Month: August 2008

Today.Az, Azerbaijan
Aug 23 2008

Armenian expert Gagik Arutyunyan: "If there is a threat of armed
conflict to Nagorno Karabakh, Armenia will immediately sign a treaty
of alliance"

23 August 2008 [12:24] – Today.Az

The legal recognition of Nagorno Karabakh’s independence by Armenia is
possible any time and if it does not occur, there are probably
definite grounds, said head of the Noravank scientific research center
Gagik Arutyunyan.

"If I am not mistaken, the Armenian President said that in case there
is a threat of armed conflict to Nagorno Karabakh, we will immediately
sign the due treaty of alliance on the same day. I think, it is
currently not suitable for Armenia to recognize Nagorno Karabakh’s
independence", noted he.

The expert considers that the legal recognition of Nagorno Karabakh or
signing any treaty by Armenia in the negotiation process will not be
effective, as "we are de-facto united". He said on the current stage
Armenia’s recognition of Nagorno Karabakh’s independence will be
purely declarative. "This is rather a show than a serious political
step", announced Arutyunyan.

As regards the possible recognition of independence of Abkhazia and
South Ossetia by Armenia, the expert noted that it is necessary to pay
attention to the conduct of the world community and not to be
"pioneers" in this case.

"Russia will be the first to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but
the recognognition is not likely to be of global scale, like it was in
case of Kosovo. Yet, naturally, there will be other countries,
alongside with Russia, which will recognize their independence", noted
he.

The expert also announced that the self-declared "Nagorno Karabakh
Republic" takes a balanced position in the relations with Abkhazia and
South Ossetia and it did not sign any binding documents and the recent
developments proved the correctness of such a position.

"Imagine that Nagorno Karabakh, like Abkhazia, was obliged to conduct
certain military actions or fulfill military commitments", noted the
expert.

As for the prospects of further relations between Nagorno Karabakh and
Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the expert said that it is early to
establish closer formal and legal relations. "It can be discussed
after independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is recognized", noted
he.

"Abkhazia and South Ossetia will certainly maintain ties with
unrecognized Nagorno Karabakh, as it meets their interests: ""Nagorno
Karabakh Republic" has always… provided its assistance when
possible. I hope that this cooperation will continue developing",
concluded the political scientist.

/Regnum/

URL:

Caribbean Net News, Cayman Islands
Aug 23 2008

Cubans suffer rare off day in the ring

Published on Saturday, August 23, 2008
By Patrick Vignal

BEIJING, China (Reuters): Cuba had a rare off day in Friday’s
semi-finals of the Olympic boxing competition which marked a new era
for the showcase heavyweight class.

The superpower of amateur boxing, Cuba had placed eight fighters in
the last four but lost half of them on a day with plenty of upsets.

Light-welterweight Rosniel Iglesias became their first casualty when
he lost 10-5 to Manus Boonjumnong, who kept alive his hopes of
becoming the first Thai boxer to win successive titles and goes on to
meet Felix Diaz of the Dominican Republic.

Light-flyweight Yampier Hernandez also bowed out, losing on countback
to Mongolia’s Serdamba Purevdorj, and lightweight Yordenis Ugas was
ousted too, falling to gifted Frenchman Daouda Sow in one of a busy
day’s most exciting bouts.

The biggest shock for Cuba, however, was when Osmay Acosta lost to
Russia’s Rakhim Chakhkiev, meaning the Cubans will miss out on
heavyweight gold after winning the last four titles.

There will be no American in the heavyweight final either after
Deontay Wilder lost to Italian Clemente Russo, ending the U.S. team’s
presence in the tournament and sealing their worst Olympic
performance.

Cuba and the United States had won the last 11 heavyweight titles
between them but will have to sit and watch when Chakhkiev and Russo
battle it out in Saturday’s final.

Prior to 1984 the heavyweight class was unrestricted, though a new
super-heavyweight class was introduced at Los Angeles with the
heavyweights then restricted to under 91kgs.

Before going to pack, Wilder added his name to a long list of boxers
to have complained about the scoring and predicted the Americans would
soon be redeeming themselves.

"I think it was closer than the score showed but what are you going to
do about it?", he said after losing a 7-1 decision.

"There have been a lot of changes in our program but you’re going to
see greatness from the Americans in the next few years."

The day also saw red-haired Russian Alexey Tishchenko stay on course
to become only the fourth boxer to win gold in two different weight
classes by outpointing Armenia’s Hrachik Javakhkyan to advance to the
lightweight final.

Britain’s James DeGale had earlier strolled through to the
middleweight final and said afterwards it had been as easy as it
looked.

"It was a walk in the park for me," DeGale said after outpointing
Irishman Darren Sutherland 10-3 to set up a final bout against Cuba’s
Emilio Correa.

The day ended on a painful note for Britain when super-heavyweight
David Price was brutally stopped by Italian world champion Roberto
Cammarelle.

Price, who had dreamed of emulating compatriot Audley Harrison, the
2000 Olympic champion, was 9-0 down when he was sent reeling by a
one-two combination and the referee stopped the contest with 50
seconds left in the second round.

Emirates Business 24/7, United Arab Emirates
Aug 23 2008

BP fighting West’s energy cold war in the Caucasus

By Frank Kane on Saturday, August 23, 2008

If all goes according to BP’s plan, crude will soon flow again through
the Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, one of the most important
geostrategic energy routes in the world. But it is unlikely that will
be an end to the concerns that have dogged the British oil giant in
the Caucasus, where its long-running confrontation with Russia has
assumed all the dimensions of an energy cold war.

Last week, at the Azerbaijani oil terminal of Sangachal, 45km along
the Caspian coast from the capital, Baku, oil was flowing, but in much
reduced quantity, and ` from BP’s point of view ` in the wrong
direction. A suspected terrorist attack on the BTC in eastern Turkey,
and Russia’s military action against Georgia, meant that most of the
limited amount of crude that was being shipped was going exactly where
BP did not want it to go ` through the northern pipeline (NREP) that
crosses the Azeri-Russian border before ending up at the Black Sea
port of Novorossiysk.

That meant another victory in the Caucasus for the Russians, and a
defeat for the West in the modern equivalent of the nineteenth century
"Great Game" ` the struggle for control of the potentially enormous
reserves of Azerbaijan, which dominates oil-production in the
Caspian. The stakes are high. BP ` backed by European countries
fearful of Russian control of their energy supplies ` wants to
safeguard oil and gas flows from the Caspian region, and keep it out
of Russian hands. Azerbaijan, the former Soviet republic, which on
independence in 1991 found itself sitting on some of the most
significant but strategically problematic oil reserves on the planet,
wants to use the revenue for much-needed modernisation and economic
development.

Azerbaijan has ambitions to join the club of sovereign wealth fund
(SWF) countries like the UAE and Singapore, but finds itself in a
delicate situation ` caught between the energy imperialism of its
former Soviet "comrades" and the ambitions of Iran to the south. It
will require delicate diplomatic choreography by the Azeris, who are
acutely mindful of the fate of their neighbour, Georgia, invaded and
occupied by Russian troops.

Oil has been a blessing , and a curse, to the region for
millennia. Caspian oil was exported to central Asian and Europe
throughout modern history and according to some analysts, by 1900
Azerbaijan accounted for more than half of the world’s trade in crude
oil.

Nazi Germany was aware of the potential difference Caspian oil would
make to its war machine, and Hitler’s armies were on their way to Baku
before they were halted at Stalingrad in 1942. The Soviets plundered
the region’s oil reserves using obsolete technology and with no
thought for the environmental consequences, leaving the Baku region
with an ecological problem the Azeri government is still trying to
deal with. Great swathes of land outside the city are heavily
polluted, with ancient "nodding donkey" platforms doting the landscape
of abandoned facilities.

After independence, the Azeri government opened up the country to
foreign investment, and Western oil companies brought in modern
technology that could exploit huge reserves untouched by the Russians,
out in the open sea. It is from this era that BP’s involvement began,
principally with the Azer-Chirag-Gunashli field in the Caspian, which
provides most of the crude that now comes ashore at
Sangachal. Azerbaijan is in the top 20 countries ranked according to
oil reserves.

BP was aware, however, that it faced a massive logistical problem in
shipping this crude out of the region. Already in 2002 there were
concerns that Russia had a commanding grip on supplies in the region,
despite the pipeline that went west from Baku to the Georgian Black
Sea port of Suspa. (Supposedly safe from Russian interference, the
reliability of Georgia as a supply route was exposed a couple of weeks
ago as BP watched Russian warplanes dropping bombs near the Suspa
pipeline. The Suspa route (WREP) was suspended on August 12.) BP, as
lead and managing member of a consortium that included the Azeri
government-owned oil company Socar, as well as some of the biggest
corporate names in the international oil industry, saw the solution in
a pipeline that avoided the Black Sea and went straight for the
Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan, and the BTC concept was born in
2002. Four years later, at a cost of $4 billion (Dh14.7bn) to BP, the
first crude flowed through the new 1,750km "East-West Pipeline", as BP
proudly presented it.

The pipeline’s route was determined as much by political and strategic
considerations as environmental concerns. It skirted Armenia ` which
had fought a three-year war with Azerbaijan in the early 1990s ` and
had to be buried beneath towns and culturally-sensitive areas,
especially in eastern Turkey.

When on August 5 a fire broke out at one of the pumping stations along
this section of the pipeline, it was suspected that separatist Kurds
were responsible, and the line was closed immediately for
repair. However, it seems almost certain it would have halted a week
later anyway, as Russian tanks came within striking distance of the
BTC and planes dropped bombs dangerously nearby. The fragility of BP’s
grand strategy to bypass Russian influence in the region appeared to
have been exposed.

BP officials in the company’s Baku office last week could give no firm
date for the resumption of supplies, but more recent reports from the
United States said BP hoped to resume shipping from the terminal at
Ceyhan next week, once the Turkish partner in the consortium had
finished testing the repaired facilities and assuming there were "no
further problems". Presumably these include possible fractures to the
still-fragile ceasefire between Russia and Georgia. It cannot come a
day too soon for Azerbaijan.

The 850,000 barrels per day that pass through the pipeline represent
the country’s biggest source of revenue, worth more than $1bn a day at
the current (relatively low) price of $119 per barrel. The World Bank
estimates that Azerbaijan could amass a sovereign wealth fund of about
$250bn out of the revenue from BTC, propelling the country into the
SWF big league. The state investment company Sofaz is estimated to
have $3.34bn in reserves from energy revenue.

For a country still struggling with the legacy of Soviet neglect, this
would represent a dramatic change in fortunes. Azerbaijan has topped
the world league tables for growth in gross domestic product for the
past couple of years, with 20 per cent-plus rates of growth, making
the booming economies of China and India seem sluggish in
comparison. However, all of this is due to oil revenue, and Azerbaijan
faces serious challenges if it is to harness this growth for long-term
development.

A recent report by ratings agency Moody’s highlighted the "vibrant
oil-driven growth" and the healthy state of public finances, but also
pointed to high inflation (perhaps more than 20 per cent), a
relatively undiversified economy, a rudimentary banking system,
untested socio-economic systems and few managerial cadres. It also
pointed to the culture of corruption endemic in the country.

The Azeri government led by President Ilham Aliyev "faces the
difficulties of sheltering the economy from its current over-exposure
to potential external shocks, whether they come in the form of lower
energy prices, currency fluctuations, or even geopolitical problems,"
says Moody’s. In particular, Azerbaijan will have to cope with "Dutch
disease", the phenomenon that has blighted energy-dependent economies,
forcing up inflation and straining investment in infrastructure and
diversification. Deeper economic ties with the Gulf could also help
Azerbaijan face these challenges, but ` after a flurry of trade
missions and talks about free-trade agreements with the UAE a couple
of years ago ` commercial opportunities with the region seem limited
to high-profile advertising for Dubai property in the Azeri
media. Azerbaijan seems to be looking firmly west, rather than
south. For BP, there is much at risk in the Caspian. The company’s
long-running confrontation with its Russian partners in TNK is coming
to some kind of denouement, with the decision by the head of BP’s
Russian business, Robert Dudley, to quit Moscow. Despite BP’s stated
commitment to carry on in Russia, there appears to be little hope of
normal business being resumed between BP and Russia in the near
future, if ever.

pages/08232008_bea14fe935c544258cb5bdbd305d2d76.as px

Straits Times, Singapore
Aug 24 2008

The Olympic passport

The number of foreign-born athletes competing in the Games has raised
eyebrows. But in a borderless world, why shouldn’t sports be just as
globalised?

By Tan Dawn Wei, expat eye

This year’s Olympic table tennis matches will be remembered as much
for some formidable play as a battle amojng the Chinese.

That’s the Chinese-Singaporean, Chinese-French, Chinese-Austrian,
Chinese-American, Chinese-Spaniard, Chinese-Australian, Chinese-
German, Chinese-Polish, Chinese Canadian, Chinese-Korean, Chinese-Hong
Konger, Chinese-Luxembourger, Chinese-Dutch, Chinese- Dominican,
Chinese-Croatian and Chinese-Congolese.

The oft-bandied phrase, ‘the Chinese are everywhere’, is nothing if
not glaringly apparent at the Beijing table tennis games.

Of the 78 women paddlers at this year’s Olympics, 35 are China-
born. Only three wear China’s red and yellow colours.

Past Olympic Games have borne witness to such ironic scenes before,
but quite possibly none more than in the Chinese capital.

And it’s not just at the ping-pong table.

When the members of the press descended on Chaoyang Park for what they
thought would be a politically charged beach volleyball match between
Georgia and Russia after the latter sent tanks into the former’s
territory, they saw none of that from the Brazilian players
representing Georgia.

Then, there were the New Zealand-born triathlete brothers who competed
against each other: one, Shane Reed, doing it for his home country,
the other, Matt, for the United States.

Armenian wrestler Ara Abrahamian won a bronze medal for Sweden (which
he was later stripped of for throwing it on the mat); Jamaican
Germaine Mason gave Great Britain a silver and its first high-jump
medal since 1996; and Moroccan Rashid Ramzi ran to a gold in the
1,500m race for Bahrain.

Of course, the table tennis trio of Li Jiawei, Wang Yuegu and Feng
Tianwei – former Chinese, now Singaporeans – broke this country’s dry
Olympic medal spell of 48 years with a team silver.

The United States also fielded a brigade of migrants – 36 from 28
countries – this year: among them, Lopez Lomong, the Sudanese-born
American flag-bearer at the opening ceremony, plus a South
African-born tennis player, a Georgian archer, a Polish kayaker,
Chinese table tennis players and a world champion Kenyan distance
runner.

All this trading of nationalities has led to much criticism and
derision from purists, stakeholders and even the International Olympic
Committee (IOC).

It is one thing to find a new home as a conventional migrant, but
another to be bought over purely for your athletic talents.

No one raised a stink when Nastia Liukin, a Russian immigrant, won a
gold medal in individual all-round gymnastics for the US a week ago.

She had moved to New Orleans when she was 2 1/2 years old with her
family after the Soviet Union broke up and is as American as apple
pie.

But Americans have been far less kind to two other of its basketball
players who crossed over from the US to Russia.

Becky Hammon and J.R. Holden have had to defend themselves repeatedly
from being labelled ‘traitors’ when they donned Russian colours at
this year’s Games.

Hammon, who wasn’t drafted into the US national team, had said: ‘I
still love my country – it doesn’t really have anything to do with
that. I just want to play basketball.’

The Olympics, it seems, are no longer about patriotism, national
identity or making your motherland proud.

Instead, it has become what The Atlanta Journal-Constitution writer
Jeff Schultz calls ‘an exercise in passport free agency’.

Fingers have been wagging in the direction of rich Middle Eastern
countries, which have thrown wads of cash at poor African athletes in
a bid for national glory.

Former world steeplechase champion Stephen Cherono, who traded his
Kenyan jersey for a Qatari one and adopted a new name, Saif Saaeed
Shaheen, for a lifetime salary of US$1,000 (S$1,400) a month, is just
one of them.

There have been enough cases of Cheronos to make the IOC take action:
It ruled in 2002 that athletes must wait three years from receiving
their new citizenship papers before they can compete for their
adoptive country – unless their home country waives this deadline.

IOC president Jacques Rogge said the committee introduced the rule to
prevent athletes from ‘changing nationality for purely financial
reasons’.

‘It is a worrying situation emerging in sport,’ he had remarked.

Likewise, the International Table Tennis Federation has also put its
foot down. After the Olympics, those over the age of 21 will be banned
from pledging allegiance to another country.

Those between 18 and 20 will have to wait seven years before they can
make the jump.

Other sports federations are also likely to follow suit.

But there is something to be said about this globalisation of sports.

When the world is increasingly becoming a borderless one, why should
the field of sports be any different? When people have traditionally
migrated in search of a better life, more equitable opportunities and
greater challenges, why can’t sportsmen do the same?

Lawyer and economist Ian Ayres argued for flexibility in a New York
Times column last Thursday, citing Article 6 in the Olympic Charter
which states that the Games are competitions between athletes and not
countries.

‘Imagine a world where the best athletes are able to compete. This is
definitely not the current Olympic system. The country quota system
keeps many of the best athletes home,’ he wrote.

‘Letting athletes choose their national teams is a simple way of
fulfilling this powerful idea,’ he said of the Olympic Charter.

If not for Singapore’s Foreign Sports Talent (FST) scheme, introduced
in 1993 to fast-track promising foreign athletes to Singapore
citizenship, the Republic’s three new Olympic silver medallists would
quite likely never have had the opportunity to take part in any Games.

The debate over Singapore’s reliance on these imported athletes has
been going on for the past decade, and the sports fraternity has
reiterated the importance of these achievers to the development of
sports here.

Much cynicism still hangs in the air – at coffee shops and on online
forums – that Singapore didn’t really win at the Olympics since all
three paddlers were China-born.

Nowhere else, it seems, do you witness such disenchantment simply
because the athletes bringing home the medals aren’t native.

Perhaps it is because the table tennis win is Singapore’s only one at
these Games. Elsewhere, there could be less scrutiny when foreign-born
and native athletes both come home with an assortment of medals.

But unlike Hammon, Holden and many others who hold two passports,
Singapore’s lack of a dual citizenship policy means foreign-born
athletes have to give up one for another.

And surely that will qualify them as Singaporeans in more ways than
one. Chinese-Singaporeans.

/Breaking%2BNews/Sport/Story/STIStory_271428.html

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Aug 24 2008

Is it Georgia or more?

by DOGU ERGIL

After trying to mediate between contending sides regarding the
conflicts in the surrounding regions, Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdo?Ä?an flew to Moscow to have talks with Russian
authorities — President Dmitry Medvedev, Prime Minister Vladimir
Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov — and then to Tbilisi to
speak with President Mikhail Saakashvili about a proposition for a
possible Caucasus Alliance deal. My expectation is that Russia will
say yes and proceed with an agenda of establishing its authority in
the region and over Georgia, while Georgians will grope for any
possible way out of the quagmire they have fallen into. Mr. Putin has
always been very disturbed by Mr. Saakashvili’s passion for potential
NATO membership for his country. The Russian leadership sees potential
NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine as a serious block on its
influence in the Caucasus and Black Sea regions. On the other hand,
most European countries were never keen on Georgia’s membership in the
alliance, at least under the existing circumstances. Outside Poland
and the Baltic states that have experienced Soviet (read this as
Russian) domination, the United States is the only country that has
enthusiastically supported Georgia’s NATO membership.

This overall reluctance was confirmed during Russia’s punishment of
Georgia. Following an early statement condemning Russia’s aggression,
the North Atlantic Council met and called on Russia to respect
Georgia’s territorial integrity. But there was little support beyond
words, demonstrating the members’ reluctance to deepening ties with
Georgia for the time being. Given the current circumstances,
Mr. Saakashvili will not receive substantial help from his Western
friends either in holding onto his presidential seat or in NATO
membership for his country. The invasion and devastation of his
country as well as loss of control over Abkhazia and South Ossetia
will soon be billed to his leadership. It is dubious that he will be
able to pay the price. When the anxiety and awe of Russian occupation
dissipates, the Georgians — who seem united now — will begin asking
how and why they were driven into such a mess. The foresight of their
leader will be seriously questioned.

Alternative energy routes?

For a long time Western and especially American policymakers hoped
that diverting oil around Russia would help them assert control over
Central Asia and its enormous oil and gas wealth and would provide a
safer alternative to Moscow’s control over export routes. This would
also help prevent Russia’s resurgence as a post-Soviet empire based on
its control of energy sources and lines. Isn’t this what the so-called
"Great Game" was about, anyway? It was a game of establishing
dominance over the enormous natural resources of Central Asia and the
Caucasus. After the Cold War, the matter turned into an economic and
diplomatic tug-of-war, occasionally backed by military might. Chechnya
has been crushed and Georgia has been subdued. So now that the two
regional states that challenged post-Soviet Russian power and
dominance have been checked, multinational energy conglomerates and
Central Asian and Caucasian/Caspian governments will be forced to
build new lines through this unstable corridor. They may even
reconsider transporting existing volumes of oil and gas, given the
reliability of existing conditions and degree of safety in this
corridor. One thing is certain: Russia, encouraged by its military
clout and empowered in recent years by petro dollars, will be much
more assertive in shaping the region’s energy future.

Much has changed since before the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline (BTC)
was built. The Western powers tried their best to find routes that
would avoid potential trouble spots. They failed because there was no
"safe and stable spot" in the Caucasus. One thing was obvious, though:
The United States did not want energy lines to pass through
Iran. Turkey suffered much from this insistence, but it had limited
options other than trying to convince its foremost ally of its dire
need for energy.

In the final analysis the US government and other private investors,
together with British Petroleum – which operates the BTC pipeline —
decided on the present route that passes through Georgia, the ardent
pro-Western country of the Caucasus. However, the BTC is far from
being a safe route. Turkey is still struggling with separatist Kurdish
elements. These elements recently delivered a blow to the pipeline,
just before the Russian invasion of Georgia, driving the point home
that the line is not safe enough for the West and for Turkey. It will
not be safe as long as there are forces in the region that do not want
it to be safe.

Georgia was also struggling with its separatist forces that ignited
the recent war. Azerbaijan is always in a state of alert for a
possible showdown over its territories occupied by Armenia. Hence,
even before the outbreak of hostilities between Russia and Georgia,
the BTC pipeline was pretty precarious to be called the "safest energy
route" connecting the East and the West.

Is there an alternative? Not in sight yet!

24.08.2008

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Aug 24 2008

Do we need the gendarmerie?

by IHSAN YILMAZ

The Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government has promised
to deliver a new democratization package that includes keeping the
gendarmerie forces firmly under civilian control. But, I am not sure
if we even need this separate force for internal security purposes in
this day and age anyway. Reading the indictment in the Ergenekon case
— a crime network accused of trying to overthrow the government —
and its evidence files reminds me to ask again if the advantages of
having the gendarmerie in Turkey outweigh the disadvantages.

The presidential election crisis of last year, the April 27 memo
(issued by the General Staff), the AK Party closure case (recently
heard by the Constitutional Court) and, last but not least, the
Ergenekon case have strongly shown that it is democracy that is in
clear and present danger in Turkey. No one can turn Turkey into a
backward, theocratic state, but it has become obvious that there are
many people who are very eager to shed blood to create instability in
the country in order to topple the democratically elected
government. People eager to do this have access to all sorts of
weapons. Unfortunately, the Ergenekon case evidence files strongly
show that several members of the gendarmerie are among these people
and that they have not hesitated to make use of the gendarmerie’s
resources for their perverse aims.

Take, for instance, the example of Erg?Ã?¼n Poyraz, who claims to be a
researcher and writer. Among his works are libelous books "proving"
that both President Abdullah G?Ã?¼l and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdo?Ä?an are crypto-Jews. Strangely, courts have always let him
go. The latest we’ve learned of him is that he was working for and was
paid by the gendarmerie. Nowadays, dailies are full of reports of
Poyraz being protected by three gendarmerie officers, assigned to be
his bodyguards, and his anti-AK Party messenger activities,
facilitating communication between soldiers, judges, civilians and so
on. The Poyraz case is only one example. Anyone who closely follows
the case of Hrant Dink, a Turkish-Armenian journalist who was
assassinated in January 2007, knows of other examples.

The gendarmerie’s Web site boasts that they are responsible for 92
percent of Turkish territory. Its responsibilities range from traffic
control to anti-terrorism operations, from crime-prevention and
internal security to border control. These are all huge tasks and,
unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of its personnel comprises
non-professional conscripts whose limited education and experience are
insufficient in tackling today’s complicated internal security issues.

Being aware of this, the gendarmerie is also trying to put together a
professional force and this is reflected in the increasing percentage
of its professional members. But if we have to spend money and provide
salaries to its personnel, unlike conscripts, why do we not simply
increase the number of police officers? If we merge the gendarmerie
with the police (see the Belgian and Austrian reforms), which is
already directly under civilian and democratic control — unlike the
gendarmerie — we will also tackle problems stemming from the military
force’s jurisdiction over the civilian population, which is
unacceptable.

The gendarmerie could continue its non-police or military duties as
part of the Land Forces, and we will not have to have a
"schizophrenic" institution that is definitely a part of the military
in practice and nominally subordinate to civilians but has
jurisdiction over them and oversees 92 percent of Turkey. The
Ergenekon case should also be read as a symptom of this schizophrenia.
The overwhelming majority of the gendarmerie forces are, of course,
not responsible for this situation. It is the politicians’ duty to
monitor changes and developments in society and to use legislation to
fine tune accordingly in order to have a more just country.

24.08.2008

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Aug 24 2008

Turkey’s Caucasus boat likely to sail

Turkey is in a bid to be the shipyard for the construction of a boat
called "Caucasia Stability and Cooperation Platform," with five
sailors on the boat having "deep-frozen conflicts" with each other.

Views regarding the proposed platform differ, with some suggesting
that this boat is destined to sink even before setting sail for the
first time, while others say that it may be a good idea for those five
sailors — Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia and Turkey — to be on
their own in the high seas so they can put their heads together to
discuss their issues with each other. Ankara’s proposal for the
platform came after a regional crisis erupted following a Georgian
military offensive in its Russian-backed breakaway region of South
Ossetia earlier this month. In the first half of August, PM Recep
Tayyip ErdoÄ?an paid successive visits to Moscow and Tbilisi and
earlier this week traveled to Baku to promote and gain support for the
proposed platform. Both Georgian and Russian leaders said they would
welcome the idea, while a joint statement released by ErdoÄ?an
and Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev said Baku had approached the
proposal "positively."

Armenia and Azerbaijan are in a state of enmity due to Armenia’s
continued occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan, and observers
say a regional alliance including both countries as members may be
difficult to implement. With Armenian troops still in
Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijani leadership is unlikely to warm to any
sort of cooperation with Yerevan.

Speaking at a joint press conference with Aliyev, ErdoÄ?an did
not refer to Armenia and said instead Turkey was willing to further
cooperation with Azerbaijan and Georgia for peace and stability in the
Caucasus. He also said the Nagorno-Karabakh problem should be resolved
on the basis of principles of international law and through peaceful
ways. Aliyev thanked Turkey for its supportive stance.

Ahead of his departure for Baku on Aug. 20, however, ErdoÄ?an
disclosed Ankara’s eagerness for Armenia’s participation in a
"Caucasus alliance," as he said it would greatly increase regional
stability. He said the form of talks with Armenia would be set
following Babacan’s consultations with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey
Lavrov.

In the meantime, as of Aug. 16 and 17, Babacan initiated a hectic
telephone diplomacy, having talks with US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice; EU term president France’s Foreign Minister Bernard
Kouchner; German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier; Council of
Europe term president Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt; and
Alexander Stubb, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE) chairman-in-office and Finnish foreign minister.

His talks focusing on Turkey’s proposal took place before he departed
for Brussels to participate in a key meeting of NATO foreign
ministers, who had emergency talks to reconsider the alliance’s ties
with Russia after the conflict in Georgia.

As of Thursday this week, remarks by Georgian Ambassador to Turkey
Grigol Mgaloblishvili, who firmly said that his country would not
participate in the proposed cooperation platform for the Caucasus as
long as Russia doesn’t entirely withdraw its forces from Georgian
soil, led to curiosity over whether Tbilisi’s initial welcome to the
idea was just out of courtesy.

In an initial reaction to the Turkish plans to involve Armenia in the
Caucasus talks, Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian said
Yerevan welcomed the Turkish initiative. "Armenia was always in favor
of dialogue and talks, particularly on the issues concerning
cooperation and security in our region. The Turkish prime minister’s
statement on the intention to start talks with Armenia on this agenda
could be welcomed," he said in a statement in response to a question
posed by Today’s Zaman on Wednesday.

It is not clear what shape the planned talks with Armenia will
take. Turkey severed its ties with Armenia in the early 1990s in
protest of the Armenian occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh. According to
official Turkish policy, normalization of ties depends on Armenian
withdrawal from Nagorno-Karabakh, the termination of the Armenian
policy of supporting claims of an Armenian genocide at the hands of
the Ottoman Empire and an official endorsement by Armenia of the
current borders between the two countries.

As of Friday afternoon Babacan, as expected, initiated a telephone
conversation with Russia’s Lavrov and spoke of the proposed platform.

"During the conversation, Mr. Babacan conveyed our concrete proposals
concerning the Caucasia Stability and Cooperation Platform to the
Russian side," Foreign Ministry spokesperson Burak
Ã-zügergin told the Anatolia news agency. The two ministers
decided to meet next week within this framework, Ã-zügergin
said, noting that the two also decided to hold another meeting in
early September.

Russia’s ‘one package for all’

If this platform can at least bring together in Ankara the foreign
ministers of the two sides — Georgia and Russia, who say that they
will not meet with each other for the time being — then it will take
an important step on the way to building peace and stability in the
Caucasus, believes Associate Professor Kasım Kamer.

South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh are all "frozen
conflicts," Kamer, a Caucasia expert of the Ankara-based International
Strategic Research Organization (ISRO/ USAK), first of all noted,
while speaking with Sunday’s Zaman.

"OSCE [the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe] is
ineffective in regards to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, since Russia is
one of the co-chairs in the OSCE Minsk Group. If such a Caucasia
platform is established, Russia’s participation in this body is
inevitable, and if Turkey can get Russia and Georgia together under
the same roof, then this will be a success by itself," Kamer said.

"Both Russia and Georgia do not want to give up South Ossetia and
Abkhazia at the same time. However there may be a bargaining on the
two regions, while Georgia will definitely be very stubborn, as it
considers both of the regions its own soil. On the other side, there
is a deep lack of confidence vis-à-vis Russia, a lack of
confidence which makes expectation of great consequences from this
platform in the short run very difficult. Russia’s main goal was to
topple Saakashvili with its recent move; it would either walk to
Tbilisi in order to enter the capital or it would force Georgia to
give major concessions, like withdrawing half of its troops from the
disputed regions. Nevertheless, none took place, and it seems
Saakashvili will remain in power for a considerable time. Thus Russia
couldn’t reach its eventual goal," he explained.

The Nagorno-Karabakh factor

When asked about the possibility of any improvement in resolution of
the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the
event of their sitting around the same table within the framework of
the proposed platform, Kamer underlined that Armenia’s acceptance of
Turkey’s mediation in the international legal sense doesn’t seem
possible, since Turkey is a party in this dispute. On the other hand,
the same thing applies to Russia’s mediation from the point of view of
Azerbaijan, as according to Azerbaijan, Russia is a party in this
dispute, he said.

"What could happen is this: The parties come together around the same
table, and they can take steps regarding secondary issues related to
Nagorno-Karabakh, for example the refugee issue. In the long run,
Russia has a tendency to introduce the issues of Nagorno-Karabakh,
South Ossetia and Abkhazia in one package, which will not be
acceptable for a large majority of the international community because
the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh is entirely different from all
others, since Armenia is de facto on Azerbaijan soil via invading
Nagorno-Karabakh. Following the unilateral declaration of Kosovo’s
independence and its recognition by the world, Russia has become
increasingly aggressive concerning the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh. But
it is impossible to put these issues in the same file — neither
geographically nor historically [can this be done]. Even looking at
the significant differences of population between Kosovo and these
regions make this point clear," Kamer said.

"We also have this triangle of Caucasia, the United States and
Turkey. The US is actually looking favorably at all kinds of moves of
rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia. Yet a significant step by
Armenia is not easy to be taken in the short term due to the clout of
the hard-liner Karabakh clan with the leadership of the country. As a
matter of fact, Turkey’s conditions for reopening the border and
re-establishing diplomatic relations are quite moderate," he added.

Does anyone have a better idea?

According to retired Ambassador Ã-zdem Sanberk, a former Foreign
Ministry undersecretary and an esteemed foreign policy analyst,
Turkish diplomacy has taken a very appropriate step that deserves
appreciation — via maturation of the idea of the Caucasia
platform. Sanberk also has a strong conviction that this initiative is
destined to "take off," given that Russia, one of the two countries
key to rendering the initiative successful, has approached Turkey’s
idea positively. The other is the United States, which should
definitely not be excluded from this process, he says.

"If someone has a better idea, then s/he should come forward and tell
us this better idea," Sanberk told Sunday’s Zaman, saying that he
could not agree with those analysts and politicians who suggest that
Turkey’s proposed platform is "a stillborn idea."

"Such an initiative could not be taken without having Russia’s
consent, and Turkey gained this consent. Nobody takes initiatives with
consequences or success being taken for granted, as there is always a
calculated risk. When Turkey initiated the Black Sea Economic
Cooperation back in the early 1990s, the same kinds of comments were
made, suggesting that the idea was not realistic at all. But it took
off. Later it lost its vigorousness due to neglect by the governments
of the time, starting from 1996," Sanberk said, while bringing to mind
a similar idea for constituting a Caucasia cooperation platform put
forward in 1999 by the then-President Süleyman Demirel.

"Unfortunately the coalition government led by late Prime Minister
Bülent Ecevit and the next president, Ahmet Necdet Sezer,
neglected the idea put forward by Demirel purely on political
concerns, since it was not first floated by them, and it failed before
it was born," Sanbek continued.

As for the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) coming to
power for the first time in 2002, it handled the European Union
membership process as a priority and made a very appropriate decision
by doing so, Sanberk said, adding however, he wished the AK Party
government had also made the Caucasus platform idea a priority and had
matured it simultaneously with the other priorities, such as playing a
key role in the Middle East.

"When governments give clear signals about their priorities, the
people of Turkey read this message and act accordingly and make the
necessary sacrifices falling on their shoulders. In the case of the
absence of clear signals and messages, extreme ideas such as Turkey
joining the Shanghai Five or its establishing a new front with Iran
and Russia gain currency in the town," the veteran diplomat said,
highlighting the influence of foreign policy messages on domestic
politics as well.

Turning back to the proposed Caucasia platform, Sanberk said that
today’s circumstances were not sustainable for Russia, although it had
manipulated very good chess maneuvers in the recent incidents by
showing off its military capacity at a time when the European
continent’s security capacity was overstretched.

"But now it needs sustainable power, and it cannot rely forever and
solely upon the ups and downs in natural gas prices to maintain its
power. This should be well explained by Turkey to Russia, with which
it has a strategic relationship. Moscow should understand that the
Soviet Union cannot be re-established and that the current situation
is not in its interests, either. As for the Georgian ambassador’s
remarks, they are not surprising, Tbilisi is naturally trying to
maintain its position at this phase.

"I find comments suggesting that a new cold war era has started as
exaggerated, but it is obvious that the cards are being
redistributed. And that this is happening — putting forward
constructive and positive ideas — as Ankara has been doing, is
extremely good," Sanberk said. "The fact that this idea has not been
rejected spells that it will be able to stand on its own feet. Even if
these five countries come together and set a date for their second
meeting without making a concrete decision over disputed issues, this
will be a real success."

`EU, US should be well informed’

As of Tuesday, during a briefing at the US State Department’s Foreign
Press Center on the "Situation in Georgia and Implications for the
Caucasus," Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an’s proposal for a
Caucasus cooperation platform appeared to have received a lukewarm
response from the State Department’s top diplomat for Eurasian and
Caucasian affairs.

"I must say I was surprised," Matt Bryza, the US deputy assistant
secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, was quoted as
saying by the Anatolia news agency at the briefing. "I hadn’t been
briefed that that was going to happen. We have a partnership with
Turkey on the Caucasus, and I presume that we’ll be able to work
together very closely now with our allies in Turkey since we do have
clearly shared interests, not to mention values, throughout the
Caucasus with our Turkish ally."

According to Associate Professor Kasım Kamer, the United States
would like to actively take place in such a platform, and those
remarks reflect their disappointment over the perception they got as
if they were being excluded on purpose from this platform by Turkey.

"Russia’s actions in Gori led to an environment of cold war, and
Washington was actually not expecting such action by Russia, which
fuelled already existing doubts over Moscow’s respect for Georgia’s
sovereignty. All of these facts might have led to such a distanced
manner by the United States; however, in the long term, this platform
is also in the interest of the United States," Kamer, of the
Ankara-based International Strategic Research Organization (ISRO/
USAK), told Sunday’s Zaman.

Retired Ambassador Ã-zdem Sanberk, a former Foreign Ministry
undersecretary, was actively involved in 2001 in the arrangement and
conduct of series of conferences under the title "Seeking Stability in
the Caucasus," initiated by the Ä°stanbul-based Turkish Economic
and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV).

The late Ä°smail Cem, then foreign minister, had also attended
those conferences — during which establishment of a Caucasus
Stability Pact was discussed.

"Then we were discussing the involvement of the United States and Iran
in the issue; today there is no US aspect of the issue at the time
being, but Washington should definitely be persuaded to effectively
support this initiative," Sanberk told Sunday’s Zaman.

"The Western world in general, for example via NATO, and the United
States in particular should be appropriately briefed that their
interests in the region will be protected. In this regard,
Mr. Babacan’s telephone talks are very positive. Yet I believe that
the level should be upgraded with Mr. Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip]
ErdoÄ?an holding talks with EU term president France’s leader
Nicolas Sarkozy as well as with the EU’s foreign policy chief Javier
Solana," the veteran diplomat added.

Approached by Sunday’s Zaman on Friday and invited to comment on the
Turkish proposal, US Embassy Press Attaché Kathryn Schalow
first of all praised Turkey’s efforts as a regional player.

"As we have seen in the recent past, Turkey has played an important
role in the region, and we hope that Turkey’s new efforts to promote
stability in the South Caucasus will be in harmony with other
international efforts to promote peace, prosperity and stability in
the Caucasus — including through NATO, the EU and the OSCE," Schalow
told Sunday’s Zaman. "And we look forward to consulting with Ankara on
its Caucasus platform concept," she added. Ankara Today’s Zaman

24 August 2008, Sunday
EMÄ°NE KART ANKARA

Xinhua, China
Aug 23 2008

German chancellor proposes "neighborhood conference" for Georgia

2008-08-24 04:25:24

BERLIN, Aug. 23 (Xinhua) — German Chancellor Angela Merkel has
proposed that European Union (EU) presidency France organize a
"neighborhood conference" to resolve economic difficulties for
Georgia, German government spokesman Thomas Steg said on Saturday.

"This is solely a conference aimed at supporting and strengthening
Georgia in economic terms," Steg was quoted as saying by German news
agency DPA.

The spokesman said the Caucasus Summit, or "neighborhood
conference" in the EU’s jargon, is not a conference "aimed at finding
a political solution to the conflict."

Apart from EU member states, Merkel proposed that countries
neighboring Georgia like Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan should
be invited to participate in the meeting.

The proposal had been forwarded to France, which currently holds
the rotating presidency of the EU, and it is up to France to decide.

On Monday, Merkel is to start a tour of Sweden and the Baltic
states, aiming to seek common EU response to the Georgia crisis.

Chicago Tribune, IL
Aug 23 2008

Russian incursion sounds regional alarm

West-allied former Moscow dominions fear they’re next

By Alex Rodriguez | Chicago Tribune correspondent
5:24 PM CDT, August 23, 2008

TBILISI, Georgia ‘ The bombs dropped by Russian planes fell in
Georgia, but the shudder also coursed through nearby nations that once
existed under Moscow’s thumb during the Soviet era.

For countries like Ukraine, Azerbaijan and the Baltic nations of
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, Russia’s invasion and occupation of
West-allied Georgia is rekindling haunting memories of a Soviet-era
Kremlin that used its military might to keep its Eastern European
populations in lock step with Moscow.

Today, former Soviet republics and East bloc nations that long ago
switched alliances westward have been watching the events in Georgia
with alarm, wondering whether they might be next in line.

"This conflict in Georgia is a kind of 9/11 for Russia’s neighbors, an
event that changed all the security-related thinking in our
countries," said Kadri Liik, director of the International Center for
Defense Studies in Tallinn, Estonia’s capital.

>From 1999 to 2004, the Kremlin watched helplessly as 10 nations once
ruled by Moscow joined NATO, the Western military alliance that
shields its members with "attack one, attack all" armor. Since then
the Kremlin has rebounded on the shoulders of record oil prices and
has solidified Europe’s dependence on Russian oil and natural gas.

Russia has been ready to flex its newfound geopolitical might for some
time, experts say, and the conflict with tiny Georgia, a nation led by
a U.S.-allied president the Kremlin despises, gave Moscow the perfect
arena.

Now Russia’s neighbors worry that the Kremlin may expand that
arena. Countries that have adopted pro-West policies, such as Ukraine
and Azerbaijan, lie within what used to be the Soviet sphere of
influence that Moscow yearns to regain.

Ukraine under threat

Ukrainians have especially watched with trepidation as events unfolded
in Georgia. Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko has been pursuing
NATO membership for his country in the face of Moscow opposition,
including a threat last year from former President Vladimir Putin that
Russia would re-aim nuclear missiles toward Ukraine if it ever joined
NATO.

If an underlying aim in Russia’s incursion into Georgia was to warn
Ukraine and other former Soviet states about the perils of aligning
with NATO, the strategy may have backfired, experts say.

"Russia’s disproportionate actions in the Caucasus have raised a lot
of concerns here, and the concerns are growing," said Alexei Haran, a
political science professor at Kiev-Mohila Academy in Kiev. "The
number of supporters of the idea of joining NATO is likely to
increase."

Former Soviet states that already have joined NATO, such as Estonia,
Latvia and Lithuania, did so partly because they feared a day when
Russia would try to re-exert its influence on its former
satellites. As in Georgia, which is pursuing NATO membership, those
countries’ populations were united in their desire to join the
alliance.

Ukrainians, however, are deeply divided by the question of joining
NATO. The country’s eastern and southern provinces are staunchly
pro-Russian.

Russia has tried to exploit that rift by actively supporting Ukrainian
opposition leaders, and experts believe the Kremlin will continue to
do so. Russia’s best leverage in Ukraine, says Haran, may be its Black
Sea naval fleet, which under a lease agreement is allowed to be based
in the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol in Crimea until 2017.

When Yushchenko recently suggested Ukraine should restrict movements
of those ships in the wake of the Georgian conflict, Russian President
Dmitry Medvedev issued his own warning. "They must not tell us how to
behave," Medvedev said. "Interference in these issues will not lead to
anything good."

Residents anxious

On the streets of Kiev, Ukraine’s capital, anxiety runs high over the
Kremlin’s actions in Georgia.

"If Russia ever attacks Ukraine, the world will know the truth’that
Russia is a real armed monster," said Elena Titova, 32, an
accountant. "That’s why we should hurry up and stay close to NATO."

In Azerbaijan, citizens who embrace President Ilham Aliev’s decision
to align his country more closely with Washington and Western Europe
now worry that the Kremlin will search for ways to force him to
reverse course.

One tack Russia could pursue against Azerbaijan is to derail its
burgeoning energy relationship with the U.S. and European
countries. Azerbaijan ships Caspian Sea oil to Western markets through
a pipeline operated by British energy giant BP.

That pipeline runs through Georgia, and Georgian officials have
accused Russia of targeting the pipeline during its bombing raids on
Georgian territory. Georgia also accused Russia of bombing a key
railroad bridge outside the town of Kaspi that was used to ship
Azerbaijani oil to Western markets.

"It’s clear that the events in Georgia infringe on Azerbaijan’s
interests directly and make Azerbaijan very wary," said Rasim
Musabayev, a foreign affairs analyst based in Baku, Azerbaijan’s
capital.

Like Georgia, Azerbaijan wrestles with separatists in a frozen
conflict that has endured for years and makes Azerbaijan vulnerable to
Kremlin interference. Azerbaijani officials have accused Russia of
arming Armenian separatists who control the enclave of
Nagorno-Karabakh in western Azerbaijan.

Though Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are all members of NATO and the
European Union, their populations have watched with alarm as Russia
pushed its troops deeper into Georgia. A report in The Times newspaper
in London quoting unnamed Russian sources as saying the Kremlin is
considering arming its Baltic naval fleet with nuclear weapons has
only heightened anxiety in the Baltics. Russian officials called the
report baseless.

An Aug. 15 poll by a Tallinn-based survey group found that 83 percent
of Estonians believed the Kremlin’s actions in Georgia endangered
Russia’s neighbors.

"People are indeed worried," Liik said.

Researchers Olga Manmar in Kiev and Talekh Guliev in Moscow
contributed to this report.

world/chi-russia_neighbors_bdaug24,0,4269541.story

Middle East Times, Egypt
Aug 23 2008

The Real World: Georgia War Lessons for the Middle East

By ARIEL COHEN (Middle East Times)Published: August 22, 2008

Syrian President Bashar Assad joined Muammar Gadhafi of Libya in
backing Russia’s lightning military action against Georgia, making
Syria one of the few countries in the world to publicly back the
Kremlin.

"We understand the essence of the Russian position and its military
response," Assad told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at the start
of their meeting in Moscow. "We believe Russia was responding to the
Georgian provocation."

At the start of the war, almost no country in the world came out in
support of Russian action. Cuba and Libya were in the vanguard of the
old Soviet coterie speaking out in support. Venezuela and Hamas chimed
in, but even "brotherly" Belarus and historic ally Armenia, two
countries over which Russia has the most sway, remained noticeably
silent.

Good old days of the Cold War and U.S.-Russian competition may be
returning to the Middle East. Damascus, supported by Iranian cash,
wants bigger and better toys. The Baath regime signals that it is not
serious about the still-born negotiations with Israel it conducted in
Istanbul.

Assad has been seeking state-of-the-art SA-10s anti-aircraft missile
system for close to a decade, and the sale has been blocked numerous
times in the past, by pressure from the United States and
Israel. Damascus also is interested in the long range S-300
anti-aircraft/anti-ballistic missile system Russia has sold to Tehran.

Assad said he hopes to offer Moscow the opportunity to deploy that
type of missile in Syrian territory, as a counterweight to
U.S. missiles in Poland, but it is clearly aimed at Israel. Syria also
is asking short-range surface to surface ballistic missiles SS-21
SCARAB (9K79 Tochka) single-stage, short-range, tactical-ballistic
missile and SS-26 Iskander short-range missile.

The SS-26 comes in two modifications: a longer range (greater than 400
km) variant for the Russian forces, and a shorter range (less than 300
km) version for export. If Syria gets either, it will be able to hit
the Tel Aviv area with greater accuracy than with the current
SCUDs. If Russia satisfies Syria’s demands, it will mean that it is
seeking a confrontation with the United States not just in the Soviet
periphery, but in the old battleground of the Middle East.

Lessons from the Georgia war are going to be studied in the Middle
Eastern military academies for years to come. The early assessment
signals the return of conventional military operations, 20th century
style — with some elements of intensive information warfare and cyber
attacks thrown in for a good measure.

The Russian General Staff planning provided a speed and complexity in
implementing combined operations that were well prepared and
reasonably executed. More important, the Russian offensive achieved a
strategic surprise. Essentially, after regaining control of
Tskhinvali, the Russian army conducted a two-pronged offensive against
Georgia from South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This is purely within the
tradition of the classical Russian operational art, of conducting more
than one offensive operation to prevent the defender’s concentration
of forces and overwhelm his defensive strategy.

The Russian military occupied the strategically vital highway and
railway line which crosses central Georgia and links Tbilisi with the
coastline, severing access to its main port, and essentially
paralyzing and dividing the country in several parts.

Overwhelming Force

The Russian main ground forces involved in the invasion of Georgia
belong to the 58th Army, which took part in the invasion and
occupation of Chechnya since 1999. Other Russian units that are taking
part in the campaign are the 42nd Guards Motorized Rifle Division
based in Chechnya, the Guards "Pskov" 76th Guards Airborne Division,
the 98th Guards Airborne Division based in Ivanovo, and the 45th
Independent Strategic Reconnaissance Regiment, which is under the Main
Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff (Spetsnaz GRU).

The Russian airborne troops operated from South Ossetia and Abkhazia
in the invasion of Georgia, providing security to the Roki Tunnel;
occupying Poti; destroying oil infrastructures there; and possibly
participating in the capture of the strategic Inguri hydro power
station without a shot fired. Ingrui station provides two-thirds of
Georgia’s electricity.

Lessons Learned

A few preliminary lessons can be distilled after only 13 days since
the beginning of hostilities. These include:

– Watch out for the Bear! Russian continental power is on the
rise. Central European countries should watch their rhetoric, while
staunchly defending their own national security interests. Small
states need to treat nuclear armed great powers with
respect. Provoking a militarily strong adversary is worthwhile only if
you are confident of victory, and even then there may be bitter
surprises, just as Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili found out.

– Combine NATO and U.S. Guarantees with Military Self-Reliance.
European NATO members have much higher level of security guarantees
than Georgia, including NATO’s Article Five. Yet, during the Cold War
years, countries which had contingencies and training for popular
resistance against the USSR — Albania, Romania, and Switzerland —
had a higher level of security than those which only relied solely on
U.S. troops or nukes. Revisiting civil defense and organized popular
resistance may be in order.

– Airpower alone is not sufficient. Russia used air, armor, the Black
Sea Fleet, special forces and allied militias. Clausewitzian lessons
still apply: the use of combined operations with overwhelming force in
the war’s center of gravity does work.

– Surprise and speed of operations still matter — as they have for
4,000 years of recorded history of warfare. To be successful, wars
have to have limited and achievable goals. Russia achieved most of its
goals between Friday and Monday, while the world, including
U.S. President George W. Bush, was busy watching the Olympics and
parliaments were on vacation.

– Do not cringe — within reason — from taking military casualties
and inflicting overwhelming military and civilian causalities at a
level unacceptable to the enemy. Georgia lost between 100-200
soldiers, and was routed. A tougher enemy, like Japan or Germany in
World War II, or even a non-state actor like the Taliban or Hezbollah,
could suffer a proportionally much higher rate of casualties and keep
on fighting.

– Information and psychological warfare is paramount. So is
cyber-security. It looks like the Russians conducted repeated denial
of service attacks against Georgia (and in 2007, against Estonia),
shutting down key Web sites. Russia was ready with accusation and
footage of alleged Georgian atrocities in South Ossetia, attempting to
shift the information operations playing fields from
"aggressor-victim" to "saving Ossetian civilians from barbaric
Georgians." These operations also matter domestically, to shore
support and boost morale at home.

Avoiding the New Cold War

It is still early to digest all the lessons of this conflict, but this
geopolitical earthquake symbolizes that the tectonic plates of Eastern
Europe and Western Eurasia are shifting. And this is just the
beginning: the future of southern Caucasus, Ukraine and other
countries of the former Soviet Empire is at play.

Most important, this war is not about Georgia, but about what kind of
international actor Russia will be in the 21st century. If Russia
expands its confrontation, grave implications for the Middle East will
follow.

After an almost-20 year hiatus, the United States and NATO allies may
once again prioritize Russia as a potential threat to their vital
interests in Europe and beyond.

The question is whether NATO will send a strong signal to Moscow that
its aggression will not stand. This should be done through tough
diplomacy, in international organizations, and through inventive
economic measures. The United States, its allies and Europe must do
everything possible to reverse Russian aggression against Georgia —
and to prevent further hostile action against its allies.

—
Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., is senior research fellow at the Heritage
Foundation and the author of 500 articles and three books on Russia
and Eurasia, including Russian Imperialism: Development and Crisis,
and Kazakhstan: The Road to Independence (fall 2008, forthcoming).

08/08/23/the_real_world_georgia_war_lessons_for_th e_middle_east/9569/

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress