhazia is a small country and most of those who are in positions of authority know each other.  But it is clear that while they may disagree, they don't view each other as enemies.

I was also noticed how quiet Sukhom is at night after the tourist season.  It is a small city, but the economic situation prevents most people from socializing in clubs and restaurants.  I think that is going to change because of several reasons.  One is that I really believe in the tremendous potential of Abkhazia to develop into a major tourist destination.  There has been a more than 10 fold increase in tourism between 2003 and 2009.  In 2003 there were about 350,000 tourists.  This year the number was closer to 4,000,000. And you can see the signs of change in a lot of places.  There are a number of new construction projects in Sukhom and other parts of the country.  The mayor of Moscow was in Sukhom the week before me and the Moscow City government is building a center near the sea that will house both shopping space and offices.  There is plenty more happening, too.  I saw a number of projects that have begun to redevelop buildings or to build new projects.  Several foreign groups are looking at large scale tourism and commercial projects.  None of this is surprising considering the proximity to Russia and the Olympics in Russia, the mild climate and the spectacular beauty of Abkhazia.s beaches and mountains.

I heard a lot of opinions about this.  Most people believe that things are going to change and that the change will be for the better.  However, I did hear at least one person express reservations about economic development.  She feared the change from the quiet  lifestyle.  However, I think in her case it is simply the fear of the unknown.  Abkhazia endured years of isolation and limited electric services.  There was little tourism and not much money.  Now things are better, but even modestly priced cafes are out of the reach of most citizens.  Others spoke about increased home values, more and better products available to consumers and more and better paying jobs.

I think the areas that will experience redevelopment and growth the most quickly are Gagra and the beach areas between there and the Russian border, Pitsunda, Novy Afon, central Sukhom and its port and the airport just south of Sukhom.

There are a lot more cars in Abkhazia than there were on my first visit in 2006.   Still when crossing  the border into Russia at Adler, the massive construction projects and traffic are overwhelming.

Summer Gagra

Sukhum

It is cool and rainy today in Sukhum, Abkhazia. I am on my way to the Interior Ministry to take care of some visa-related business. Then I am going to do an interview, which will be posted later.

My plan is to cross the border with Russia later this afternoon.

Sukhum has been very, very quiet in the evenings.

Of course, there are not many tourists here since it is past the season. But, despite considerable economic growth in the last several years, most people just don't have a lot of money to be spending in cafes, bars and restaurants. That is going to change very soon in my estimation because there should be a huge increase in tourism.

Sukhum has a number of attractive buildings in the center and there has been some reconstruction from war damage and disuse. Unfortunately, for many years this place has been in abject poverty because of the lack of international recognition. You can see that things are changing, though. There are many Russians coming and looking at opportunities. The Mayor of Moscow was here a week ago and the Moscow City Government is erecting a building in central Sukhom near the waterfront. It will house shops and offices.

The increase in tourism in 2009 over 2008 has been estimated at 100%. I think that trend should continue for some time. If the airport reopens, that will provide a real boost.

I have photos posted at Flickr.