Georgia's Nato ambitions irk Russia

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/05/200951011634523278.html

By Matthew Collin in Tbilisi, Georgia


The start of nearly a month of Nato military exercises in Georgia has provoked anger in Russia less than a year after Moscow and Tbilisi found themselves at war.

The former Soviet republic still covets membership of the military alliance which it sees as pivotal to its future security and independence.


Men in camouflage uniforms huddle around computers inside the command centre at Vaziani army base in eastern Georgia, getting ready for the start of the Nato military exercises.

While they work to install the communications systems, a commander at the base, Major Giorgi Kalandadze, welcomed Nato's presence as a show of support for Georgia after its defeat in the war with Russia in August last year.

But as he was speaking to Al Jazeera, a mutiny was allegedly being planned just a few kilometres away at another Georgian army base in Mukhrovani.

The day before troops arrived on May 6 to prepare for the exercises, senior officers at Mukhrovani tried to stage an uprising in order to disrupt the high-profile Nato exercises, the authorities say.

The mutiny also coincided with opposition protests in the capital, Tbilisi, raising fears of wider destabilisation.

The alleged plotters quickly surrendered without shots being fired after the authorities sent in tanks, armoured vehicles, helicopters and truckloads of soldiers.

Although the Nato exercises were not affected, President Mikheil Saakashvili admitted that the incident caused "damage" to his country's reputation.

The exercises are based around a fictitious crisis-response scenario, and involve around 1,000 soldiers from more than a dozen alliance countries and partner states.

Exercises 'dangerous'

They were planned more than a year ago, but neighbouring Russia has condemned them as "dangerous" and "provocative", despite the fact that Moscow was invited to participate.

Russia's envoy to Nato, Dmitry Rogozin, said the Western military alliance would be better off holding the exercises in a "madhouse" than in a country where soldiers were "rioting against their own president".

Georgia is keen to win Nato membership, but the Kremlin does not want the alliance to extend its reach further into the former Soviet Union, which it sees as its own 'sphere of influence'.

Although the Russian leadership regards increased Nato presence on its borders as a threat, Saakashvili's government insists that Moscow cannot dictate Georgia's foreign policy.

"The era of 'spheres of influence' is over; it was over with the fall of the Iron Curtain," Giorgi Kandelaki, the deputy chairman of the Georgian parliament's foreign affairs committee, said.

Kandelaki pointed out that more than 70 per cent of Georgians who voted in a plebiscite last year said they wanted their country to join Nato.

"We have the right to choose our own destiny and our own political system but, unfortunately, Russia regards democracy on its border as a threat," he said.

Many Georgians see Nato membership as a guarantee of security amid the country's long-running disputes with its former Soviet masters in Moscow.

"From a strictly military point of view, Georgia would be much safer and its independence and sovereignty would be protected," Tamriko, an unemployed doctor in Tbilisi, said.

"I think what happened last August wouldn't have happened if Georgia was a member of Nato, because the principle of protecting member countries against invasion would have been used," said Keti, a student in the capital.

Peacekeeping missions

"...at one point in 2008, this small, impoverished state was the third-largest contributor of troops to the US-led mission in Iraq"

In an attempt to show that it is a reliable military partner, Georgia has sent soldiers to join peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan and Kosovo, and at one point in 2008, this small, impoverished state was the third-largest contributor of troops to the US-led mission in Iraq.

Many Georgians were disappointed when Nato decided not to grant their country a 'membership action plan' in April last year, although the alliance stated that Georgia would be allowed to join at some unspecified time in the future.

The country's ambitions were further damaged by the disastrous war, when the Russian army pushed deep into Georgia and destroyed a lot of its military infrastructure.

Just 70km from Vaziani, where the Nato exercises are taking place, Russian troops are still holding positions which they occupied during the conflict, and Moscow has called for a weapons embargo on Georgia to prevent the country from rebuilding its armed forces.

But according to Colonel Nugzar Tsintsadze, the exercises prove that the Georgian army is still functioning despite what he described as last year's "tragedy".

"I want to say to the people who think the Georgian army collapsed after the war: the Georgian army exists and will continue to exist, and can carry out its obligations," he declared.

Freeze on contacts

The five-day clash between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia put a freeze on contacts between Nato and Moscow.

The relationship had started to thaw recently, with Nato needing Moscow's assistance for the alliance's mission in Afghanistan, but it was strained yet again by the refusal to cancel the exercises in Georgia and the expulsion of two Russian diplomats from Nato over espionage allegations.

Despite Moscow's objections, Nato has stressed that its "door remains open" to Georgia.

But Giorgi Khutsishvili, a political analyst at the International Centre on Conflict and Negotiation in Tbilisi, says that since the war, Georgian hopes of rapid accession to membership of the alliance have faded.

The fighting undermined hopes that a peaceful solution could be found to the bitter conflicts over the Russian-backed rebel regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which Moscow has recognised as independent states but Georgia regards as its sovereign territory.

"Georgia had to show that it was acting dynamically in the peace process and developing dialogue to make the situation more stable, but now this is unachievable," Khutsishvili said.

Russian bases

Thousands of Russian troops have been permanently stationed in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Moscow is also building military bases there, and recently deployed Russian border guards to police the ceasefire lines, meaning that any outbreak of shooting could lead to renewed military confrontation.

"Because Russia is building up its military presence in the conflict areas, it means the situation will remain unstable and even explosive for years, because Georgia will never accept this military presence which it regards as occupation," Khutsishvili suggested.

"It all makes for a situation where Georgian accession to Nato membership is a very distant prospect, unless the geo-political situation changes dramatically."
Source: Al Jazeera

Georgians Want Saakashvili to Stay in Power

Georgians Want Saakashvili to Stay in Power
May 13, 2009

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/33426/georgians_want_saakashvili_to_stay_in_power

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Most people in Georgia reject calls by some opposition politicians for president Mikhail Saakashvili to step down, according to a poll by the Institute of Polling and Marketing, Baltic Surveys, Gallup, and the International Republican Institute. Only 28 per cent of respondents agree with the notion that the president should resign.

Conversely, 51 per cent of respondents agree with Saakashvili’s calls for "unity and patience" to face serious challenges.

Georgia was the site of political instability in the last weeks of 2003, after the Georgian Supreme Court partially annulled the results of a parliamentary election. The ensuing crisis led to the resignation of Georgian president Eduard Shevardnadze after opposition politicians requested his dismissal over electoral fraud. The country chose former justice minister Mikhail Saakashvili as the new head of state in January 2004.

In November 2007, thousands of people staged a protest in front of Georgia’s Parliament building to demand Saakashvili’s resignation and an early presidential election. After a harsh confrontation between riot police and demonstrators, Saakashvili declared a temporary national state of emergency. He later scheduled an early presidential ballot for January 2008, which he won with 53.47 per cent of all cast ballots.

According to international regulations, South Ossetia and Abkhazia belong to Georgia—a former Soviet republic. In the early 1990s, both pro-Russian regions became de facto independent but failed to be fully recognized as sovereign nations. Separatist factions operate in both regions.

In August 2008, a military conflict broke out between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where many Russian citizens live. On Aug. 8, Georgian forces entered South Ossetia to assert sovereignty over the region, and Russia responded with a full military operation that saw Russian soldiers take control of Georgian territory beyond South Ossetia. A ceasefire was later brokered by the European Union (EU). On Aug. 26, the Russian government officially recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Last month, opposition leaders organized a series of public protests asking Saakashvili to step down. They accused the president of mishandling the situation with Russia and governing in an increasingly autocratic way.

By the end of April, residents of the streets where the protests were being held were demanding the organizers to stop them due to constant disruptions to traffic and daily activities. On Apr. 24, opposition leader Levan Gachechiladze declared: "I want to tell local residents to show patience. It is much better to endure the problem of roadblocks than the problem of Saakashvili."

POLLING DATA

Which statement comes closer to your own point of view?

President Saakashvili: Georgia needs unity and patience to overcome serious challenges ahead

51%

Some opposition leaders: President Saakashvili should resign

28%

Both

7%

Neither

6%

Not sure

8%

Source: Institute of Polling and Marketing / Baltic Surveys/Gallup / International Republican Institute
Methodology: Interviews with 1,500 Georgian adults, conducted from Feb. 21 to Mar. 3, 2009. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

Military Parade In Doubt

Georgian Protests Putting Military Parade In Doubt -Officials

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200905131050dowjonesdjonline000696&title=georgian-protests-putting-military-parade-in-doubtofficials

TBILISI, Georgia (AFP)--Georgia will cancel its annual Independence Day military parade if it is liable to lead to clashes with opposition protesters, officials said Wednesday.

Opposition leaders said Tuesday they would march through central Tbilisi on May 26, when the former Soviet republic traditionally holds a parade featuring thousands of soldiers and military hardware.

Tbilisi Mayor Gigi Ugulava said the planned opposition march was a " provocation" aimed at trying to force the government to take action against protesters.

"Our response is calmness, patience, patience and more patience," he told journalists in remarks shown on Georgian television.

"If there are not the appropriate conditions, then obviously the parade and other celebrations will not be held."

Georgia's opposition has been protesting for more than a month to demand President Mikheil Saakashvili's resignation. Talks Monday failed to resolve differences.

At the same time Saakashvili is under pressure from Western nations not to repeat a crackdown on opposition protests that occurred in November 2007.

Parliament speaker David Bakradze said the parade wasn't as important as maintaining calm.

"The main responsibility of the government is not to hold a parade but to keep civil calm and peace in the country," he told journalists.

"It is very unfortunate that part of the radical opposition is using May 26 as a chance for a provocation rather than the day that Georgia's independence should be celebrated by all Georgians regardless of political differences," he said.

The opposition accuses Saakashvili of mishandling the war with Russia and of becoming increasingly autocratic since he came to power after the peaceful 2003 Rose Revolution.

Putin Says NATO Exercises in Georgia Hinder U.S.-Russia Relations

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/europe/11russia.html?ref=europe


By ELLEN BARRY
Published: May 10, 2009

MOSCOW — Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin said Sunday that the planned “reset” in relations between Russia and the United States had been hampered by NATO exercises in Georgia, and that he hoped the United States would “step on the brake hard” to prevent the relationship from deteriorating.
Skip to next paragraph
Grigory Dukor/Reuters

Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin spoke about the planned “reset” in relations, saying it was a United States initiative.

In an interview with Japanese news services before a visit to Tokyo, Mr. Putin also said negotiations on strategic nuclear weapons should be linked to changes in the United States’ planned missile-defense system. Russia has long complained that proposed missile-defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic would pose a threat to Russia, and Mr. Putin said offensive and defensive capacities were “inseparably bound up.”

“I don’t think you have to be an expert to see that if one side wants to or has an umbrella against various threats, it can begin to suffer from the illusion that it is permissible to do whatever it likes, and then its actions will become many times more aggressive and the threat of a global confrontation will reach a danger level,” he said.

“Russia will, of course, link the issues of missile defense and everything related to it with strategic offensive weapons,” he said. He went on to say that Russia was encouraged by the United States’ disarmament agenda and was ready to begin talks about replacing the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or Start, which expires in December.

Mr. Putin emphasized that the “reset,” a term used by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., was a United States initiative rather than a Russian one. He said that Russia welcomed the overture, but that the military exercises in Georgia that began last week were “a signal in a different direction” and a show of support for President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia. He went on to characterize Mr. Saakashvili’s government as undemocratic, citing a clash between the police and protesters and a brief military mutiny in Georgia last week.

“We believe this is a step backward,” he said of the exercises, run by NATO’s Partnership for Peace program, which includes nations that are not members of the alliance. “But we understand that it takes time for brakes to take effect. We very much hope that the current U.S. leadership will step on the brake hard and slow down the negative trends in the development of links between our states.”

He also said he and President Dmitri A. Medvedev had not yet decided which posts they would seek when Mr. Medvedev’s term expires in 2012. Mr. Putin was constitutionally barred from seeking a third consecutive presidential term last year but could run again in 2012. He said the decision would center on their handling of the financial crisis.

“Both President Medvedev and I will decide what we will do — both he and I — depending on the results of our work,” he said. “As for him personally, you should ask him, but I repeat, I have known him for a long time and I know that he is a very decent man and he will look at his political future proceeding from the interest of the country and the results of our joint efforts. Time will tell.”

Georgia's political stalemate could end in violence

Georgia's political stalemate could end in violence
Mon May 11, 2009 1:59pm BST
http://uk.reuters.com/article/gc07/idUKTRE54A2GA20090511

By Matt Robinson -Analysis

TBILISI (Reuters) - The risk of violence is rising in Georgia after a month of political deadlock between a president determined to cling to power and an opposition which lacks the numbers and unity to unseat him.

President Mikheil Saakashvili, re-elected in January 2008 amid opposition allegations of fraud, has so far resisted demands to quit over his record on democracy and last year's disastrous war with Russia.

The United States and Russia, each for its own strategic reasons, are watching out for instability in the potentially volatile region. Georgia is a major conduit for the transit of Caspian gas and oil to Western markets.

Violence has already flared once at an evening protest in Tbilisi and analysts say Saakashvili must address opposition grievances if the political stalemate is to end peacefully, without mass unrest or a heavy police crackdown.

"The dilemma of this situation is that, on the one hand it is a continued and serious challenge that cannot be ignored," said Svante Cornell, research director at the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute.

"But on the other hand, it's not a challenge of the magnitude that would risk unseating the government, and therefore you have deadlock."

A brief, bloodless mutiny at a tank base last week also cast doubt over the loyalty of the military.

more...http://uk.reuters.com/article/gc07/idUKTRE54A2GA20090511

Dynamic Tbilisi, Surviving and Then Some

http://travel.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/travel/10next.html

By LIONEL BEEHNER
Published: May 10, 2009

IN a smoky, red-brick basement tucked beneath Tbilisi’s Old Town, a roomful of men in military fatigues sounded jubilant. Leaning over long tables of half-eaten sulguni cheese, they clinked their wineglasses and toasted to “Georgia!” and “Victory!”

The warbling voices of a band of Ossetian folk musicians in peasant-style black robes could be heard in an adjacent room, their songs striking a similarly triumphant theme.

To strangers, such a rah-rah mood might seem odd. This was, after all, Georgia, which just six months earlier had fought a costly war with Russia, losing two prized territories, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

But this speck of Caucasian turf has survived through centuries of invasions — by Mongols, Persians, Turks and Russians — while keeping its unique language, culture and cuisine intact, something that gives its four million citizens great pride. That may explain why Georgians greet one another with “Victory to you.”

And their capital stands as a monument to this nationwide braggadocio. Spectacularly frenetic and stylishly gritty, Tbilisi was left essentially untouched by the recent war, and it’s easy to see why. Built along the steep banks of the Kura River (also called the Mtkvari), the city is encircled by snowcapped mountains, and has narrow cobblestone streets barely wide enough for a Mini Cooper to squeeze through.

more...http://travel.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/travel/10next.html

Georgia Needs A Different Path To Democracy

http://www.rferl.org/content/Georgia_Needs_A_Different_Path_To_Democracy/1623301.html


Commentary
Georgia Needs A Different Path To Democracy

The opposition was unable to maintain the initial numbers of demonstrators in Tbilisi after the first few days.
May 07, 2009
By Lincoln Mitchell, Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff
As bipartisan supporters of the Republic of Georgia's aspirations to become a fully functioning, Western-oriented democracy, we have followed with dismay the increasingly unproductive "dialogue" attendant to demonstrations against the current regime that began on April 9.

Both sides --- government and opposition --- bear responsibility for the resulting rhetorical and political stalemate, which if left unresolved could escalate into violence or instability. We urge an alternative course, one that requires both sides to offer something to the other and to acknowledge that neither side has all the answers.

The Georgian government must recognize that the demonstrations, regardless of their size, are a legitimate expression of a significant popular discontent. All is not well in Georgia. To assert otherwise or to continue using overheated rhetoric asserting that all those in the opposition are Russian operatives undermines the government's domestic and international credibility.

This is not to discount the real challenges Georgia's aggressive northern neighbor poses, but playing the Russia card at every turn has become a tired and ineffective diversion from the path of democratic dialogue and development.

The government must also resist the temptation to condescend toward the opposition. Elements of the opposition may be feckless and disorganized, but they deserve a measure of respect as representatives of alternative points of view. Using terms such as "reasonable opposition" to undermine the legitimacy of opposition groups conveys a not-so-subtle message that the government has taken upon itself the right to control or shape the opposition.

Similarly, the opposition must recognize that it made a serious error in focusing its entire efforts on securing President Mikheil Saakashvili's early resignation instead of confining its demands to more realistic, constructive, and credible goals. Saakashvili won his most recent popular mandate in a contested election that international observers agree generally reflected the popular will, despite significant flaws. Forcing an early resignation solely through demonstrations and civil disobedience is both extra-constitutional and undemocratic.

Moreover, we are concerned that this kind of all-or-nothing rhetoric is conditioning the Georgian electorate to believe that demonstrations and civil disobedience, rather than voting, are the only reliable means of securing political change. Stable democracies do not, and cannot, function in this way.

Instead, we propose the following:

First, the opposition must recognize that it has a right --- indeed, an obligation --- to oppose the government, but not to destroy the state and its leaders. It should withdraw its demands for Saakashvili's resignation and instead focus on specific, credible, and achievable demands for changes to Georgia's constitution and democratic processes.

These might include revising the composition of the Central Election Commission, direct election of big-city mayors, early parliamentary elections, replacing some members of the government, and reforms to reduce the government's use of "administrative resources" to hinder the opposition and support pro-government candidates in future elections. True, the opposition has been demanding such changes without success for the past two years, but in recent weeks the Georgian authorities have hinted they are now willing to address at least some of them.

Second, the government should be ready to discuss real changes to Georgia's constitution and democratic processes with the opposition and a broad array of stakeholders, including members of civil society, the Georgian Orthodox Church, and the business community. The government must make a significant gesture demonstrating its commitment to reform; at this moment, actions will speak much louder than words.

On a larger scale, the government must be willing to create and sustain a political environment in which opponents of the regime can function and organize. Ironically, the current government's leaders benefited from just such an environment under former President Eduard Shevardnadze.

Finally, for the sake of Georgia's continued political and social development, and its international reputation, both the government and the opposition need to commit themselves to the kind of normal political dialogue that characterizes a functioning, stable democracy. Losing a hard-fought election is not the end of the world, nor is it an excuse to abandon democratic processes and debate. Instead, losing should be a catalyst for reflection and a call to organization leading to victory in future elections.

In a real democracy, winners must be willing to lose, so they might be winners again. Similarly, winning an election doesn't mean that you have "won the argument" for all time. It means, rather, that the voters have given you the privilege of governing for a relatively short period of time before you must again seek a renewed mandate. Let us hope that Georgians as Georgians, not as members of either the opposition or government, will seize this moment in history to begin a new chapter in the political development of their country.

Lincoln A. Mitchell, an assistant professor of international politics at Columbia University, served as chief of party for the National Democratic Institute in Georgia in 2002-04 and is the author of "Uncertain Democracy: U.S. Foreign Policy and Georgia's Rose Revolution" (2009, University of Pennsylvania Press). Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff, an investor and consultant, served as a short-term consultant in tax administration in Georgia. The views expressed in this commentary are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL