Growing separatist sentiment in North Caucasus

North Ossetia in North Caucasus has traditionally been considered the most loyal to the Russia’s rule in the region. There are various explanations for this, eg. Ossetians gained a lot from the Russians’ conquest of the North Caucasus such as new territory, Ossetians are the only predominantly Christian people in the region, surrounded by Muslims.

However, even in North Ossetia one can witness certain rise of movement for freedom from Russia. This especially showed up after Beslan hostage crisis in 2004 when Russian security services stormed the school with the hostages, which caused over 330 deaths, 180 of them children.

Well-known North Ossetian politician and civil activist Vissarion Aseev that comes from Beslan announced his Manifesto while running for the deputy seat in the North Ossetian parliament in December 2007. He stated gaining independence for Ossetia as the main objective for every Ossetian politician. The whole circulation of the paper that published this Manifesto was confiscated by the prosecutors 1 December (one day before parliamentary elections in Russia and in North Ossetia), that claimed it was in breach of the electoral law.

 Here is the Manifesto (in Russian): http://sv.ossetia.ru/Script/search1.php?misc=search&subaction=showfull&id=1196439068&archive=&cnshow=news&ucat=2&start_from=&

Russia+US vs Iran or US+Iran vs Russia?

I visited an interesting talk on ”Russian-Iranian Relations in the Ahmadinejad Era given by Mark Katz, Professor, Department of Public and International Affairs, George Mason University.

I liked speaker’s bluntness, when he talked about various aspects of the Russian-Iranian relations, juxtoposing them to the US policies as well.

According to Mr Katz, Iranians have “love-hate” attitude towards the US. There are some things they hate the Americans for and there are other things in America that they admire. However, Iranians’ attitude towards Russians is one of “hate-hate” type.” He said, that Iranians regard the US as a superpower (and quite rightly so), but do not consider Russia as such and even treat them with contempt.

Russian-Iranian relationship is what one could call an uneasy mismatch. Iranians look at Russians as their equals in terms of political weight on international scene, they do not accept any superiority on Russians’ side, while Russians are offended by this very perception. Russia is regarded instrumental to achieve certain Iranian goals in order to challenge the US. Iran is an Islamic country, while Russia not only persecutes Muslems, but is rampantly xenophobic toward non-Russians, more so toward Muslems.

So Russia wants to play an intermediary between the West and Iran in order to boost its international significance, to make some money in arms trade, nuclear and conventional energy, etc., to use Iran as a tool in the trade offs with the West. Russia is not really afraid of Iran becoming a nuclear power, as it does not regard Iran more insane or unstable than, for example Pakistan. (In my opinion though, once Iran becomes a nuclear power, the previous Russia’s points lose their significance for Russia, so Russians ideally would like to have Iran indefinetly approaching the threshold of acquiring nuclear capability without actually getting it) Russians are very afraid of the possible deal between the US and Iran as then Russia’s international significance would dramatically be diminished and it will have nothing to reply to it with.

Iran wants Russia’s help in order to strengten its international positions against the West/US. However, Iran showed up willingness to cooperate in building alternative gas pipelines, sponsored by the West. Iran does not hesitate to diversify its international policies, as it really does not have to make politically difficult choice, say between the Russians and the Americans. In the Iranian perspective both are approximately equally bad, but the US is at least the world superpower, that have some unquestionable strengths about it.

It looks almost as an intentional choice on the US’ side to allow Russia to play an intermediary between the West and Iran and capitalise on that. I am puzzled what the purpose of this could be. Perhaps, the US’ reasoning is that it is better for the western world to depend on Russia in such matters as energy supplies and nuclear non-prolifiration, than on Iran? But this does not necessarily mean that Iran is not going to acquire nuclear capability. If the objective is to stop nuclears prolifiration, then it would be best to talk to Iran directly and get rid of Russian intermediary role (or significantly limit it), because Russia is the very side in the game that uses potential threat of nuclear Iran as leverage in its own agenda with the US/West.

North Caucasus: Police raid offices of Independent Journalist

Press Release, February 27

Freelance journalist and editor Alan Tskhurbayev is facing pressure from officials in Russia’s turbulent North Caucasus. Mr Tshurbayev was conducting a meeting for journalists in the North Ossetian capital of Vladikavkaz when police burst into the room and began seizing documents.

 

Police from the “economic crime section” claimed they had a search warrant and demanded that participants show their papers. The journalists defended Mr. Tskhurbayev as police searched the room, seizing a computer and a number of documents.

 

Mr. Tskhurbayev, who helps manage an independent journalism network and commissions articles from freelance journalists, is now being accused of working in the North Caucasus illegally, a charge he strongly rejects.

 

At the time of the raid on February 11, 2008, Mr. Tskhurbayev was collaborating with the Moscow-based Centre for Journalism in Extreme Situations and the London-based Institute for War and Peace Reporting. 

 Tskhurbayev also works as a reporter for Radio Liberty in the North Caucasus and for the influential Russian news website, gazeta.ru.  

IWPR is an international media development organisation supporting free and fair media in areas of crisis and transition, with operations in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Eurasia. Its Caucasus Reporting Service, published in English and Russian, is a rare and internationally respected source of information and analysis from the North Caucasus, with more than six thousand subscribers

Both organizations are worried about the threats this situation poses to Mr. Tskhurbayev and the implications this has for the already perilous state of independent journalism in the North Caucasus, Europe’s most turbulent region.

 

 “The North Caucasus is practically an information black hole, and good journalism is essential to bring accountable governance and peace to that region. The Russian authorities should cease their continuing harassment of media there,” said Anthony Borden, Executive Director of IWPR

 

In 2007, Valery Dzutsev, who also helped manage an independent journalism network in the region, was investigated by the police for alleged tax evasion and two of his office computers were seized. The case never came to court and Mr. Dzutsev is currently enrolled in a Fellowship programme in the United States.

 For further details contact: Alan Tskhurbayev + 7 928 072 11 06

Oleg Panfilov, CJES, Moscow +7 495 637 7626

Tom de Waal, IWPR, London +44 7734 902827

Czech PM: Prague doesn’t want return to Russian sway

I’m just fascinated with all this big talk:) Where will it lead, I wonder and what exactly is happening? In my point of view Russia and the West are getting into the adversarial spiral with decreasing number of ways out of it.

I think, that anti-Americanism and anti-western rhetoric has become part of nation-building project in contemporary Russia. New Russian leadership is not very good at inventing something new in order to build a nation, so they reverted to the old-fashioned idea of Russia being encircled by the evil West as a means of rallying popular support for themselves and their policies.

There are multiple problems with the usage of anti-western rhetoric though. a) it cannot last forever without actually bringing into life the rhetoric, that is really stiffening the relations with the West, which may have potentially grave conseqences for Russia b) as every negative idea, the idea of being encircled by the evil West cannot substitute positive ideas that can pull the nation together.

The US is not directly confronting Russia, they often do not even respond to Putin’s cheeky remarks about the US, instead they chose to use oblique ways to check Russians. AMD defense in Check republic and Poland looks to me (and certainly to Russians) as one of them. Is it a wise move to undertake? I am really not sure that military build up without actual corresponding real enemies is going to contribute to the stability, it is more likely to evoke some kind of response from Russia. Range of Russian potential responses is extremely limited, that is why the US is so bold, but I still do not think, that games of nuclear powers are something that Europe or the world really needs.

The Czech Republic will not ask Russia for permission to site a U.S. radar station on its soil and rejects returning to Moscow’s sphere of influence, Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek said on Tuesday.

On a visit to Washington to discuss details of a plan to host part of a U.S. anti-missile defense system, Topolanek said the Czech Republic would cooperate with Russia on many issues but would decide its internal affairs alone.

The U.S. administration wants to deploy 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic as part of a global shield against long-range ballistic missiles from “rogue” nations such as Iran or North Korea.

Kremlin officials, saying they believe the shield would be directed against Russia, have threatened to target any parts of the defense system deployed in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Topolanek said Moscow was trying to sow confusion among NATO allies, especially those like the Czech Republic that once were members of the old Moscow-dominated Warsaw Pact and were occupied by Soviet forces during the Cold War.

“We do not want to belong again to the sphere of Russian influence,” he said. “We do not want to belong to a group of countries which have to ask Russia for permission if they want to ensure their own defense.”

Czech PM: Prague doesn’t want return to Russian sway | International | Reuters

Do Russians become more cruel in North Caucasus as the time goes by or less?

I attended presentation of the book The Ghost of Freedom on the history of the Caucasus, written by Charles King http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0195177754/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-6274581-6676959#reader-link

Russian Empire advancing on the Caucasus fought North Caucasians in XIX century for years. The two main fronts were the Circassian front in the North West and Dagestani-Chechen in the North East. When after a long period they finally captured the head of the North East resistance Imam Shamil (who was an ethnic Avar, one of the prinicipal Dagestani nationalities) they sent him into an exile to Russian town of Kaluga in 1859, by Russian standards not too far from Moscow. Shamil was kept in honorable conditions and was allowed even to relocate to Kyiv in Ukraine and make the hajj to Mecca where he eventually died.

 In comparison with that Chechen separatist government leader Dzhokhar Dudaev was killed by Russians in 1996, next Chechen leader Aslan Maskhadov was killed in 2005, smaller scale figures that claimed to be heads of Chechen separatist movement were subsequently killed by Russians as well.

Charles King, the author of the book during his presentation suggested that XIX century war was more brutal, than the wars in Chechnya in XX-XXI centuries. I linked up then the way that leader of Caucasian independence Shamil ended up and how much more modern days’ Chechen leaders ended up with this notion. Taking into consideration the fact that Shamil was much more alien to the Russians and Russian culture, than Dudaev and Makhadov (both of them were soviet army officers, Dudaev had a Russian wife), the difference is especially striking.

I don’t know why they ended up so differently, but I can make several suggestions:

a) Russian Empire in XIX century was much more confident of the being able to retain control over the region than Russian Federation

b) Russian Empire tried in this way not to exasperate North Caucasians by executing Shamil, whereas Russians of these days rely on killing off any potential alternative voice, which may be attributed to the consequences of the Soviet totalitarian rule.

c) Shamil was of much higher rank, than Chechen leaders and so Russians thought it was fairly safe just to kill the Chechen leaders in order to avoid further complications.

Crisis of democracy and rise of insecurity in Ingushetia

In my article on the situation in Ingushetia I tried to show how interdependent democracy and security are.

“Insecurity in Ingushetia
by Valery Dzutsev
25 February 2008

Moscow’s heavy-handed policies are spurring radicalization, not taming it.

Tensions in Ingushetia show few signs of abating, despite the massive influx of Russian security services, special forces and soldiers into the restive Russian North Caucasus republic.”

Full text: http://www.tol.cz/look/TOL/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=4&NrIssue=257&NrSection=4&NrArticle=19402

Where is the US’ foreign policy headed?

“We have to realise in order to deal with the security issues, that our security is linked to the security of the other peoples and nations” – said one of the liberal Christian preachers. In my opinion this argument becomes sort of conventional wisdom among democrats. I am certain, this approach would be very much welcomed around the world. 

A friend of mine told me that he had an acquaintance from Saudi Arabia, that came over to US for a long term visit and was surprised by warm reception and said: “How come, American people are so nice and American foreign policy is so horrible?” I retold this story to the Christian preacher and said to me: “People abroad see American foreign policy, but they do not hear American people.” He promised change (this word might become obsolete soon:) ) if the Democrats win.

Is Putin Hitler?

 I have noticed number of people finding striking similarities between contemporary Russia and Germany in 1920s and 1930s is increasing. Parallels have been drawn between Hitler’s rule then and Putin’s rule now. One of my contacts in Russian academic circles told me about Russia being a fascist country as early as in 2005. Main reasons for such view are growing Russian nationalism and xenophobia, Putin’s authoritarian style of rule, concentration of power in Putin’s hands, etc.

Some observers argue though that there is fundamental difference between Putin and Hitler, that is the fact that Putin did not came to power as a popular leader, but rather as a successful bureaucrat. It is an important fact, but I am not sure it suffices as a proof of Putin being not as Hitler. 

I would argue, that Russia is clearly moving towards fascism. Political freedoms have dramatically been reduced in Russia, there is no freedom of media, people practically cannot gather for protest actions, even when one person stages a picket, s/he gets arrested, minorities are persecuted (most notable example being brutal suppression of Chechen separatist movement that claimed at least 10% of Chechen nation’s lives), political party system has been deliberately eroded, division of power effectively eliminated, most popular theme in Russia is “Russia being encircled by evil West”.

Russia has still retained facade of democracy, like elections and parliament, but they do not mean much, as they do not decide anything. However, when Putin steps down after presidential elections in March 2008, he is going to become PM with Medvedev being formal president of Russia. Putin nominated Medvedev for Russian presidency appointing him as his successor in December last year. Next day Medvedev stated that if he became president of Russia he would appoint Putin as PM. Few observers doubt where the real power will lie under this circumstances. So it will practically be breaking the Russian constitution and gradual evolution of Putin’s authoritarianism into open dictatorship.

An author below argues that situation still can be changed:

Excerpt is below, full text: http://therussianreader.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/no-6-igor-averkiev-on-our-good-hitler/

“Like Hitler, Putin is the savior of the Fatherland, the guardian of Greatness, Stability, and Order. Putin is on the verge of becoming The Supreme Leader.

Like Hitler, Putin safeguards the country from enemies both foreign and domestic. According to the majority viewpoint, Putin, like Hitler, personally provides for their welfare and prosperity. For the average Russian, the main thing is to be on Putin’s side (just as ordinary Germans were on Hitler’s side). Everything else will work out by itself.

Like Hitler, Putin is the heartthrob of the most helpless and aggressive section of the population—young people. The Nashistas are quickly and naturally turning into textbook stormtroopers and Red Guards. Like Hitler, Putin gives young people who lack confidence and a sense of independence the chance to become socially adapted by climbing the corporate ladders of his regime (Nashi, the Young Guards, Political Factory, etc.). He provides them with an official, legal outlet for their aggression. (Anyone who has seen the Nashistas in action will know what I mean.)

Like Hitler, Putin is essentially a regular guy: he is neither a villain nor a moral cripple. We sense that, like the “early Hitler,” Putin has an ordinary sense of honor, dignity, duty, even in politics. It is only later on—burdened by the “Savior of the Fatherland” mission, drowning in flattery and panegyrics—that the personality loses its compass and begins to crumble. It breaks with universal norms and loses a humane gauge for measuring good and evil.

Busy with saving the millions, such leaders first forget about the thousands and then about those very same millions. Every important person who lays claim to absolute, exclusive power hopes that he will have the presence of mind and strength of will not to become a moral freak: after all, he himself is a very special person. The years go by, however, and like everyone else who has ever achieved absolute power, he turns into a monster. The only people who avoid this fate are those who, in their hunger for power, either find within themselves the strength not to don the Ring of Omnipotence or who just fail to do this. Our president has already extended his finger towards this ring with the “black hole” in its middle.”

Gulag tourism | Video | Reuters.com

Gulag is revived in Lithuania…this time as an attraction

from www.reuters.com posted with vodpod

Violence over Kosovo | Video | Reuters.com

from www.reuters.com posted with vodpod