Traffic in Yerevan :))

No comments

Georgian press - November 19

A Very Dangerous Tendency

'The public attitude towards the law enforcers has dramatically changed since November 7. Soldiers, security guards and police workers avoid wearing uniforms if they have a chance to,' the Kviris Palitra writes in one of today's article. The article tells a story of the elite battalion servicemen, who were banished from a restaurant a couple of days ago, because 'there was no place for them beside Georgians'. 'Some policemen I know told me they had never taken scolding so calmly as now - they could not say just anything in their defense. To be short, the image of a policeman, which was built during long years, was crushed on just one day – November 7,' the publication reads.

Question That Must Be Answered

'The authority insulted Georgian shrines on November 7, the Kviris Kronika reports. 'They threw the gas capsules in the churches where intoxicated and injured people were trying to hide from the violence in Rustaveli. The Sioni Church young priests vainly tried to stop the special soldiers, who did not mercy them too and responded them with gas and rubber bullets. Later when the developments shifted to Rike, Metechi and Sameba Cathedrals were also targeted.' 'We have been notified that several spiritual leaders, Senior Priest of the Peter-Paul's Church Father Archil and Church Hierarch Iobi, were supposed to be killed,' the edition writes in 'Authority Terrorizes Priests'.

http://www.interpressnews.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=50150&info_id=193469

Seizure of IMEDI, seizure of HOPE

Police walk by as they guard the television station Imedi in Tbilisi. Police walk by as they guard the television station Imedi in Tbilisi November 7, 2007 (REUTERS)

Interview with Lewis Robertson, the head of News Media Caucasus, Imedi’s parent company, November 14, 2007

....We got a tip late Wednesday afternoon that this might happen. We had been warned this was possible and they might be coming to Imedi. Then about 10:40 I was in the office. I heard a lot of dogs barking which is very unusual. I looked out of the window from my office on the third floor and saw hundreds of riot police running towards the television station. I immediately went downstairs to the lobby. By the time I got there people had been forced on the floor. They took out a gun and put it to the head of Bidzina Baratashvili [General Director of Imedi Channel].
They told him that they would shoot him right there. One of our reporters who was nine months pregnant was forced to the floor with a gun pointed at her. They were pushing and shoving and there was a lot of fear. We were there for an hour or so and they ordered us to leave. We went outside. It was very cold night, raining. Everybody was told to go home. I was back in the station with General Director and our commercial director. We were inside and everybody outside was leaving. Another group of riot police came and started shooting teargas and rubber bullets. ....

...One of our directors was hit with a club and had to go to hospital. Ten or so of our employees had to go to hospital because of the teargas. While we were inside the building we were asked to go inside with riot police. We went in one of the control rooms and took those pictures which are now out on the internet. Everything had been destroyed. This was about ten minutes to eleven. I guess 2 or 3 o clock in the morning we left and have not been back to the building since then. The building is cordoned. I was with a reporter from the Wall Street Journal there but nobody let him go into the building. Only the people who had left their cars were allowed to enter. When they got to their cars, they saw all the windows had been smashed and the radios and CD players player had been torn out. It is clear that the people who ere guarding the place did so....

January 5 elections are not going to be a free and fair elections from the stand of point of media coverage. There is no question about that. You have the first channel which is there every time the president goes somewhere. Rustavi will cover it as well. We would also cover the other candidates. ...

November 17, 2007

The Georgian National Communications Commission (GNCC) has suspended Imedi TV’s broadcast license for three months, citing the station's violation of the law on broadcasting. Meanwhile, Rustavi 2 TV aired on November 16 a documentary, which had all the appearances of officially sanctioned, anti-Imedi propaganda....

No comments.... :/

Georgian traffic and social problems

Today I was really annoyed not only by the public transportation system of Tbilisi, but also by the absence of respect to pedastrians from the part of Tbilisi City Council... Those who have been to Tbilisi can fully understand me. The traffic in the capital of Georgia is horrible, and this is the sole thing I am afraid of. In order to cross the street I usually use an underground, but this week it was impossible to cross Rustaveli street and Freedom square, entrence to all the undergrounds was blocked. The way out is just to run in order to avoid to get under the car... And I still cannot understand why we have only mini-buses going to Rustavi (and maybe other destinations), if there are so many people going to this place, especially in evenings... Georgian companies, which run this business, could make more profit, if we have buses in evenings (for more than just 18 people).... So, be careful in Georgia!


Overladen with my bags, I was approching a metro station, observing so many people, bagging for help on the sidelines of the sidewalks... It seems that resolution of the social problems will be the main priority before the upcoming presidential elections for the government... Mass rallies were driven mainly by poverty an absence of the Rule of Law for ordinary citizens...

On November 16, Georgian presient introduced a new Prime Minister, former Chairperson of the Supervisory Boar of the Bank of Georgia Lado Gurgebidze, saying that... “we need more momentum to our reforms. We have instructed the new prime minister to provide, stage-by-stage, a two-fold increase in pensions, a significant increase in teachers’ salaries, an increase in social assistance, more employment programs, and to deliver the results of our reforms to our citizens." And a new PM has replied that "the main task for me, if I am approved by Parliament, is to engage in communication and dialogue and if possible to reach consensus with the people, especially with socially vulnerable people."

I fully agree with a journalist from the GT that "Gurgenidze, who has been on good terms with authorities as a successful businessperson, especially with Saakakashvili, will be a fresh face detached from the current government's problems."(...) "According to Georgian experts, Nogaideli's government came under fire from many Georgians for failing to sufficiently address poverty and tackle soaring inflation. Nogaideli is also unpopular for education reforms that resulted in mass teacher lay-offs and for a series of privatizations that his critics say were non-transparent and clashed with democratic principles. . The new appointment must be approved by the parliament, but as the ruling party has the majority of votes at the legislature, approval is most probable. "

Crazy days - 16.11.

poster in the subway

Georgia celebrates International day of tolerance, and even Georgian authorities decided to lift the state of emergency... President has told that "we are not a cowardly government. We are a government for which the top priority is the rule of law and of course our country and peace, security and the protection of every citizen. So we are determined to maintain law and order in the future as well. We will secure the normal functioning of the state and a transparent and democratic political process accessible to all." But these are very beautiful words, which do not reflect the reality....

Crazy days

The last three days were very crazy....
I feel really tired, running out of energy...
As I was working from dawn to dusk and that is why I was unable to post smth...
Originally I was planning to be now on the way to Rustavi, but as usually I was late (forgot that today is Sunday). So, I am staying in the office.. :))

November 15

The whole day I felt crappy...

I was driving to Tbilisi in a mini-bus, and two things really disappointed me - young men, packed into the Soviet truck, who were going to attend 18 days military preparation (in Georgia there is a law on Compulsary Army Reserve Service which obliges all young men from 18 till 40 to undergo a military training for 18 days every two years), which is a sign of the militarization of the country (however, friend of mine who was so nationalistic and militaristic in his views drastically changed his mind after holding in his arms real weapons, which push you to kill someone); after that I saw a crashed mini-bus. That was a mini bus, going probably from Tbilisi to Rustavi.... I could be there...

My first news I read made me really upset...


"Tbilisi City Court has suspended Imedi TV?s broadcast license citing that the television stations? news coverage of the November 7 unrests in Tbilisi was inciting to overthrow of the government. The court's ruling has also frozen the TV stations assets"


My initial reaction: Georgian democracy is under threat!!


If we have only GPB (state controled telivision), Rustavi 2 TV and closed IMEDI TV, the upcoming elections will not be free and fair! Meanwhile, Mathew Bryza kept pushing for restoration of all media broadcasts, including of Imedi and Kavkasia. Speaking at a news conference in Tbilisi on November 14 – the second one in two subsequent days – Bryza said: “First of all we need to have a decision out there to get Imedi back on air and that’s what we are working very hard right now. It seems that Georgian authorities turned a deaf ear...Maybe the procedure of elections will be fair, but pre-election will not be free and fair, if Georgian authorities will limit freedom of speech and suspend licenses for the Independent mass media, especially TV. We all know that the main source of information for Georgian population is TV, not Internet or press (only small percentage of the population can afford to buy printed press, and even less have access to the Internet). The Court had acted upon the request of the General Prosecutor’s Office, which ordered that Imedi's “owner be prevented from using and managing” the station's broadcast license, but it is known that the government and personally president and hid team stand behind the Prosecutor General. If in Latvia Prosecutor General can say NO to the President or Prime Minister, in Georgia it is out of reality.

That day Georgian Parliament also endorsed with its first hearing draft amendments to the election code. I really hail all the amendments proposed. The only exception is an abolishment of a turnout of voters – “another proposed amendment to the election code involves the abolition of a 33.33% quorum in second-round presidential elections. There is no quorum required for the first round.” : /

My philosophy on NATO - NATO as a cooperative security organisation

This paper had been written in April 2007 in cooperation with Maris Cepuritis (theory of NATO like a medieval city/fortress) and Liga Berzina

What does NATO mean to you? Military organisation, defense Alliance, collective defense organisation or collective security organisation? This was the topic of discussions on the usual meeting of the Latvian team of the Community of Democratic Choice Youth Forum. Two views/allegories deserve our attention, which basically reflect the opinion of all of us.

First allegory is about NATO as a security umbrella that keeps all NATO members safe from direct military threats. This is possible because every aggressor knows that by attacking one of member states, it automatically is in a state of war with all member countries, which together form a great military force. The second point of view is by comparing NATO to medieval fortress and medieval city. NATO should be not as medieval fortress with high and thick walls, which is built on the edge of unattainable cliff and is reachable only by small and dangerous pathway. In our mind NATO should be more like medieval city which is a cultural and economical centre and also a seat of learning for surrounding territories, and in the times of peace is accessible for people of different backgrounds and different cultures to trade, share their culture, knowledge and basically to socialize. But during the times of crisis (war) this city still can protect itself by closing all the gates and putting their garrison on the walls and in the towers. Of course, fortress also can protect people of surrounding territories from foreign invaders, but fortress is advantageous only in times of military crisis, but city shares its benefits all the time. This distinction between medieval fortress and city better shows us that NATO should not only build walls and be a fortress; it must be more flexible and embrace much more diverse and broader cooperation, thus, developing cooperative security principle.

In the light of aforementioned, we propose to use more the concept of cooperative security in our discourse, when speaking about NATO. It has been generally used to describe a more peaceful, but rather idealistic, approach to security through increased international harmony and cooperation, and includes four concentric and mutually reinforcing “rings of security”: individual security, collective security, collective defense and promotion of stability. Individual security stands at the centre of any real international security system built around liberal democratic ideals. It is the essential basic value upon which a Cooperative Security rests. Collective Security looks inward to attempt to ensure security within a group of sovereign states. But a Collective Defense organisation looks outward to defend its members from external aggression, to defend the Self (group of states with collective identity, sharing common values) from the Other. The fourth and outer ring of Cooperative Security is the active promotion of stability outside the boundaries of the states forming this Cooperative Security system.[1] On the one hand, NATO already is a practical example of cooperative security – community of values, promoting stability in its extended neighbourhood. But on the other hand, it still has division lines. So, it is crucially important to promote this stability, not excluding, but including Others, especially significant Others. We do not need the emergence of a new dividing line in our discourse and our actions.

Nowadays we face a world where the very nature of threats to the security of states has changed - non-state actors like international terrorist groups have come forward and states do not pose an immediate threat to the survival of other states. Moreover, in the beginning of 21st century the concept of security has become more complex and must be understood beyond military terms, including also economic, social and environmental dimension. The world has “shrank” to global village, “flat” and interdependent area, making the need for cooperation and not confrontation a matter of development and survival, a chance to secure safe and stable environment for the future generations.

Since now NATO has been and has been seen as a collective defense organisation, which implies the Alliance of states, which poses collective identity, directed against Other(s). We believe this perception makes a physical and psychological division line between the common Self and Other(s), thus decreasing its contribution for development of safe and secure environment and in fact making it more insecure.

Wording, language and discourse have been underestimated not only in the analysis of the foreign policy of actors of the international relations, but also by these actors themselves. They have not paid sufficient attention to importance of social constructs. We believe that language is one of the instruments for construction of the social reality. “Language is not seen as describing a pre-existing social reality, but as a medium through which reality is created and the material world is given a meaning.”[2] It is crucially important not only how we act, but also how and what we are speaking about. Thus, building of identity (image) of a state (or another actor of the international relations) is a discursive practice. Although state identity (let’s take a state as a basic unit of the international system, although some scholars can disagree) derives from many resources, it reflects what others say about it and how they respond to it. This is known as the principle of Alexander Wendt “reflected appraisals” or “mirroring”, because it hypothesizes that Self (a state or group of states with collective identity, sharing common values) come to see themselves as a reflection of how they think Others see or “appraise” them, in the “mirror” of Other’s representations of the Self. If Self treats the Other though it were an enemy, then by the principle of reflected appraisals the Other is likely to internalize that belief in his own identity vis-à-vis the Self.[3]
“The Russian media exploded in anger at the news of U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ testimony before Congress on February 7. Presenting the defense budget for Fiscal Year 2008, Gates argued that Russia and China are “pursuing sophisticated military modernization programs” that could pose a threat to the United States. Russian commentators grabbed that comment and ran with it, declaring a re-launch of the Cold War at a time when feelings in Moscow are already running high about NATO’s plans to deploy missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic.”[4]
If we use the concept of “reflected appraisals” or “mirroring” in the instance, we see that not only actions, but also discourse, wording of the Secretary of Defense of the United States (member of NATO) facilitates the creation of the image/identity of Russia as the enemy state, which makes our “common neighbourhood” more insecure, and force Russia to behave and act in this way. Moreover, by heavily relying on the old scheme of inclusion/exclusion, a new dividing line emerges between us and them. By reflecting on NATO and calling it as the Alliance and collective defense organisation, we again draw the new diving line, including some and excluding others.

“Common vision for common neighbourhood” – we would like to hear in the rhetoric of our officials. Cooperation for security – we would like to see in the actions of our governments. Enlargement of this community of values, cooperative security organisation is a logical consequence, embracing new states, “news democracies”, which share common values and ideals. However, this democratic rhetoric has to be seen in the actions of the governments. There should not be a gap between words and deeds, no more double standards. Accession to NATO requires from the states not only the reformation of the military sphere, but also ensuring the rule of law and respect of the human rights, which are the basic tenets of democracy. Thus, NATO plays an important role in the sustaining of democratic reforms and democratic development of these “new democracies” as they aspire to join this cooperative security system. However, these “new democracies” should not create their own diving lines.

“For Georgia the whole of this year has been a year of good fighting evil, truth fighting falsehood and freedom fighting tyranny. They have tried a lot to make it a year of Georgia's destruction but you have made it a year of Georgia's construction. They wanted 2006 to be a year of Georgia's blockade and isolation, but you have made it a year in which Georgia has more allies and friends than ever before in its entire history,”[5] stressed the president of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili in his New Year speech. And this is only one example of the prevailing discourse among Georgian officials, which makes the distinction between the Self (Georgia) and the Other (Russia) and establish a boundary between them, constructing the external realm as different, inferior, threatening. But these discursive practices do not only contribute to the secure “common neighbourhood”, but even do not contribute to the peace and security of the community of values – NATO. According to the National Security Concept of Georgia, “Georgia views NATO as an organisation of collective defense that is the central mechanism for providing security and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area.”[6] Thus, it views NATO as an organisation, which looks outward to defend its members from external aggression. And the aggressor is obvious – the Russian Federation. According to the theory of “reflected appraisals”, more the Self is engaging in the antagonistic rhetoric, more antagonistic is becoming the Other. Does it make our ‘common neighbourhood’ more secure? The answer is no. Instead of spending their times on creation of new boundaries, “new democracies” should engage in cooperation for security. As a result their efforts to join NATO will not be perceived as a headache for the members of this community of values, instead their integration will be perceived as an asset for ensuring stable, secure and peaceful environment. Rationalists can point, that in order to define yourself, you should say who you are not, that the definition of difference is a requirement built into the logic of identity. But is this creation of boundaries between states the best way to ensure security and stability?

Going back to our second allegory – medieval fortress/city – we would like to stress that in our mind NATO should lower its walls and towers in the same time broadening its territory and focusing on other aspects of life so it would become a more friendly place for sharing different views, knowledge, culture and wealth and become a centre for promoting cooperation, stability, knowledge, and universal values – so NATO could truly become a cooperative security organization.

[1] Richard Cohen, „Cooperative Security: From Individual Security to International Stability” in Cohen R., Mihalka M., Cooperative Security: New Horizons for International Order. The Marshall Center Papers, No. 3, 2001. http://www.marshallcenter.org/site-graphic/lang-en/page-pubs-mcpapers-1/static/xdocs/coll/static/mcpapers/mc-paper_3-en.pdf
[2]Peter Wennersten, “The Politics of Inclusion. The Case of the Baltic States.” Cooperation and Conflict, vol. 34, no.3 (1999): 274
[3] Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge, NY, Melbourne, etc.: Cambridge University Press, 1999): 327
[4] Rose Gottemoeller, Bob Gates and the New Russia Threat. Carnegie Moscow Centre, 15.02.2007.
http://www.carnegie.ru/en/pubs/media/75569.htm
[5] The New Year message of the President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili. 01.01.2007. http://www.president.gov.ge/?l=E&m=0&sm=1&st=30&id=2114
[6] National Security Concept of Georgia. http://www.mfa.gov.ge/?sec_id=24&lang_id=ENG

Some compiled notes about 'peace operations' and NATO involvement for NISA

Stability, happiness, prosperity and peace – these are the things people are striving for all over the globe, but the main component among them is peace, without which nothing is possible, be it prosperous and happy family life or personal development, because the alternative of peace is war. And the whole definition of peace could be ‘absence of war’. Broadly, three conditions of world politics can be identified: war, non-war and peace. However, peace is simultaneously the fundamental assumption upon which international law is based. Although time of the great wars has gone, it could be naïve to say that we have reached the Kantanian ‘perpetual peace’. New challenges appeared; among them are intra-state conflicts and global spread of terrorism.

‘Peace operations’ is a broad concept, which refers to peace peacekeeping, peace building/making and peace enforcement. Actually this is a concept, which combines all the peace support measures during inter- and intra-state conflicts. The first concept of peacekeeping had been introduced in 1950s by Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Lester Pearson and the UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold in response to the need to supervise troop withdrawals from Suez in 1956, later this concept had been defined as a third party role played by an actor in a violent conflict situation. Put it roughly – conflict management rather than conflict resolution. Later requires peace building/making activities or even peace enforcement, but traditional peacekeeping is inherently status quo oriented, therefore it cannot address or contribute to any lasting political solutions to the problems of the post-Cold War era. Massacre in Srebrenica, Rwanda and Somalia is a bitter proof to this fact. That is why ‘keeping the peace’ does indeed imply a more active role for the peacekeepers and we need more ‘peace operations, not peace keeping missions.

Peace operations may be coordinated under the auspices of the United Nations, African Union, Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (nowadays we can add to this list Collective Security Treaty Organisation, GUAM and maybe others). NATO has come a long way in the field of peace operations since the early 1990s and managed to conduct several ‘peace operations’ such as Stabilisation Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1996-2004), Operation Allied Harmony in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (2001-2003), Kosovo Force in the province of Serbia Kosovo (since 1999) and participate in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan (since 2001).

Peace operation in the Kosovo province proved to be a real peace keeping mission, when NATO-led Kosovo Force was in charge to prevent future massacres and fighting based on the ethnical ground. Peace in this region is very crucial for the maintenance of peace in the whole Balkans. However, at the present political solution is needed, based on the compromise and consensus of the two sides involved – Serbian government and authorities of the Kosovo province. In Afghanistan we see completely different situation and to call this NATO-led ISAF a peace operation in its traditional sense is very difficult. It was the United States which used the fifth Article of the North Atlantic Treaty –
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”

-- to intervene Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, basing their arguments that Taliban regime gives a shelter to Al-Qaeda terrorists, who actually stood behind that bloody terrorist attack on the twin-towers in New Your city . After the ousting of Taliban regime, ISAF, a –UN mandated international force had been established with the aim “to assist the newly established Afghan Transitional Authority and to create a secure environment in and around Kabul and support the reconstruction of Afghanistan.” Since August 2003 ISAF is supported and led by NATO, which was the first peace support initiative undertaken by NATO out of the Euro-Atlantic area and remains crucially important to the Alliance nowadays as the fighting with the Taliban insurgents appeared to be more intense and on the wide scale. The main problem in Afghanistan is to win hearts and minds of the local population, which sometimes not only assist the insurgency, but also fill the ranks. As it is stated, “development without security is unachievable and security without development is meaningless.” That is why it is crucially important to provide to the local Afghanis not only security, but also development be it infrastructure or economy, and this is not only NATO task, which however is actively engaged into the development and reconstruction works, but also the task of all the international community, development and relief agencies.

I have a deep conviction that each person working or trying to promote NATO and its values should have his own perception of this international organization. In my opinion, NATO should look and behave like a cooperative security organization. It has been generally used to describe a more peaceful, but rather idealistic, approach to security through increased international harmony and cooperation, and includes four concentric and mutually reinforcing “rings of security”: individual security, collective security, collective defense and promotion of stability. Individual security stands at the centre of any real international security system built around liberal democratic ideals. It is the essential basic value upon which a Cooperative Security rests. Collective Security looks inward to attempt to ensure security within a group of sovereign states. But a Collective Defense organization looks outward to defend its members from external aggression, to defend the Self (group of states with collective identity, sharing common values) from the Other. The fourth and outer ring of Cooperative Security is the active promotion of stability outside the boundaries of the states forming this Cooperative Security system.[1] However, NATO should not become a global police, trying to be involved in a resolution of any conflict. The primary aim of NATO is to secure the peace of its member states, trying to promote stability into its neighbourhood without using military force, which is to be the last resort to use.

[1] Richard Cohen, „Cooperative Security: From Individual Security to International Stability” in Cohen R., Mihalka M., Cooperative Security: New Horizons for International Order. The Marshall Center Papers, No. 3, 2001. http://www.marshallcenter.org/site-graphic/lang-en/page-pubs-mcpapers-1/static/xdocs/coll/static/mcpapers/mc-paper_3-en.pdf

Notes about patriotism

Some persons have accused me of being too critical towards Georgia these days, arguing that they are real patriots and are not going to criticise recent political developments. But what is patriotism? Look at my picture, it is taken in my parents' apartment. Although I am very critical about the actions taken by Georgian government, I still have Georgian flag in "my corner". I do like this land, but maybe I dislike this government... Real patriotism means that you are not blind as regards actions of your government, having (a bit) critical approach. You are criticising, because you want all the best for your country. First, you are trying to be silent in your critics, pointing out to the mistakes. If you are not heard and the overall situation is getting worse, you loudly voice your view. Maybe the same has happened with me... I do like a remark of Mr. Aleksey Loskutov, the head of Latvian Anti-corruption bureau: Patriotism means that when you pay a fine, because you have parked your car in a wrong place, you are happy to know that the system works....

My Imeretian hachapuri :)))

Tired and hungry after half of the day spent in the city of the Academy of Science, where we were decorating the conference room for upcoming conference of the Latvian society AVE SOL about Latvian Roberts Kupcis, a person, who made researches almost of the all mineral waters of Georgia, my colleague Andris and me went to the Soviet style cafe near "Vodi Logidze". Although I was dreaming about lobio, I have agreed to join him and order this round hachapuri. :)))

Freezed...

Yesterday in the evening I did not succeed to catch a mini-bus. As a result I had to stay in the office of our Latvian Honor Consul. At least here we have a small gas heater. But nevertheless I have been freezed, even now sipping hot tea in oder to warm myself and my cold fingers. I should tell my guys to bye me a gas or electric heater, 'cause it is really unbearable to stay in my apartment, especially at night.

I have started to read some news and upload photos of how I spent my Day of Lachplesis... Nice morning, with the blue sky. It would be beter for me not to read the news...

Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili addressing teachers:

"Last year, President Putin directly told me at the [CIS] summit in Minsk that Russia would create a new Cyprus in Abkhazia.

And I want to explain what the Cyprus case means, as Russians understand it. There was a huge riot in Athens, Greece in 1973. There were demonstrations against the then Greek government. In parallel to these events, turmoil was sparked in Cyprus. The Greek government was totally occupied by the internal affairs of Greece and they failed to react [to developments in Cyprus], and, as a result, Cyprus was split in two. This conflict remains unresolved. This is the Cyprus case and the Cyprus model for Georgia."

It seems that the President compare Greek riots to overthrow the government 1973 with the recent attempt made by opposition groups with the Russians behind the scene. But it is worth to mention that in 1967 the Greek military seized power in coup d-etat and established the Greek military junta of 1967-74. And that protests starting in 1968 and reaching its peak in 1973 was anti-junta protests. Does it mean that Mikheil Saakashvili compare itself with the leader of the military junta?

Speaking at a news conference in Tbilisi after series of talks with the Georgian leadership and the opposition, Mathew Bryza, the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs....

“Some of our fellow allies [in NATO] are wondering whether or not the events that are unfolding right now [in Georgia] mean that Georgia someway disqualifies itself for Membership Action Plan,” Mathew Bryza said. “We do not share that view… As the state of emergency is lifted and as the country prepares for the elections and if those elections are as free and fair as we expect them to be, why should there be any questions.”

He then kept on pushing the Georgian leadership to lift the state of emergency and to restore broadcast of all the television stations.

“These steps are important to restore everyone’s faith in democratic processes,” he said. “If Georgia’s democratic system recovers and moves forward again then it appears that Georgia will be on the path again to fulfilling all the criteria of NATO membership.”

In an apparent attempt to allay skeptic’s concerns about Georgia’s democratic processes, Bryza pointed out that these sort of tensions observed recently in Georgia are “by-products” of drastic, but necessary reforms.

No comments....

Day 2, Rustavi-Tbilisi

Half of the day I spent in Rustavi, trying to arrange with my chief the schedule for the next weeks. Usually he was rather critical regarding the authorities in Georgia, but not today. He was teying to defend them, claiming that the rally of oppositoon was organised by Russians, that Russians stand behind this political turmoil... Strange.. Then came Lasha, whom I like very much, very intersting person to talk and to spend time. We were chating for half an hour, also about recent political crisis. In his opinion, it is really foolish to blame only Russians. Moreover, Georgian police and special force units were very cruel and brutal in his action, trying to dispel the rally. Lasha was the second person who told me that they (Georgian policemen) took or were forced to take some drugs, because they beat even young girls, old people, shooting with rubber bullets children...

As we all know, presidential election wilkl be hold on January 5, 2008. But why Georgian president has decided to hold presidential, not parliamentary elections? One of the demands of the opposition was to hold parliamentary elections in April next year... But it is very easy to explain. As the president has told, this will be more a referendum:

Let’s hold these elections without additional postponement. I, as the leader of this country, need an unequivocal mandate from you in order to tackle all the foreign threats, to tackle all types of pressure on Georgia, to tackle attempts at annexing Georgian territory, to tackle plans directed towards destabilizing Georgia.
So I propose that you judge and give me your trust and your support for the country’s further strengthening and to show the entire world that the Georgian people can maintain unity despite attempts at destabilizing us.

Executive power controls judicial system. Prosecutor General will not dare to critise the executive power, also president or contradict them. Moreover, it was a good strategical step from one side to raise salaries of policemen, army, people, working for all law-enforcement bodies. As I was told today usually Georgian soldies, serving in the army, gets 1000 GEL. Enough to survive in Georgia... I agree also that to increase salaries was very essential to fight with corruption and illegal activities of the law-enforcement bodies, but we still have teachers, getting around 90 (a bit more than 50 USD), and pensioners - around 38 GEL. Agree that the main reason to go out and protest was poverty, unemployment, but also absence of the Rule of Law in the country. Each of them has his own story to tell....

Back to Rustavi... First day

That was my first time, when I really did not want to go back to Georgia, I was nearly crying in the airport, saying good-bye to my parents, my friends.. After all those events, beating of innocent people, shutting the most critical TV station of IMEDI. Maybe this is a coincedence that in Georgian 'imedi' means hope. Georgian authorities closed not just a TV station, they killed the hope of thousdands of people, who believed in all those democratic values voiced by government and personally by president and that this government is really comitted to these values, not just simply voicing, thus making a so-called democratic facade....

Two years ago Georgian president claimed that “if somebody dared to put pressure on media I would be his worst enemy. It is an attack on my own prerogatives, ideals and authority.” But last week the international community could observe horrible scenes of beating not only ordinary people, but also journalists. Friends of mine from Latvian society in Georgia told me that their friend who used to work as a journalist for IMEDI TV station, was beaten and threatened. Special law-enforcement unites, who stormed IMEDI before the announcement of the state of emergency and informational blokade, even confiscated mobile phones of journalists. This young girl now is sitting at home, having a deep depression....

My plane had to depart at 22:35 by Latvian time, but due to the delay we took off the ground only at 23:05. I was sitting, waiting and thinking.... that I do not wanna learn Georgian language anymore, that I do not see the purpose of stayning in Georgia for longer time, teaching local youngsers about European Union.. I do not wanna see this nation not only in Europe, in my Europe, but also as a member of NATO, which is not just a military strucutre, but also a political club, value driven organisation. If you wanna join our club, you should behave like us, embrace all that democratic values not just on paper, but also guideing yourself in your actions. And I do not wanna accept a country, which is trying to convince others that it has territorial (and not only) problems with Russia. I do not wanna let my friends fight for Georgia against Russia (Article 5, North Atlantic Treaty), if Georgia uses force against its own citizens..

Some friends of my tell me that such kind of scenes you could observe in any European nations - France, Italy, but they do not take into their minds the difference of the situation. Let's compare similar events in Latvia and Georgia!

I was driving from the airport back to Rustavi. I felt myself like a dog beaten by men, and who now distrusts each man, trying to approach or feed her. I distrust Georgians, I became more sober, my initial romantism and idealism regarding Georgian disappeared, it's gone. Georgia lost its very active friend, I think I am not the only one,...

I got up around noon, it was very cold in my room (there is no a central heating system in Georgia, but I do not have a gas or electric heater), observing from my bed, how my curtains were swinging because of the wind coming from the cracks of the window. I came out, went to Tbilisi, talking with my friends about recent political crisis. Some of them, who works for the government or is active in one NGO promoting NATO integration and organising election observation campaing, were trying to convince me that we should blame opposition, not the government, that the main force standing behind the riots - Russians. They agreed that there were some mistakes, how the authorities delt with the demonstartors, but the overall view, opinion of them was in defence of the current government, but all others (mainly opposition leaders) are "degeneraty" (disabled persons). I was aksed whom do I believe?... No one, I get and analyse the information I have and then make conclusions. Maybe for them actions of the government were correct and right, but not for me, European Latvian girl, who knows what does to live in a democratic state, committed to the Rule of Law.

Next I spoke with my friend from Latvian society, who told me horrible stories, how on November 7 people came to their house, begging for help. How they were screaming, because the police followed them and used force even in the house were our Latvian Honor consulate is located. I heard stories of the use of force in the Sameba church, even there police used force and tear gas, dissolving it with water, so it could be more poisonous. Staff of our consulated felt themselves like caught into a gas chamber, because even here (our building is located near the Parliament) they could smell the gas....

I am going back home now. It si too late, I have to catch a mini-bus, which going to Rustavi....

Mass protests in Georgia November 2-7, 2007

www.humanrights.ge

24saati

I do not believe that they are all spies of Russia or work for KGB, SVR (External Intelligence Service). Each of them has his own story to tell...