NOTE: This is an informational compilation. GMF does not endorse, either explicitly or implicitly, the content contained herein.

NEWS

US navy ship steams into port where Russian troops stationed
The Times (UK), James Hider, 5 Sep 2008

Summary: “A US navy flagship has steamed into a Georgian port where Russian troops are still stationed, stoking tensions once again in the tinderbox Caucasus region. A previous trip by American warships was cancelled at the last minute a week ago amid fears that an armed stand off could erupt in the Black Sea port of Poti.”

Cheney Vows Support for Georgia, Condemns Russian Military Moves

Washington Post (U.S.), Tara Bahrampour, 5 Sep 2008

Summary: “Vice President Cheney, visiting here Thursday, pledged continued U.S. support for Georgia and said the Kremlin’s military actions in the country last month had”cast grave doubt on Russia’s intentions and on its reliability as an international partner.”

Defiant Cheney vows Georgia will join Nato

The Guardian (UK), Julian Borger and Luke Harding, 5 Sep 2008

Summary: “The US vice-president, Dick Cheney, yesterday issued a direct challenge to Moscow’s sway over Georgia, pledging Washington’s support for its eventual membership of Nato, while denouncing Russia’s”illegitimate” invasion.”Georgia will be in our alliance,” Cheney said after talks with President Mikheil Saakashvili.”

Yushchenko stands firm on foreign policy

Financial Times (UK), Roman Olearchyk, 4 Sep 2008

Summary: “Ukraine will push ahead with efforts to join the European Union and Nato military alliance despite Wednesday’s collapse of Kiev’s pro-western coalition, President Viktor Yushchenko said on Thursday €¦Ukraine’s latest political crisis erupted on Wednesday after Ms Tymoshenko’s camp sided with the communists and the pro-Moscow bloc of ex-premier Victor Yanukovich in a move to curtail the president’s powers.”

Russia’s Oligarchs May Face a Georgian Chill

New York Times (U.S.), Landon Thomas Jr., 4 Sep 2008

Summary: “As Russia’s hot war with Georgia threatens to become a colder, drawn-out conflict with the West, the global ambitions of some of its politically connected, controversial billionaires could suffer a setback.”

Britain values unity in Nato over Georgia

The Times (UK), Francis Elliott, 5 Sep 2008

Summary: “Gordon Brown believes that Britain should remain an “honest broker” in negotiations over Georgia’s membership of Nato, despite increasing pressure from the US for the country to join the alliance. Mr Brown refuses to match American rhetoric over Tbilisi’s efforts to win Membership Action Plan (MAP) status – the first step towards membership. He believes that forcing a split within Nato would be counter-productive.”

Cheney Slams Russia Over War

The St. Petersburg Times (RUS), Steve Gutterman, 5 Sep 2008

Summary: Demonstrating Washington’s support for war-ravaged Georgia, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney condemned Russia for what he called an “illegitimate, unilateral attempt” to redraw this U.S. ally’s borders by force.

Moscow forced to shore up rouble

Financial Times (UK), Charles Clover and Peter Garnham, 4 Sep 2008

Summary: “Russia’s central bank intervened heavily to support the rouble on Thursday as analysts said $21bn of foreign capital might have been pulled out of the country as Moscow paid the price for its conflict with Georgia €¦The rouble sell off is a sign that in spite of the stabilisation of the conflict in Georgia, and the absence of tough sanctions on Russia, investors still perceive political risk.”

BP Concedes to Russian Partners

Washington Post (U.S.), Philip P. Pan, 5 Sep 2008

Summary: “The British energy giant BP and its billionaire partners in Russia’s third-largest oil company said Thursday that they had resolved an ugly, high-profile battle for corporate control that had become a test of Moscow’s openness to foreign investment. BP gave in to demands by its partners in Russia to replace the joint venture’s American chief executive, Robert Dudley, after refusing to do so for months.”

Recognition a Lonely Exercise for Moscow
The Moscow Times (RUS), Nabi Abdullaev, 5 Sep 2008

Summary: Ten days after Russia recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states, the only other country to have followed suit as of Thursday was that Cold War battlefield of the 1980s: Nicaragua.

Enemy for Short While

Kommersant (RUS), 5 Sep 2008

Summary: Most of the Russians don’t believe that relations with the West will materially worsen in the wake of the operation on forcing Georgia to peace. At the same time, the common views are that Russia should closely cooperate with the nations that don’t share the standing of the West, signaled the recent polls held by All-Russia’s Center for Public Opinion Studies. The anti-West sentiment is especially strong in Moscow, St. Petersburg and Siberia.

The Soft Power Gets Scappier

Transitions Online, Balint Szlanko, 4 Sep 2008

Summary: “Western Europeans are no longer so skeptical when Easterners fret about Russia €¦the EU’s reaction, agreed at a special summit of its leaders, may amount to a bit more than we were led to expect. For one thing, there was a special summit. That happens very rarely; the last one was in 2003 on the eve of the Iraq war. That in itself shows that Europe, as a whole, takes the matter seriously, something that hadn’t always been clear.”

COMMENTARY

Moscow’s Last Resort

Russian Profile (RUS), Dmitry Babich, 4 Sep 2008

Summary: As international criticism of Russia’s actions in the Caucasus mounts, the summit of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) will play the role of the “last bulwark” for Moscow in terms of gaining at least some international support for its moves against the Georgian government.

Tyranny of the red lines

The Guardian (UK), Editorial, 5 Sep 2008

Summary: “Does power still come out of the barrel of a gun, or, for that matter, out of the nozzle of a petrol pump, in the 21st century? That is the question raised by Russia’s actions in Georgia and elsewhere in Europe in recent months. The short answer is yes, but the long answer is likely to be no. The end of Russia’s era of energy affluence is already in sight, and the limitations of its still ramshackle military forces are obvious. The leverage given to it by oil, gas, and such military strength as it possesses must inevitably diminish over the coming years.”

Caspian energy security

Today’s Zaman (Turkey), Beat, Maria, 4 Sep 2008

Summary: Polemics and heated debate in the aftermath of the war in Georgia set the Caspian oil and natural gas to become an issue of secondary importance however, the crisis is likely to deliver a crushing blow to the long-cherished US and EU plans to establish a secure southern oil and gas export corridor as an alternative to Russia’s energy deliveries from the Caspian region to the international markets. The ongoing confrontation greatly damages Georgia’s image as a safe transit channel for commodities and energy resources.

Turkey can’t turn its back on Russia

Turkish Daily News (Turkey), Birand, Mehmet Ali, 3 Sep 2008

Summary: Turkey cannot afford to renounce Georgia any more than it can afford to turn its back on Russia. Ankara is left with a confusing political dilemma

POLICY INSTITUTE ANALYSIS

Georgia’s Lessons for Taiwan

Brookings Institution (U.S.), Jeffrey A. Bader and Douglas Paal, Sep 2008

Summary: “The Russian attack on Georgia sent ripples of alarm through Europe and the United States. Irrespective of arguments over who started the conflict and who is responsible, the West got the message: Russia expects to dominate the states of the former Soviet Union, and we can expect years of jockeying for influence in those states, with attendant tensions.”

A Resolute Strategy on Georgia

Center for Strategic and International Studies (U.S.), Robert E. Hamilton, 4 Sep 2008

Summary: “As Russia’s occupation of Georgia drags on, it has become increasingly attractive to some analysts to blame Georgia for the conflict, to assert that continued U.S. security assistance to Georgia risks an irreparable fracture in the U.S.-Russia relationship that would threaten progress on issues of greater importance, and to maintain that in any case, the Russian attack has proven that Georgia is militarily indefensible. These analysts go on to conclude that continued U.S. and European military assistance to Georgia could easily be undone by Russia whenever it chooses and hence aid should be limited to humanitarian and economic reconstruction projects. However, such a strategy risks encouraging Russian leaders to continue their occupation of Georgia, undertake further military intimidation of its neighbors, and challenge the United States and its NATO allies more directly.”

Copyright 2008, The German Marshall Fund of the United States. All rights reserved.

Share/Bookmark

As I crossed the border from Turkey to Georgia, the border agent checking my U.S. passport smiled, gave me an American-style thumbs up, and said in broken English,”United States good, John McCain good.” This was in April, only two weeks, after Georgia received disappointing news at the NATO Summit in Bucharest that a Membership Action Plan (MAP) would be postponed. Yet Georgia’s efforts to tie itself to the West had not been lost even on that young border agent.

However, the culture, beauty, and charm of Georgia’scapital city, Tbilisi, located in the foothills of the Caucasus Mountains, has been masked of late by the escalation of violence in its separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia to the northwest, ethnic conflicts that erupted following the collapse of the Soviet Union. A fragile democracy, Georgia continues to be crippled by its so-called “frozen conflicts.” Still considered part of Georgia, but under the influence of Russia, this patch of land has become a new frontier of delicate relations between Russia and the West. Two months ago, the tension between Georgia and Russia flared dramatically when Russia shot down a Georgian reconnaissance drone. Russia accused Georgia of violating the UN ceasefire agreement by flying an unmanned aircraft over Abkhazia. Diplomatic intervention by Europe and the United States quieted the disagreement, but tensions remained high. Last week, violence continued with bomb explosions in the Abkhaz town of Gagra and the capital, Sukhumi, prompting Abkhazia to close its border with Georgia, worrying many in the West that the Georgia-Abkhazia conflict could take a turn for the worse.

GMF’s Ron Asmus and several co-authors released a policy brief last month, and in it, they contend that the current peace process in the Georgia-Abkhazia conflict has failed. While Russia initially played the role of peacekeeper almost a decade ago, recently it is has become more of a facilitator in party negotiations, bringing into question its impartiality in furthering the peace process. “There is an urgent need for an internationalized framework in which a true, multi-faceted and genuine peace process can develop that could respond to the Abkhaz and Georgian peoples’ genuine interest beyond geopolitical or status aspirations,” Asmus and co-authors Svante Cornell, Antje Herrberg, and Nicu Popescu write in “Internationalizing the Georgia-Abkhazia Conflict Resolution Process: Why a Greater European Role is Needed.” In it, the authors advocate for the international community, in particular the NGO community, to become more involved. A sustainable peace is only feasible if there are commitments from the outside. “The growing tensions and the inappropriateness of the current format requires a reframing of the issues at hand and a restructuring of the negotiations alongside a vision of providing a suitable implementation strategy that will allow those commitments resulting from a peace process to be monitored and evaluated,” they write.

Georgia, whose hope of being extended MAP and further integrating itself into the Euroatlantic community was recently put on hold, has accused Russia of fueling the tensions. While visiting Prague on July 8, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized Russia’s behavior toward Georgia, saying that it is only adding to the tension in the region. Secretary Rice is on a three-week tour of the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, and Georgia, where she will renew U.S. support for Georgia’s application to MAP.

Russia makes no bones about the fact that it does not want Georgia to gain MAP, feeling that it would threaten its regional interests. But even as Russia and Georgia argue over Georgia’s alliance membership, few are paying attention to the Abkhaz people. Asmus, Cornell, Herrberg, and Popescu write that the “human consequences” of the conflict have yet to be addressed. “Economically, the Abkhaz and others remaining in Abkhazia have seen their situation stagnate, as they have fallen behind in terms of their overall development, even if some stabilization has occurred recently.” Once considered the “Riviera” of the Soviet Union, this region of the Black Sea coast still lags behind socially and economically. This is in sharp contrast to the rest of the South Caucasus, which has been experiencing high rates of economic growth since 2005.

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, not much has changed between the capital cities of Tbilisi and Sukhumi; rather, change has come in the international community outside of the conflict, according to the brief’s authors. Such changes could be the stepping stone to further the peace process and bring to a close the region’s unresolved issues. “The goal must be to create a different political balance that restores lost credibility and balances a Russian role that has long ceased to be neutral,” they write. And “while a solution to the conflict belongs ultimately to governments, both Georgian and Abkhaz NGOs can play an important role in diffusing tension and changing stereotypes.”

As I write, I am reminded of Tbilisi’s “wishing trees,” draped with ribbons and scraps of cloth, these trees – symbolizing the hopes and dreams of their owners – line the footpaths that carry you up to the city’s most famous landmark “Mother Georgia.” And like the young border agent I met, enthusiastic about the West, his dreams, like that of his beloved country, of becoming a full-fledged member of NATO and entering into the fold of the West is fragile at best, as long as the Abkhazia-Georgia conflict continues.

The international community has the tools, knows the lessons learned, all it needs now is the will to act and put the process in motion.

Share/Bookmark

Despite the strains on the transatlantic relationship caused by events like the Iraq war – as evidenced in public opinion studies, like GMF’s Transatlantic Trends – optimism is rising about improved relations with a new U.S. administration in 2009. But underlying the political aspect of the relationship has been a flourishing economic relationship that helps preserve both the political relationship and the need for the political relationship.

GMF Transatlantic Fellow Joe Quinlan, in a just-released opinion piece, says the strong economic ties of the United States and Europe of the last eight years has been the “glue” of the transatlantic partnership. And while many talk of a renewed political relationship next year on issues ranging from the Middle East to climate change, what about that valuable economic relationship? U.S. voters have grown skeptical of globalization. The dollar is low, and jobs are moving to developing countries. Will a new administration in 2009 also bring a new era of closed borders between the United States and Europe when it comes to trade and investment?

Looking to the campaign trail, it is no surprise, then, that the credentials of both presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, have come under scrutiny when it comes to trade and overseas investment. Obama has taken some anti-trade stances, going so far as suggesting amendments to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). McCain, a proponent of freer trade, has consisently voted for agreements that promote openness and greater liberalization. However, as Quinlan describes in “The U.S. Presidential Election and the Prospects for Trade and Investment,” the longer the U.S. economy muddles along in its feeble state, the greater the anti-trade pressure on any U.S. president, Democrat or Republican.” Such anti-trade rhetoric according to Quinlan could be problematic for Europe as any move toward protectionism by the United States could retard the transatlantic economy specifically, and may even affect the global economy more generally.

“A more protectionist tone from a new administration in Washington would likely engender a similar response or course of action from Europe, leaving the world dangerously exposed to a rising tide of protectionism,” Quinlan writes.

While “change” is in vogue on both sides of the Atlantic, Europeans, according to Quinlan, should be “tempered since the next president of the United States will be elected by a populace weary of foreign commitments and increasingly suspicious of the benefits of globalization, including cross-border trade and investment flows.” Democrat or Republican, a new president in the first part of his administration will be less open on trade issues, reacting to the mood of a country still recovering from a financial mortgage crisis, rising oil prices, and a weakening dollar, Quinlan says.

The transatlantic economy, the largest in the world, is strong. However, Quinlan wonders “whether the policies of the next U.S. administration will help or hinder the growth and prosperity of the transatlantic economy remains to be seen. If protectionist rhetoric in the United States translates into policy beginning in 2009, many in Europe will come to miss President Bush.”

It’s an unusual prediction, but one that could prove surprisingly true.

Share/Bookmark