More On Abkhazia's Election

Over the last several days, I have had a number of inquiries from observers about current events in Abkhazia. Several asked about what I observed during the election and what it means for stability.

As I mentioned before, I went to several polling stations and all seemed fair and democractic.  I spoke to a number of  election observers over the next several days and did not hear a complaint about the electoral process. I did hear several remarks that Abkhazia is apparently further along the path of democracy than many of the nations that refuse to recognize it.  This is not the only criteria in the recognition process, but it is an important indicator of what Abkhazia has achieved despite enormous difficulties.  Although only a handful of nations now recognize Abkhazia, I heard recently that several are seriously considering the move.

Abkhazia is a stable place.  There is no sense of unrest or political instability.  Russian troops are not patrolling the streets nor are Russian officials manning the organs of government.  It is a calm and peaceful nation working to develop and integrate with the rest of the world, despite all of the misinformation and propaganda spread by political leaders in the Republic of Georgia.  

I hope that foreign policy experts, tourists and investors will not be dissuaded by the misinformation. If they investigate Abkhazia, they will see the same thing I see: a beautiful, underdeveloped, subtropical paradise for tourists just across the border from one of the world's largest markets.  I spoke to several election observers who saw things the same way.

All three of the Presidential candidates, including President-Elect Ankvab, stressed that Abkhazia needs to seek outside investment and political ties.  Although President Bagapsh died, this reality has not changed. 

Georgia, the GOP and the South Ossetia Conflict

Few people in the United States have any idea of how our policy in the Caucasus has been determined.   Of course, many probably are not really aware of the region or its significance.  Last year in the midst of the conflict in South Ossetia, Senator John McCain announced that we "are all Georgians."  It is interesting how he came to that conclusion.  One of McCain's chief advisors during last year's Presidential campaign, Randy Scheunemann, is a specialist in foreign affairs.  He is also a registered foreign agent for the Republic of Georgia.  During the period 2004- 2008 alone, his firms were paid over $2,000,000 to advise and lobby the U.S. Government by and on behalf of Georgia.  He was also paid a reported $70,000 per month by the McCain for President campaign.  Nice work if you can find it.  Mr. Scheunemann is of the neo-conservative  school of thought.  His ideological brethren include Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith.  They tend to see the world in terms of good and evil, have a low tolerance for diplomacy, emphasize unilateral U.S. action and a readiness to use military force. They are some of the same individuals who argued forcefully for the American invasion in Iraq.

Georgia has been one of our government's most reliable military partners in Iraq. While many of our traditional allies refused to participate, Georgia's military contribution has been out of proportion to the size of their nation and their military.  In the meantime, the U.S. has lavished billions of dollars in aid. In the aftermath of the 2008 conflict in South Ossetia, an additional $1 billion package was announced. Much of the money was spent on an increase in the military budget.  In the last decade alone, their military expenditures increased by more than 30 times according to some calculations.  At the same time that Western governments were encouraging South Ossetia and Abkhazia to disarm, they were providing the finances for Georgia to build up its military.  In 2007, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Georgia's rate of growth of military expenditures was the highest in the world.  It is pretty clear where the money came from, but what was the purpose?  Did they need it to defend themselves against impoverished Armenia?  Azerbaijan or Turkey with whom they have good relations?  Or was the point to reintegrate SouthOssetia and Abkhazia through forceful means?  The appearance is that the U.S. gained a partner in a war (Iraq) that most Western governments thought was unnecessary and irrelevant to the terrorist threat.  In return, the U.S. armed Georgia.  Georgia then used their rebuilt military for the attack in South Ossetia.

 I have spoken to many people from all walks of life in Russia and the near universal sentiment is that the U.S. was behind the attack.  It is known that there were US military advisors in Georgia shortly before the invasion. This can not help our image.

The Bush Administration wanted another partner for their ill-advised war in Iraq and got it.  The Georgians were then given money and used it to attack a near defenseless region that wants no part in being reintegrated into the Republic of Georgia.  If Russia gets a black eye in the process, so much the better by neocon reckoning.  It feels to an observer, like me, that the Bush Administration was playing a zero-sum game by proxy.  If it is good for Georgia, it must be bad for Russia.  If it is bad for Russia it must be good for the U.S.  I really dislike this.  I think a powerful, wealthy and stable Russia is in the best interests of the world.  I want to be clear that I bear no hostility towards the Georgian people and hope that they will enjoy stability and prosperity, too.

 We don't know exactly how much was spent on the Georgian military.  There is corruption in Georgia, money disappears and also there have been military expenditures that were disguised as other budgetary items.  So the true figure is probably greater than the 8% of GDP estimated in 2007.  This is in a country that has much poverty, decaying infrastructure and underfunded social and educational programs.  

 The Republic of Georgia has been represented in the Western press as a small, democratic nation victimized by Russia.  But it is not the beacon of democracy that it has been portrayed as.  There are reports of opposition figures marginalized, abused and imprisoned.  The US State Department's 2007 report found serious problems with Georgia's human rights record. And Freedom House has actually downgraded Georgia's human rights record since Mikhail Saakashvili became President.  The "Rose Revolution" in 2003 was supposed to change the corrupt and abusive practices of the government under Edvard Shevardnadze, but it has gotten worse! 

 I always thought that Georgia's President Saakashvili made a really stupid move attacking South Ossetia.  What did he think would happen when South Ossetian civilians and Russian peacekeepers started dying?  Surely he had to know the Russians would respond forcefully to an attack.  However, a friend with ties in South Ossetia explained to me that if Saakashvili  had been able to get the Georgian Army to the Roki Tunnel  (this is the only land route into SouthOssetia from Russia) and cut off access for Russian ground forces, it would have only been possible to dislodge the Georgians with a very lengthy and casualty-heavy bombing campaign.  Given the narrative at the time that Russia was invading Georgia, it may have been difficult for the Russian government to stomach the backlash.

The reintegration of South Ossetia would have been a domestic political triumph for Saakashvili and then he could have turned his attention on Abkhazia.  So he bet it all and lost.  Now South Ossetia is gone and Russia has announced they are spending $500 million for the security of Abkhazia. Even an ethnic Georgian has told me that everyone but the most diehard Georgian nationalists recognizes Abkhazia is gone forever.

 I find it personally distasteful that neocon ideologues like Scheunemann are being paid large sums of money by the Republic of Georgia to  lobby Congress to keep the money spigot turned on for the Saakashvili regime.  Then Georgia turns around and uses the money to attack South Ossetia.  Ossetian civilians and Russian peacekeepers die as a result.  In the meantime, Georgia's President appears in American media and represents his country as the victim of Russian aggression.  This is dishonest and immoral.  I would think a neocon lobbyist with close ties to Georgia would have a hard time sleeping. The conflict caused hundreds of deaths and thousands of refugees have been left homeless.  Even if the Bush Administration was not directly involved in the planning of the attack, who can doubt that Georgia would have done this without significant American aid?