EURASIAN HOME BULLETIN
Biweekly bulletin for our partners
Opinion and expert articles from the Eurasian Home website
Political situation in Russia and the New Independent States The Eurasian Home Bulletin, No 18 Bulletin Editor: Fatima Dobaeva, English language editor of the Eurasian Home website May 16, 2008, Moscow
INDEX OF ARTICLES
Clicking on the title of the article takes you directly to the article
1. THE GLOBALIZATION OF MEDIA Jules Evans, Columnist of Eurasian Home website, London, May 4, 2008 2. THE CASPIAN SEA STATUS AND THE NABUKKO PROJECT: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN AZERBAIJAN AND TURKMENISTAN Rovshan Ibrahimov, Head of the International Relations Department, Gafgaz University, Baku, May 5, 2008 3. VISIT OF PRESIDENT OF UZBEKISTAN ISLOM KARIMOV TO KAZAKHSTAN Gulnur Rakhmatullina, Senior research fellow of the Kazakhstan Institute for Strategic Studies under the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Almaty, May 6, 2008 4. LABOR CODE AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SOCIAL REVOLUTION Boris Kagarlitsky, Director of the Institute of Globalization and Social Movements, Moscow, May 15, 2008 Political situation in Georgia 5. CRISIS IN THE RELATIONS BETWEEN GEORGIA AND RUSSIA Konstantin Gabashvili, Chairman of the Committee on International Relations of Georgia‘s Parliament, Tbilisi, May 8, 2008 6. GEORGIA IS PREPARING FOR PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS David Losaberidze, Project Manager, member of the Executive Council of the Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development, Tbilisi, May 12 Ukraine: political crisis, the Russian-Ukrainian relations 7. RESTING BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE John Marone, Columnist of Eurasian Home website, May 13, 2008 8. UKRAINE: YUSHCHENKO VERSUS TYMOSHENKO Vitaly Bala, Director of the Situations Modeling Agency, Kyiv, May14, 2008 OPINION May 4, 2008
JULES EVANS, COLUMNIST OF EURASIAN HOME WEBSITE, LONDON THE GLOBALIZATION OF MEDIA One of the trends we‘ve seen in investment banking over the last two or three years is what PricewaterhouseCoopers calls the ‗global war for talent‘. Local banks in rich emerging market countries have more money to spend than their troubled rivals on Wall Street, so they‘re hiring the top talent from western banks to join them. We‘re seeing a similar process slowly occurring in the media. Western media are in financial trouble. Sales at every American national newspaper except the Wall Street Journal and USA Today are on a long-term downwards trajectory. The same is true in the UK, with the exception of The Sun and The Observer, whose circulations are slightly rising. Papers are being undercut by sites like Google News and Yahoo News, and by free rags like Metro and London Lite, which have skeleton editorial staffs and rely on recycling press releases and paparazzi photos. However, in the emerging markets, the story is much rosier. The World Association of Newspapers says that in India, daily newspaper sales rose by 33% between 2001 and 2005, while in China, circulation rose by 28% between 2000 and 2004. As the Guardian‘s media section noted last year: The seemingly inexorable decline of the newspaper in Europe and, more dramatically, in North America sometimes makes the industry sound doomed, regardless of its heavy online presence. Overall, however, global newspaper sales are on the increase, a fact which is all too often ignored by gloomy commentators in the West, who need only look eastwards when optimism is in short supply at home. That means western media firms are now targeting markets like India and China. Journalists at The Times, for example, were told to keep the Indian market in mind while writing web stories (how does one do this exactly? Describe the new budget as ‗pukka‘?) The Sun, The Independent and The Daily Mail have all launched joint ventures in India in the last 12 months. But it also means local media firms having the capital to attract western journalists onto their staff for English language ventures. This often involves quite serious culture clashes, and the results can be quite comic. The Russian government, for example, spent some loose change from its oil fund on a new English language satellite TV channel called Russia Today. The aim of the channel was to counter-act what the Kremlin saw as the Russophobia of the western media, particularly the BBC and CNN. It launched in 2005, and hired about 100 western journalists from London to join its staff. Right from the get-go, the channel was in trouble. The young western staff were often fresh out of journalism school, didn‘t speak Russian and had no knowledge of Russian culture, yet they were paid double what the Russian staff were paid, which immediately made morale terrible.
I remember going round the station on the day of its launch, and seeing one petrified-looking English girl, fresh out of university, timidly approach a Russian editor, talking to a colleague in Russian, and say ‗er…hi …er…I saw on the wires that…er…they‘ve found the poison that poisoned president Yush…Yush…you know, the president of Ukraine. Er…is that newsworthy?‘ The Russian editor looked at her with bottomless contempt, said ‗OK‘, and carried on talking to her colleague in Russian. Al-Jazeera‘s attempt to launch an English language sister-channel has also run into trouble. The Qatar-based station launched its English language service in November 2006, and spent a lot of money hiring western talent like Sir David Frost. But since then, the channel has descended into chaos, with western journalists angry that their contracts have not been honoured and benefits like school fees have been cut, and local journalists angry that the foreign journalists don‘t understand the region and don‘t report from a Middle Eastern perspective. The latest saga in this globalization of media is The National, a new English-language newspaper in the Gulf, which is being set up by Martin Newland, formerly editor of The Telegraph before he was booted out by the Barclay Brothers. The paper is being funded by a UAE sovereign wealth fund called Mubadala Development, which also recently bought a stake in the Carlyle Group. Newland has assembled a formidable team, including a lot of Telegraph journalists who smelled which way the wind was blowing in western media and smartly decided to head East. The paper launched in mid-April, and is apparently selling well. But the same sort of culture clash issues that have hit Al-Jazeera and Russia Today are likely to affect The National, particularly the question of whether western standards of media freedom can be adhered to in local markets with very different political cultures. Newland has said: ―Understand now that we are not here to fight for press freedom—to get yarns about money laundering under the state radar. We are here to produce a professional, commercially viable newspaper. Press freedom is a by-product of this. The more we zero in on templated ―red line‖ stories at the expense of human interest and the ordinary narrative of life in the UAE, the more we look like a foreign newspaper, peering into the goldfish bowl… It‘s a good point - Newland is trying to set up a local product that sells to local consumers. But if they were really local, wouldn‘t they buy a local language product, written by locals? Isn‘t a paper run by expats inevitably going to have something of the goldfish bowl about it? Isn‘t the whole point of hiring westerners that they will introduce western standards, including western standards of press independence from companies and governments? Otherwise, why not just hire locals… It‘s not always the case that working for local media involves a clash of different cultural standards and professional values. I can honestly say that Eurasian Home, which is Russianfinanced, has been the least intrusive and censoring publication I have written for. But globalization always brings some cultural clashes, and the globalization of the media will likely to continue to bring such comic collisions as we have seen at Russia Today and AlJazeera. Now, I have to go write my new blog for The Times: ‗Curry Corner‘. LINK: http://www.eurasianhome.org/xml/t/opinion.xml?lang=en&nic=opinion&pid=1076
May 13, 2008 JOHN MARONE, COLUMNIST OF EURASIAN HOME WEBSITE, UKRAINE RESTING BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE The May holidays have ended in Ukraine. These were primarily the old Soviet-era holidays, May Day and Victory Day. But in recent years there has also been a new celebration slipped in Europe Day. Holidays are a time to rest with family and friends, to perhaps reflect on where one is in life. This is particularly true of May Day and Victory Day, which have a longer and richer history than later summer holidays such as Independence Day or Constitution Day. The Sovietera holidays are more emotive, calling on Ukrainians to look back at the sacrifices made in the establishment of a communist state and the defeat of fascist invaders. Europe Day also provokes emotion, but a vague, euphoric kind of emotion based on a hope for the future. For Ukrainians concerned about the fledgling independence of their country, for those who cared to listen above the din of bandstand music and firework displays, there was a lot to reflect upon last weekend. Over the holiday-filled weekend, Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov arrived in the history-filled city of Sevastopol to challenge the history and geopolitical relations of Ukraine and Russia. The official purpose of Mr. Luzhkov's visit was to take part in the celebration of the 225th anniversary of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, which fell on Europe Day (May 11) and just after Victory Day (May 9). Although the outspoken Russian official had been warned by Ukraine's Security Service [SBU] to avoid whipping up secessionist sentiment among the city's supposedly pro-Russian population, Luzhkov apparently just couldn't help himself. "I don't want to create any dissent. I want to tell the truth. In 1948, Sevastopol was set aside as a city subordinate to the [Soviet] state [rather than to Crimea, which later became part of Ukraine]. Sevastopol was not included in those regions and territories that [former Soviet leader Nikita] Khrushchev gave to Ukraine in 1954. So we are saying this issue has yet to be resolved. And we will resolve it for the sake of the truth, for the sake of Russia's state position and state right with regard to its naval base in Sevastopol," he said before a Russian rock concert in the city center on Sunday. Questioning a neighboring state's territorial integrity is the stuff of war declarations. But Luzhkov didn't stop at that. In keeping with current Kremlin policy, but exceeding his own authority as a mayor, Luzhkov went on to question Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko's policies of NATO membership and recognition of the Ukrainian Nationalist Army (UNA), which fought against the Red Army in World War Two. "When Yushchenko says that the UNA and OUN [Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists] are heroes, when the Ukrainian state is striving to join NATO, all this together bespeaks steps taken by the state authorities in Ukraine to destroy our relations as spelled out in the [RussianUkrainian] Treaty of Friendship," Luzhkov said. Taking into account Moscow's increasingly heavy-handed treatment of Western-leaning former Soviet republics like Georgia, it isn't surprising that Luzhkov's remarks would strike a sharp reaction in Kyiv. President Yushchenko hardly responded, but the SBU promptly banned Mr. Luzhkov from re-entering the country.
"Due to the fact that Russian citizen Yury Luzhkov failed to heed the warning of the SBU, which prohibited actions that present a threat to Ukraine's national interests and its territorial integrity, as of May 12 Luzhkov is banned from entering Ukraine," the SBU said on Monday. Ukraine's Foreign Ministry called Luzhkov's statements "a planned act directed at the disruption of positively developing Ukrainian-Russian relations." "We assess Mr. Luzkhkov's statements as a step toward stirring up public tension and complicating the prospects of Ukrainian-Russian partnership," MFA spokesman Vasyl Kirilich said on May 12. But in Russia the atmosphere was different. Russian Duma deputies such as radical vice speaker Vladimir Zhirinovsky publicly supported Luzhkov's call for the fate of Sevastopol to be resolved by an international arbitration court and accused the SBU of exceeding its authority. And Russia's Foreign Ministry agreed: "Moscow is baffled by the Ukrainian authorities' decision to ban Mr. Luzhkov from entering Ukraine. The Moscow mayor has been unjustly accused of somehow challenging Ukraine's territorial integrity. Mr. Luzhkov has never made any unfriendly statements with regard to Ukraine but has taken practical steps toward facilitating the development of relations between the two states," reads a ministry statement released on Monday. Within Ukraine, opposition parties such as the Communists and the Regions, which represent the interests of Ukraine's Russian-speaking east, and, like Moscow, oppose NATO membership for Ukraine, tried to play down Luzhkov's statements. In Sevastopol itself, members of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists/Ukrainian Partisan Army scuffled with pro-Russian activists while the former were picketing the HQ of the Russian Black Sea Fleet on May 11. However, most of the events dedicated to the three days of holidays were peaceful and festive. For example, both Ukrainian and Russian ships took part in the celebration of Russian Black Sea Fleet Day. And a Victory Day parade included US sailors. In Kyiv, the emphasis was on Europe Day, which recognizes Ukraine as a member of Europe if not the European Union. While the Kremlin redoubles its efforts to restore its influence over Ukraine, the West is playing coy. The head of the European Commission's embassy to Kyiv, Ian Boag, told Europe-Day participants that visa-free travel to Europe was still "a distant prospect." While the German ambassador to Ukraine Reinhard Schafers, said Europe was still wary of admitting a country like Ukraine. Russia wants Ukraine back and is willing to use energy exports or its military foothold in Sevastopol to get it. In the mean time, May Day and Victory Day serve as convenient opportunities to remind Ukrainians of their former bond. Europe prefers Ukraine as a next-door neighbor, with whom block parties like Europe Day help to maintain cordial relations. To the contemplative Ukrainian thinking about more than a day off in warm weather, his country continues to rest between a rock and a hard place.
LINK: http://www.eurasianhome.org/xml/t/opinion.xml?lang=en&nic=opinion&pid=1087
May 15, 2008 BORIS KAGARLITSKY, DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE OF GLOBALIZATION AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, MOSCOW LABOR CODE AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SOCIAL REVOLUTION Recently Russian mass media have focused on labor movement. For the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union the Russian journalists are writing about strikes and workers‘ protests on May 1, 2008. Strike movement has been on the rise in Russia during the last ten months. It was started by the workers of the transnational companies and was assumed by the employees of the Russian corporations. The labor disputes are becoming more intense and enduring. Official trade unions are helpless – they‘ve failed to organize the workers who totally ignore those organizations, but neither can they serve the interests of the corporations by preventing or helping to regulate the disputes. When the grassroots worker groups of the official trade unions take initiative proposing to increase the wages or improve the labor conditions, they find themselves in a conflict with the superior agencies and have to turn for support to alternative labor organizations. The majority of disputes are similar in that the management behaves extremely aggressively pleading violations of the Labor Code by workers. And the strikers cannot negotiate via alternative trade unions, even when they have one, for the administration refuses to recognize it insisting on working with the official trade union. But should the latter take initiative, it is nailed down just as the alternative trade unions are. This is the situation at the Nestle factory in Perm and the Kachkanar refinery complex. At the majority of enterprises the official structures of the Russian Federation of Independent Trade Unions serve the interests of the administration. Sometimes these organizations do serve the interests of workers but that bare fact does not bring them an inch closer to genuine trade unions. When a grassroots trade union emerges it is most usually weak in numbers and is repressed by the administration that has the Labor Code on its side. The workers are invited one by one to the cabinet of the boss and are coerced to give up union membership, while the activists of the movement are paid less and forced to quit. In such situations the official trade union supports the administration and the shareholders. Under the present Labor Code, the employer is authorized to ignore the emerging workers‘ union until it outnumbers the already existing ones, which is practically impossible while intimidating and repression is practiced by the administration and the officially registered trade unions exist in the position of underground organizations. But this policy results not in managers‘ triumph but in an uncontrollable strike. The situation usually develops in the following way: administration ignores the trade union and negotiates with the Federation of Trade Unions, which is equal to holding negotiations with oneself. For some time the problems pile up unsolved but only when the strike is at the horizon does the administration agree to negotiate with the alternative trade unions, which by that moment has already lost control over the situation. The existing law makes strikes practically impossible, but the workers have always broken the law. The autumn strike at the Ford plant practically turned the tide. Since then the disregard of law was so massive that the law became invalid.
No criminal sanctions are imposed for strikes, while administrative sanctions are ineffective. Should such a ―troublemaker‖ be fired, he will immediately find a new – and usually better paid - job. In Russia the demand for skilled workers is strong. It is usually these self-confident workers who start up strikes. In many cases managers only use threats and almost never resort to dismissing the trade union activists. But when the shareholders don‘t see any result of the halfmeasures, they turn to police, prosecution and private security hoping to regulate the situation by the means of force. The workers‘ movement becomes more radical and politicized. The Labor Code written specially to suit the interests of the entrepreneurs has turned to bring about even more problems into their lives. As for the labor movement, the Labor Code made the workers unite and act on a higher organizational level to effectively oppose the draconian laws. People‘s lives under the existing laws have become a school of class struggle. Neither those who created the Labor Code in early 2000s, nor those who opposed it could imagine that the situation would develop that way. Today in the situation where the repressions prove purposeless the businessmen come to understand that dealing with the independent trade unions is a far better option than uncontrollable strikes. An organized strike causes less damage than a grassroots revolt. Today it is evident that the Labor Code will be amended, the question is when and how that will be done. The Kremlin and the State Duma will have to correspond to the new state of the labor movement. LINK: http://www.eurasianhome.org/xml/t/opinion.xml?lang=en&nic=opinion&pid=1090
EXPERT FORUM May 5, 2008 ROVSHAN IBRAHIMOV, HEAD OF THE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS DEPARTMENT, GAFGAZ UNIVERSITY, BAKU THE CASPIAN SEA STATUS AND THE NABUKKO PROJECT: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN AZERBAIJAN AND TURKMENISTAN On April 22, a regular meeting of the representatives of the Caspian countries on determination of the Caspian Sea legal status was over. The next, twenty third meeting is decided to be held in Baku. In spite of the fact that no specific decisions on the Caspian Sea status were made at the meeting, this issue may be solved in the near future because the relations between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan have improved. The problem of the Caspian Sea status arose after the collapse of the Soviet Union when four new littoral states appeared in the Caspian region – Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Previously, the relations between the Soviet Union and Iran concerning the Caspian Sea had been determined by the 1921 and 1940 agreements.
The first differences between the Caspian countries occurred in 1991. Each country proceeded from its own interests. Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan came out for the division of the Caspian Sea since they were interested in the soonest possible development of the sea deposits. Russia and Iran, whose main energy beds are outside the Caspian Sea, are concerned about their security. Both of those countries are against the presence of the third countries, above all the USA, at the Caspian Sea. That‘s why they oppose the use of the sea oil and gas fields, until the status of the sea is resolved, which prevents foreign companies from taking part in that. Turkmenistan took an interest in transportation of the energy resources to the Western markets via the Caspian Sea rather than in the development of its sea deposits. However, the tensions between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan in the middle of the 1990‘s on some issues worsened the relations. The tensions began when Azerbaijan‘s debt on the supplies of Turkmenistan‘s natural gas was being assessed. But the major reason for the relations rupture was the determination of belonging of the sea oil field on the frontier between the two countries ―Kyapaz‖ (the Azerbaijani name) or ―Sardar‖ (the Turkmen name). In 1997 Azerbaijan signed the contract with the Russian ―LUKOIL‖ and ―ROSNEFT‖ companies on the establishment of the consortium on that deposit development. But after Turkmenistan‘s interference, the consortium has never started working. In its turn, Turkmenistan signed the contract with ―Mobil‖ company. This company could not start working either because it was not clear who really possessed the deposit. There were stopped the works financed by the USA and carried out by Turkmenistan to determine the potential construction of the Transcaspian pipeline. Turkmenistan recalled its ambassador from Baku and introduced visa regulations for Azerbaijan. After Vladimir Putin had become President, Russia‘s position on the Caspian Sea status changed. In May 2002, Russia reached an agreement on the division of the sea bottom with Kazakhstan and in a month the same agreement was concluded with Azerbaijan. On September 23, 2002 those countries signed the tripartite agreement. Russia became the only Caspian country that delimited its sea borders. One of the reasons is the necessity for Russia to explore the large oil field ―Khvalyn‖ in the Russian part of the Caspian Sea. However, Turkmenistan and Iran‘s positions on the Caspian Sea remained unchanged. More than that, in 2002 there was a sea conflict between Azerbaijan and Iran. A prospecting ship explored the seabed in the south of the Azerbaijan part of the Caspian Sea in order to discover hydrocarbon reserves at the oil- and gas-bearing deposits ―Araz‖, ―Alov‖ and ―Sharg‖. The Iranian warships impeded the works and forced the Azerbaijani ship to leave that part of the sea. The explorations of the deposits have never been resumed. Only after Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov had been elected President of Turkmenistan, the relations between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan began improving. From the very first days of his presidency the pragmatic leader has looked for alternative ways to export the natural gas. One of the priority directions is the Western one – via the Caspian Sea to Azerbaijan, then to Georgia and Turkey through the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline. The EU and the USA are interested in this project implementation. The West is interested in the creation of the system of gas import from Central Asia and Azerbaijan, which would be
alternative to the Russian one. The elaborated pipeline project ―Nabukko‖ meets those interests. But the project may be unprofitable if Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan do not take part in it. However, the project implementation requires, first and foremost, signing of the agreement between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan on determination of passing of a middle line dividing the Caspian Sea up into the national sectors. Now the two countries have improved their relations. In particular, after the mutual visits of the intergovernmental committees, the parties managed to come to terms about paying off Azerbaijan‘s gas debt to Turkmenistan. Later on, Turkmenistan returned its ambassador to Baku. The Western countries support Turkmenistan‘s joining the Nabukko project. During the recent visit of EU commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner there was achieved the agreement on the Turkmen gas export for up to 10 billion cubic meters a year. But the question of the Caspian Sea status is left open. Turkmenistan can come to an agreement with Azerbaijan, but Iran is unlikely to make a compromise. Here there is a format according to which the agreement may not be reached with Iran. Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkmenistan may come to terms with each other, while the 1921 and 1940 agreements can be used in improving the relations with Iran. The sector division between the four republics existed as early as in the Soviet period. In 1970, the Caspian Sea was divided up into the national sectors to perfect its economic use. Even now Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan have used the sea hydrocarbon deposits in accordance with that division. It is possible that this experience will be used to settle the arguments between Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. If that is so, the problem of the Caspian Sea status, which prevents the international pipeline project ―Nabukko‖ from being implemented, can be solved. LINK: http://www.eurasianhome.org/xml/t/expert.xml?lang=en&nic=expert&pid=1547&qmonth= 0&qyear=0
May 6, 2008 GULNUR RAKHMATULLINA, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW OF THE KAZAKHSTAN INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES UNDER THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN, ALMATY VISIT OF PRESIDENT OF UZBEKISTAN ISLOM KARIMOV TO KAZAKHSTAN On April 22-23, 2008 President of Uzbekistan Islom Karimov was on an official visit to Kazakhstan, which is of great importance to the development of the mutually beneficial cooperation of the two countries. During the visit of Karimov to Astana the two Presidents discussed the important issues of expansion of the trade and economic relations between the countries. I want to stress that following 2007 the trade volume between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan amounts to 1.5 billion U.S. dollars. This is an unimplemented potential of the economic cooperation between the two
countries. So, the Presidents of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan emphasized that there was a need to remove customs and frontier barriers impeding the trade development. The important thing is that the Presidents have decided to create an effective free trade zone and to form a working group. Moreover, they examined the issue of increasing the number of the check points on the border and of introducing the ―two borders – one stop‖ principle, which will favor the effective development of the Kazakh-Uzbek trade and economic relations. The political leaders also touched upon the issues of the energy cooperation between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Those countries are very interested in the efficient use of their transit potential and in the increase of the hydrocarbon resources export to the world markets. In particular, now the Kazakh and Uzbek energy agencies are working on the projects to increase throughput capacity of the Central Asia – Center gas pipeline up to 100 billion cubic meters a year. Apart from that, Kazakhstan is interested in the increase of the Uzbek gas import through the Buxoro-Tashkent-Bishkek-Almaty gas pipeline and in the energy deficit reduction in the south of the republic. The two countries have reached the agreement about the 20% increase of the Uzbek gas supplies to Kazakhstan‘s domestic market in 2008. In its turn Uzbekistan would like the gas to be exported to China. It can be supplied via Kazakhstan through the Western Kazakhstan-China gas pipeline. As is known, at present Kazakhstan is implementing the project of this pipeline construction. This way, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have common interests in the energy field. The development of the mutually beneficial relations between the countries in the fuel and energy branches will be an important factor of their stable growth and the strengthening of the economic security. Another important result of the visit is the formation of the common Kazakh and Uzbek position on the efficient use of the water and energy resources in the Central Asian region. Unfortunately, the Central Asian countries have not come to terms yet about the use of the hydropower potential. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are interested in hydropower production growth, and this adversely affects the satisfaction of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan‘s water requirements in the vegetation period. The drying up of the Aral Sea, land degradation, biodiversity reduction and glaciers thawing in the Pamirs and the Tien Shan resulted from the fact that the Central Asian countries have attained no agreement about pursuing their water resources policy. That‘s why the Kazakh and Uzbek Presidents believe that the Central Asian countries must observe the international laws when using their across-the-border waters and that it is necessary to establish the International Water Hydropower Consortium making it possible to work out a perfect mechanism of the integration cooperation among the countries in the water economy sphere. In the course of Karimov‘s visit no new documents on the bilateral cooperation were adopted. The Presidents emphasized the necessity of fulfilling the treaties and agreements concluded more carefully (the Strategy of the Economic Cooperation between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan for 2007-2016, the Program of the Economic Cooperation between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan for 2006-2010 and others) and of monitoring the circulation of documents. Islom Karimov and Nursultan Nazarbayev also discussed Kazakhstan‘s initiatives to create the Union of the Central Asian Countries. The Uzbek leader said that he could not accept that idea since the Central Asian countries were not ready for the integration because of the different levels of their economic development and market reforms.
However, the decisions taken during the visit on the formation of the effective free trade zone between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan will be of importance to the closer integration of our countries and to the creation of the economic Central Asian Union over the long term. The visit of Uzbek President Islom Karimov to Kazakhstan will favor the closer economic cooperation between the two countries, the strengthening of the states‘ key role in making the Central Asian region more secure, the Central Asian countries‘ following the concerted policy in the use of the hydropower resources and, as a result, the normalization of the region‘s environment and the well-being of the local population. LINK: http://www.eurasianhome.org/xml/t/expert.xml?lang=en&nic=expert&pid=1548&qmonth= 0&qyear=0
May 8, 2008 KONSTANTIN GABASHVILI, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF GEORGIA’S PARLIAMENT, TBILISI CRISIS IN THE RELATIONS BETWEEN GEORGIA AND RUSSIA Russia‘s recent actions towards Abkhazia have brought closer the annexation of the Georgian territory. This is a position of all the Georgians, not only of the Georgian political elite. Moscow has broken the agreements concluded with Tbilisi and is preparing to use force, which threatens the peacemaking process and the fragile peace. The situation is very strained since the new troops are being brought into Abkhazia, thus breaching the 1994 protocol treaty according to which this cannot be done without the other party‘s consent. Georgia has not given its consent. Russia tries to accuse Georgia of using drones. But they fly to investigate the situation in Georgia whose integrity is recognized by Russia. Russia itself has much broader opportunities for watching the territory of Georgia by means of the space equipment. A drone has been shot down by the MIG-29 fighter. Abkhazia cannot do that. The radars registered that the fighter had taken off from Georgia and shot down the drone over Georgia. Russia‘s actions have been criticized by the EU, the European Parliament, the OSCE, the USA and others. Even four member-states of the UN Security Council expressed their protest. Probably, acting in this way Russia is testing the situation for working out scenarios that can be used in its relations with Ukraine. Ukraine is of more importance to Russia than Georgia is. This is causing us great concern since Georgia would like to be in good terms with both Russia and Abkhazia. We are ready to take into account Russia‘s economic interests in Abkhazia, the city of Sochi‘s preparation for the Olympic Games and we are also ready to help Russia in that. Moreover, we proposed granting Abkhazia broad autonomy, establishing the Supreme Chamber that would include Abkhazia‘s representatives, introducing the post of Vice-President of Georgia
for Abkhazia‘s nominee. We are going to pass a law in the Georgian Parliament that would allow Abkhazia to veto the decisions threatening its national identity. Of course, we do not want to be at war with anybody. We want to normalize the situation, start negotiating with Russia and other countries to put an end to the conflict. LINK: http://www.eurasianhome.org/xml/t/expert.xml?lang=en&nic=expert&pid=1550&qmonth= 0&qyear=0
May 12, 2008 DAVID LOSABERIDZE, PROJECT MANAGER, MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF THE CAUCASUS INSTITUTE FOR PEACE, DEMOCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT, TBILISI GEORGIA IS PREPARING FOR PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS I do not think that the parliamentary elections in Georgia and the deterioration of the RussianGeorgian relations are interconnected. In Russia the elections have already took place, in Georgia the elections will be conducted on May 21, so there is a ground for using the deterioration of bilateral relations as political leverage. But this is not a crucial issue for the Georgian election campaign, since for all the domestic conflicts, the Georgian political forces have a consensus – the absolute majority of them are Western-oriented. Still, the anti-Russian rhetoric is voiced. But it is used as a consolidating factor, aimed at national attitudes and is not directly linked to the elections. On the other hand, the worsening of the relations can have an emotional implication that is related to hostility. This is a more complicated situation. Moreover, Russia is in the greatest difficulty than anybody else. The issue of the GeorgianRussian relations is being discussed by the European politicians. When at the NATO summit in Bucharest Georgia was not welcomed to join NATO Membership Action Plan, Europe hoped that from then on Russia would support the status quo. But Russia has done the opposite, undermining the status quo. This move was not expected by Europe and struck at Russia‘s position and image in the European countries. In terms of the parliamentary campaign, the Georgia's ruling party has one serious problem – its approval rating is falling. This is due to the lack of clear strategy rather than to the unpopular reforms. But if such clear political strategy exists in some areas, the ruling party and the government do nothing to bring it home to the people. The opposition tries to take advantage of that. But there is no considering the opposition as a single whole. The opposition has no clear political program. True, recently the opposition parties have tried to give their views on some issues. But on the whole, they seek to become more popular by criticizing the authorities and by taking populist steps. I believe that even if the opposition parties get the majority in the Parliament, this will not cause a clash between the President and the new Parliament. Firstly, it will be difficult for the opposition to show a united front in the Parliament. Secondly, the tougher the opposition
members will behave, the more this will play into the President‘s hands. For example, the Parliament‘s refusal to approve the government or to pass the budget will give the President occasion to dissolve it and hold the early elections. LINK: http://www.eurasianhome.org/xml/t/expert.xml?lang=en&nic=expert&pid=1552&qmonth= 0&qyear=0
May 14, 2008 VITALY BALA, DIRECTOR OF THE SITUATIONS MODELING AGENCY, KYIV UKRAINE: YUSHCHENKO VERSUS TYMOSHENKO In my opinion, it is wrong to believe that the Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko is interested in her Cabinet‘s dismissal since it would keep her approval rating high. It is still less possible that the potential rise in the Russian gas prices would cause the dismissal. On the contrary, the statements made by the Russian government and the Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov‘s sharp words have a reverse effect. The Prime Minister will be the Ukrainians‘ only hope, thus getting still more popular. The situation resembles the Russian-Georgian relations when Russia imposed the economic sanctions on Georgia. Now the Ukrainians, even the Russian-speaking population, have a negative attitude towards such steps. This way, the society is not splitting apart, it is consolidating itself; and the public attitudes are becoming radical. Even in the event of the gas price increase with the mass media racket in Russia, the population will pin their hopes on Tymoshenko. As for the conflict between the President and the Premier, even if Tymoshenko‘s ratings fall (it is what Viktor Yushchenko‘s team seek because at present they would like Yushchenko to be nominated in the presidential election as an ―orange‖ candidate) they will not fall for a long time. There is nothing else left for Tymoshenko to do but to implement her program and to try to keep the prices down. Moreover, the mechanisms that she offers are quite effective. If Tymoshenko‘s dismissal is instigated, new parliamentary elections are likely to be held. Then Tymoshenko will get still more MPs in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, while Yushchenko may lose his encourage and cease to be a political player. The President‘s wish to push through his version of the constitutional reform played a mean trick on him. Viktor Yushchenko and his team did not expect that Yuliya Tymoshenko would offer such resistance. And Tymoshenko took the initiative. When Yushchenko was opposed to Viktor Yanukovych‘s Cabinet, the President‘s popular support was increasing. At that time Yushchenko was a victim. But today Prime Minister Tymoshenko is a victim and the President is an aggressor. So Tymoshenko has gained a sweeping victory. The question is whether the President will have time to even the score. This is very difficult to do since the President and, above all, head of his Secretariat Viktor Baloga has to adapt to their ―orange‖ coalition allies. Even one of the key ―orange‖ politicians and one of the President‘s allies, leader of the People‘s Self-Defense Yury Lutsenko, comes out for Baloga‘s dismissal. It looks like if Yushchenko continues to worsen the
conflict, he will be a loser. He must only make concessions to restore the status quo or, at least, to save face. LINK: http://www.eurasianhome.org/xml/t/expert.xml?lang=en&nic=expert&pid=1556&qmonth= 0&qyear=0
To be on or off the free Eurasian Home Bulletin distribution list please contact FatimaVD@fundeh.org (Fatima Dobaeva) You are welcome to send us names for the Eurasian Home Bulletin distribution list
THE EURASIAN HOME BULLETIN
A Free, Not-For-Profit, Independent Newsletter
With major support from the Eurasia Heritage Foundation
Articles are distributed for information, research, education, academic discussion and personal purposes only All the materials from the Eurasian Home website should be reproduced with a link to www.eurasianhome.org/en If you have any comments or suggestions about the contents and about the Biweekly Eurasian Home Bulletin, please e-mail us
EURASIAN HOME
"Eurasian Home" analytical and information resource is an open forum for dialogue and reflection, bringing together experts, politicians and journalists from the New Independent States, Russia, European Union, Asia and America. Our website is first of all a platform where representatives of different countries can freely discuss issues concerning global and regional integration in Eurasia. Among priority topics of the website are political and economic processes in post-Soviet Eurasia; integration concepts and strategies in the world; integration between the countries of the former Soviet Union; the search for models of effective economic integration; economic and political interaction between the countries of the CIS as well as with the rest of the world (EU, USA etc.). Objectives:
Involving experts from different countries in discussion of economic and political issues, which are of prime importance for the New Independent States, Russia, and members of the European Union; Assisting in the formation and promotion of economic policies, which could secure business environment and provide favorable conditions for establishing fruitful partnerships in the CIS;
Presenting the results of expert assessments to government, supranational and international agencies.
Guiding principles: Timeliness, relevance, accuracy of the information presented, professionalism of the conclusions drawn and suggestions made, as well as openness to opinions from all parts of the political spectrum - these are the main principals of our work.
EURASIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION
The Eurasia Heritage Foundation is a Russia-registered non-government organization established in Moscow in 2004 to render assistance in the development and support of partnerships among the government agencies, business community and civil society of Russia as well as to pursue projects in the field of international cooperation. Elena Yatsenko – President of the Eurasia Heritage Foundation Contacts 44/1 Sadovnicheskaya Str. Moscow 115035 Russia phone / fax: +7 (495) 728-4959 Е-mail: info@fundeh.org
The Eurasian Home Bulletin has been prepared and e-mailed by: English language Editor of the Eurasian Home website Fatima Dobaeva: FatimaVD@fundeh.org Expert of the Eurasia Heritage Foundation Kirill Gavrilov: KirillAG@fundeh.org
May 16, 2008