Caucasus

[MJ]

Received by email:

 

 

 

The following article may be of interest to you:

 

Transitions Online

 

Fathers and Sons

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

31 October 2003

 

The change in generations in the Caucasus offers a chance for long-term change, but it is the relationship with Russia that may prove critical in the short term.

 

by Richard Giragosian

 

WASHINGTON, United States--It has been a year of elections and drama in the south Caucasus. The final act of this play begins on 2 November, when Georgians vote in parliamentary elections. The first act, the presidential elections in Armenia, was seriously flawed and merely consolidated the power of the incumbent president. The second act, Azerbaijan's presidential elections, was even more stage-managed and offered nothing more than a new face on an old regime, a dynastic transition unpopular enough to produce violent clashes and death in the streets. Georgia's parliamentary elections may very well produce more surprises--and even greater turmoil--than both previous acts.

 

The entirety of the changes now underway represent a profound transition from the political legacies of Soviet rule. For both Azerbaijan and Georgia, the graduation from the Aliev and Shevardnadze periods is an important break from the past, ending a decade of dominant rule by two very accomplished products of the Soviet system of power-politics. In Armenia, this process has been underway longer, with a more pronounced (though subtle) shift to a firmly post-Soviet period.

 

The impressive resilience of these former Soviet leaders, Aliev and Shevardnadze, is not simply rooted in the power of their personalities. Firstly, the reforms of the first post-Soviet decade were painful and, in most instances, unpopular. The infant states of the region saw the rise of strong leaders, often seen as best-equipped to handle the painful period of early reform.

 

Throughout the region (and also Central Asia), the first years of the transition from Soviet politics were marked by a trend toward authoritarian leadership. The reign of these authoritarian strongmen has drained democracy of some of its meaning. In the case of Azerbaijan and Georgia, it stunted overall democratic and economic reform, with the elite choosing instead to pursue power and profit.

 

These reformed or recast Communist leaders were often legitimized by a lack of real alternatives. They posed as leaders more capable of managing the reform effort than the dangerous populists, flagrant fascists, and hard-line ultra-nationalists that strode onto the stage to challenge them--and most in the Caucasus accepted the old school's claim was right.

 

The second source of their staying-power springs from a political culture unique to these former Soviet states. While the maxim that "all politics is local" may apply in the United States, in the southern Caucasus (and in Central Asia), it is more accurate to say that "all politics is personal."

 

Former Communist leaders have appealed to personality rather than platform--and the ploy has succeeded. In most of the southern Caucasus and Central Asia, they rule by constructing one-man, one-party systems of governance, supported by a clan-based network of patronage and complicity. Although Armenia lacks the one-man, one-party rule, it too suffers from its own form of clan-based patronage politics.

 

Heidar Aliev has left the Azeri stage and Georgia's Shevardnadze is already heading for retirement, assuming he does stand down (as due) in 2005. The region is now graduating from the rule of "reformed" communists. It might conceivably graduate also from reform by overbearing leaders and from the personalization of power.

 

Ahead lies the possibility of a deeper democratization and a new era of more responsive, open governance. But it is just that--a possibility. More needs to be done to ensure that these small, weak states are guided (and prodded) into a new period of promise and peace.

 

The legacy of the old generation is etched deeply onto the new. Armenia has the longest record of democratization, untainted by either civil war or coup d'etat--although it did suffer from a short-lived but very significant burst of political violence in 1999, when its prime minister and other leading politicians were gunned down in parliament.

 

In contrast to its two troubled neighbors, Armenian democracy continues to improve (albeit too slowly), and it was the first in the region to elect a new generation of leaders. Armenian President Robert Kocharian is less marked by the Soviet past than his elder Azeri and Georgian counterparts, whose rise to power in the post-Soviet independence era relied on the power they built up in the Soviet system. But such a generational shift has not meant stability or peace, and Armenia's democracy continues to hobble. Its clannish elite still governs for self-interest rather than national interest.

 

In Azerbaijan, the new generation actually bears the name of the old. The decline in the health of 80-year-old President Heidar Aliev may have been sharp and dramatic, but it brought into play a script for succession crafted with the cunning and experience of a veteran of the higher echelons of Soviet politics.

 

In the one-man, one-party state that is Azerbaijan, the path to power needed to be secured in advance and not in the polling station. In moves modeled perhaps along Syrian lines, Heidar passed the mantle down to his 41-year-old son, Ilham. The constitution was changed to allow a sick president to confer presidential powers on the prime minister; the president's son was elevated to prime minister; and when the president was laid low, his son was duly elevated with suspicious ease. The result is the further entrenchment of a political elite already dug in deeply.

 

If Azerbaijan's succession was mere choreography, Georgia's is true drama. The final act is two years off--when Shevardnadze's presidency ends--and the succession unclear. His would-be successors are numerous and varied, ranging from long-time opposition figures to ambitious former figures of the Shevardnadze regime, and the parliamentary elections on 2 November will merely set the stage for a very difficult denouement.

 

The drama of succession comes against the backdrop of deep fissures and internal weaknesses in each of the three countries. In Armenia, the ruling elite remains consumed by corruption with social polarization only mounting, while in Georgia the fundamental rifts follow regional lines.

 

In Azerbaijan, despite significant social discontent, perhaps the greatest challenge for the inexperienced Ilham Aliev will be to secure control over his father's network of political patronage. The elite may have been mobilized to support Ilham's presidential campaign and, in the short term, see no viable alternative to Ilham, but internal discord is mounting.

 

A troubling example of this is the violent aftermath of the election. Ilham' s heavy-handed reaction may actually have increased the challenge to the new president. Ilham may arguably have felt compelled by hardliners to restore "order," but by carrying out the crackdown he comes to rely even more on the elite around him. If so, a young and inexperienced leader will find himself painted into a corner where he can do little without the old elite.

 

These are all daunting problems for the new generation. Arguably, though, the most immediate challenge for these states is to manage relations with Russia. Always a looming presence, Russian interests have sought to exploit the region's instability by exerting even greater pressure on the region.

 

This Russian power-game was most clearly demonstrated by the takeover of key parts of Georgia's energy sector. Early this summer, the Georgian government committed the country to a 25-year agreement with Gazprom, Russia's state-owned gas producer. Then in August, Unified Energy Systems (UES), the Russian electricity group, bought a 75-percent controlling interest in the Tbilisi electricity generator, Telasi. UES's director, Anatoly Chubais, stressed that the acquisition of Telasi was purely commercial, and that Moscow would not "blackmail Tbilisi by threatening to cut off energy supplies."

 

Possibly, but Russia has a history of exercising its leverage readily, and its growing influence is not limited to ventures into the energy sector, or isolated to Georgia. Prior to the foray into Georgia, Russia's primary target was Armenia.

 

With a series of questionable "assets for debt" deals, Russia gained control over key strategic enterprises and dominance over the tiny country's vulnerable economy. Russia was able to secure, with the assent of an overly compliant Armenian government, the control--or outright ownership--of much of the country's energy network, including its hydroelectric plants and its sole nuclear-power plant.

 

This has resulted in a quick Russian acquisition of 80 percent of the Armenian energy sector, prompting the World Bank in the past few days to express its concern over Russia's mounting influence over the Armenian economy.

 

What we are seeing, then, is a new generation that will have to deal with old geopolitical concerns with even greater urgency than their predecessors. The challenge of a resurgent Russia could, one hopes, produce a new rugged class of leadership, capable of overcoming the internal constraints and external challenges that have marked the southern Caucasus as a true "region at risk." Or, it could further undermine their authority--and exacerbate the already serious internal weaknesses of these three countries.

[MJ]

The South Caucasus: After Elections 2003

 

Richard Giragosian, Abt Associates Inc.

Cory Welt, CSIS Russia and Eurasia Program

 

Russia and Eurasia Program

Caucasus Election Watch Series

Wednesday, November 12, 2003

2:00 - 3:30 P.M.

B1-B

 

With Georgia’s parliamentary elections, the 2003 electoral races in the South Caucasus have ended. Earlier presidential contests in Armenia and Azerbaijan and the parliamentary contest in Armenia fell seriously short of democratic standards, perpetuating popular dissatisfaction with the ruling regimes. The November 2 elections in Georgia were chaotic and marred by multiple and egregious violations. Preliminary results suggest, however, that opposition parties will still capture a majority of parliamentary seats, as long as the government does not now resort to massive fraud.

 

Even if Georgian parliamentary elections bring a new government to power, its leaders will still have to contend with the same problems that face Armenia and Azerbaijan. Political contests in all three countries have provided little indication of how ruling regimes intend to improve their countries’ economic and social development. All four electoral contests have also occurred in the shadow of a shifting geopolitical context. In 2003, the United States and Europe continued to struggle to define their interests in the region and design appropriate strategies of engagement. At the same time, Russia announced an ambitious new project: the pursuit of a “liberal empire” which, for the South Caucasus, signifies an attempt to re-establish an integrated energy system.

 

Throughout 2003, the CSIS Russia and Eurasia Program’s Caucasus Initiative has provided pre- and post-electoral analysis of the South Caucasus’ political contests. We invite you now to join two of the contributors to our Election Watch series for a discussion of Georgian parliamentary elections and the uncertain post-election future of all three South Caucasian states.

 

Richard Giragosian is a Washington-based analyst and regular contributor to RFE/RL and the London-based Jane's Information Group. Cory Welt is a Visiting Fellow in the CSIS Russia and Eurasia Program.

 

RSVP To Liz Zentos: Fax (202) 775-3199, Email Lzentos@csis.org, Tel (202) 775-3133

 

I WILL ATTEND THE MEETING ON

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2003, FROM 2:00 - 3:30 P.M.

 

Name: __________________________________________________________________

 

 

Title: ___________________________________________________________________

 

Organization: _____________________________________________________________

[Armen]

http://www.arminfo.am/

 

LEADER OF ERTOBA REFUTES REPORTS OF "ARMENIAN REVOLUTION" BY NINO

BURJANADZE AND HER SUPPORTERS

 

YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 10. ARMINFO. The leader of the Ertoba (Unity)

political association Jumber Patiashvili refutes the reports that in

an interview with a correspondent of the Rustavi TV company he agreed

with a supposition that that Nino Burjanadze, Zurab Zhvania and some

other politicians are carrying out an "Armenian revolution" in Georgia.

 

He said he had seen no Rustavi correspondent to agree or disagree

with him. "I love the Armenians. Such statements are an insult

for them and the Georgians." He noted that instead of contributing

to the Armenian-Georgian friendship some journalists are spreading

lies thereby aggravating the complicated situation in the country. "I

am a friend of the Armenian people and am against any anti-Armenian

statements or opinions."

[MJ]

The South Caucasus: After Elections 2003

 

Richard Giragosian

 

Russia and Eurasia Program

Caucasus Election Watch Series

Wednesday, November 12, 2003

 

Presentation Notes

 

 

Introduction

 

The Southern Caucasus, with its geography as a strategic crossroads, is an instructive case of small weak states struggling to maintain their sovereignty amid the competing pressures of larger more powerful neighbors. Historically, the region has always been an arena for competing regional and global powers. This legacy of external influence is compounded by the internal vulnerabilities of the region’s three states. The three states of the region, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, have each been engaged in a decade-long course of economic and political reform, systemic transition and nation building, with a wide variance in success and consistency. The region also continues to struggle to overcome the legacy of constraints and challenges stemming from seven decades of Soviet rule.

 

The transition process well underway in the region has revealed several important trends.

 

The South Caucasus as a Subset of Broader Trends

 

1. Shifts in U.S. Policy

 

Western policies in the region over the past decade has largely been driven by considerations related to the development of their energy reserves and the challenges of securing export routes amid the competing interests of the regional powers. There has been a deeper shift in U.S. policy in the region underway for sometime, however, as his long-standing energy focus has now been superseded by a pursuit of security and stability within the prism of a global fight against terrorism in the new post-September 11th geopolitical landscape.

 

But the region also faces more fundamental internal challenges, ranging from an overall deficit of democracy, and the related predominance of “strongmen over statesmen,” to economic mismanagement and widespread corruption. These factors significantly impede the reform efforts of these states in transition, further contributing to a significant loss in state power. It is this set of internal factors that presents the most daunting challenge, however, as the core fragility of these states cannot be effectively overcome simply through policies relying on enhancing their security or military capabilities.

 

 

2. Shifting Geopolitics: The U.S.-Russian Strategic Partnership

 

The foundation for current U.S. policy in the region lies firmly within the parameters of the new strategic partnership between the United States and Russia. But if these two regions should be seen through the lens of the US-Russian strategic partnership, it is equally valid to note that they are also hostage to the fate of this US-Russian relationship. In fact, the Caucasus, even more than Central Asia, may well become the first casualty of any breakdown in US-Russian relations. And as Russia reasserts itself in the face of a broadening U.S. presence in Central Asia and the Southern Caucasus, the Southern Caucasus may very well emerge as the next arena of great power competition between Moscow and Washington, making the quest for stability and self-sufficiency among the already vulnerable states in the region even more vital.

 

Most importantly for President Putin, this new post-9-11 world elevated Russia to a position of enhanced strategic importance to the US. Putin sees this avenue as the surest way to regain “great power status.” And for Russia, this partnership with the West has resulted in one serious gain: a much freer hand in the “Near Abroad” (and especially in Chechnya), following the Primakov concept. In the Caucasus, Russian influence is exercised in two forms: energy and economic leverage, and the military.

 

Energy/economic leverage: culminated in the acquisition of dominant control (both overt and covert) of much of the region’s energy infrastructure and economic base. With the recent visit of Anotalii Chubais, the chairman of Russia's state-run Unified Energy Systems (UES), Russia now controls more than 80 percent of the Armenian energy sector (ranging from its one nuclear power plant to most of its hydroelectric power stations). Ironically, Chubais intends to use this Armenian energy platform to project Russian power by exporting electricity from Armenia to Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia.

 

With this latest move, Armenia will soon be incorporated into a Russian-led single energy supplies network that comprises ten ex-Soviet states, including Azerbaijan and Georgia. The power scheme is seen by many as a key instrument in Moscow's drive to reassert its influence.

 

Military: Russia maintains two bases in Georgia, one each in Azerbaijan and Armenia and has significantly bolstered its naval capabilities within the Caspian Sea.

 

Shared Challenges

 

The region is plagued by four fundamental challenges:

 

1. a virtual state of war, with full economic and transport blockades and a severe disruption or normal trade and energy links, which distorts natural economic development based on comparative advantage. Note the Armenian-Turkish border as “the last Cold War border,” sealed by the Turkish-Azeri blockade.

 

2. the fact that the most significant threat to these states’ national security comes not from each other, but from within, in the form of systemic corruption, which both impedes real reform and fosters conflict continuation over conflict resolution.

 

3. the dominance of “strongmen over statesmen,” thwarting democratic reform and hindering the region’s graduation from conflict to cooperation.

 

4. weak or failing states: a loss of legitimacy from tainted elections (deficit of democracy), corruption and manifesting in serious disparities of income and wealth.

 

Analyzing the Transition:

 

A Personification of Power: One-Man, One-State

 

The entirety of the changes now underway represents a profound transition from the political legacies of Soviet rule. For both Azerbaijan and Georgia, the graduation from the Aliev and Shevardnadze periods is an important break from the past, ending a decade of dominant rule by two very accomplished products of the Soviet system of power-politics. In Armenia, this process has been underway longer, with a more pronounced (though subtle) shift to a firmly post-Soviet period.

 

The impressive resilience of these former Soviet leaders, Aliev and Shevardnadze, is not simply rooted in the power of their personalities. Firstly, the reforms of the first post-Soviet decade were painful and, in most instances, unpopular. The infant states of the region saw the rise of strong leaders, often seen as best equipped to handle the painful period of early reform. Both leaders were also able to convince their people, and much of the West, that they personified stability and that their leadership offered the only hope for stability and security.

 

Throughout the region (and also Central Asia), the first years of the transition from Soviet politics were marked by a trend toward authoritarian leadership. The reign of these authoritarian strongmen has drained democracy of some of its meaning. In the case of Azerbaijan and Georgia, it stunted overall democratic and economic reform, with the elite choosing instead to pursue power and profit. These reformed or recast Communist leaders were often legitimized by a lack of real alternatives. They posed as leaders more capable of managing the reform effort than the dangerous populists, flagrant fascists, and hard-line ultra-nationalists that strode onto the stage to challenge them--and most in the Caucasus accepted the old school's claim was right.

 

The second source of their staying-power springs from a political culture fairly unique to these former Soviet states. While the maxim that "all politics is local" may apply in the United States, in the southern Caucasus (and in Central Asia), it is more accurate to say that "all politics is personal." Former Communist leaders have appealed to personality rather than platform--and the ploy has succeeded. In most of the southern Caucasus and Central Asia, they rule by constructing one-man, one-party systems of governance, supported by a clan-based network of patronage and complicity. Although Armenia lacks the one-man, one-party rule, it too suffers from its own form of clan-based patronage politics.

 

Generational Shift

 

The legacy of the old generation is etched deeply onto the new. Armenia has the longest record of democratization, untainted by either civil war or coup d'etat--although it did suffer from a short-lived but very significant burst of political violence in 1999, when its prime minister and other leading politicians were gunned down in parliament.

 

In contrast to its two troubled neighbors, Armenian democracy continues to improve (albeit too slowly), and it was the first in the region to elect a new generation of leaders. Armenian President Robert Kocharian is less marked by the Soviet past than his elder Azeri and Georgian counterparts, whose rise to power in the post-Soviet independence era relied on the power they built up in the Soviet system. But such a generational shift has not meant stability or peace, and Armenia's democracy continues to hobble. Its clannish elite still governs for self-interest rather than national interest.

[MJ]

Georgia election results confirmed

 

TBILISI, Georgia (Reuters) -- Two political blocs loyal to President Eduard Shevardnadze won first and second places in Georgia's November 2 parliamentary poll, the Central Election Commission said Thursday.

 

The country's main opposition party took third place, the commission said, approving the final results of an election that took place almost three weeks ago.

The commission said the pro-Shevardnadze For a New Georgia! bloc won with 21.32 percent, ahead of Revival Union, led by an ally of the veteran leader, with 18.84 percent. The opposition bloc led by Mikhail Saakashvili won 18.08 percent.

The parliamentary election triggered mass protests organized by opposition leaders who accuse the authorities of stealing the poll from them.

 

Shevardnadze, respected in the West for his role in ending the Cold War as Soviet foreign minister, has expressed hope that publication of the official results would bring an end to the protests and has pledged to convene parliament soon after.

 

Saakashvili has said if the two pro-presidential blocs won first and second place in the election, more people could take to the streets to end what he calls a "corrupt regime."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/11/20...reut/index.html

[Armen]

Civil Georgia

 

Opposition Calls for Peaceful Revolution, As Thousands Rally in Tbilisi

 

Giorgi Sepashvili, Civil Georgia / 2003-11-21 21:25:57

 

Couple of kilometer-long line of hundreds of cars, buses and minibuses of protesters arrived this evening in the capital city Tbilisi, honking horns and chanting anti-Shevardnadze slogans.

 

Thousands of Tbilisites greet the protesters in the streets of the capital. “We don’t want Shevardnadze any more. Shevardnadze will resign,” protesters were chanting.

 

The protesters, led by key opposition leader Mikheil Saakashvili, came from the western Georgia, while another part of protester, who arrived from the eastern Georgia were waiting for them in Tbilisi. At the moment thousands of protesters are gathering outside the City Municipality building on the Freedom Square, just couple of hounded meters away from President Shevardnadze’s office.

 

“Tomorrow we will overturn Shevardnadze’s regime. This is what the people want. We are facing peaceful, democratic, gentle revolution,” Mikheil Saakashvili said at a news briefing after arrival in the capital city.

 

“Yesterday thousands of Georgian citizens marched on Tbilisi to liberate this country from dictatorship. I am pride now; I have never seen so many happy faces before. Georgian citizens to live in the country without Shevardnadze,” Mikheil Saakashvili said.

 

He said that “the gentle and peaceful revolution aims at forcing the Shevardnadze’s resign to go away.”

 

“I want to appeal to our mothers, sisters, brothers and all the citizens of Georgia – this is decisive day in the Georgia’s history. Shevardnadze’s regime is isolated. I want to appeal brothers from Adjara; you are ruled by despot and dictator Aslan Abashidze. We should liberate this country from Shevardnadze and Abashidze,” Saakashvili said.

 

“I urge the police and security forces to stand on people’s side,” he added.

 

He called the people to join the protest rally outside the Municipality building in order “to celebrate victory on the Saint Georgia’s Day [on November 23].”

 

While the thousands of opposition supporters are gathering in front of the Municipality, the government-led rally continues outside the Parliament building – a couple of hounded meters from the Municipality building.

 

The pro-governmental protesters, mainly men, in long black leather coats arrived in Tbilisi to support President Shevardnadze from Adjara Autonomous Republic.

 

Pro-opposition protesters blocked the Freedom Square with buses in order to avoid any possibility of clashes.

 

President Shevardnadze has not made any comments regarding the ongoing developments in the capital city so far. All day long on November 21 the leadership of the law enforcement agencies was holding the consultations in the President’s office.

 

“We will punish everyone, who violates the law and uses the force,” Koba Narchemashvili, the Interior Minister said. He refrained to answer whether the riot police will use the force against the demonstrators or not.

 

The riot police and security forces armed with bars and metal shields are on high alert guarding the streets surrounding the President’ office and the Parliament building.

 

Secretary of the National Security Council Tedo Japaridze said earlier on November 21 that Georgia is on the brink of “civil confrontation and bloodshed.”

 

“I have thorough information about what is happening in the country. I want to appeal to the representatives of both pro-presidential and opposition political parties. Recent developments in the country create serious danger to Georgia’s international image and poses a threat to Georgia’s integration into Europe,” Tedo Japaridze said at a special news briefing on November 21.

 

He admitted that the November 2 parliamentary elections were marred by “serious violations and irregularities.”

 

However the opposition leaders say threats over the civil confrontation are groundless. “Government versus people,” Nino Burjanadze, the opposition leader, said on November 20.

 

Concerned with the latest developments Adjarian leader Aslan Abashidze, who is Shevardnadze’s ally, warned that he will close borders of Adjara with the rest of the Georgia, in case of “further deterioration of situation in the country.”

 

The statement of the U.S. Department of State official came as good news for the opposition.

 

Deputy spokesman of the U.S. Department of State Adam Ereli said at a news briefing on November 20, while commenting on Georgian November 2 parliamentary election results, “what I can say now is that we are deeply disappointed in these results, and in Georgia's leadership.”

 

“The results do not accurately reflect the will of the Georgian people, but instead reflect massive vote fraud in Adjara [Autonomous Republic] and other Georgian regions,” Adam Ereli said.

[joseph parikian]

Georgia in political turmoil

Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze has declared a state of emergency after the opposition seized the parliament building and his presidential offices.

He said he would not resign over what he described as an attempted coup.

 

The move came after weeks of protests over disputed elections won by Mr Shevardnadze and his allies.

 

Nino Burjanadze, outgoing speaker of parliament, says she has become interim president of the ex-Soviet state - adding to the political confusion.

 

Saturday's dramatic developments began when thousands of people led by main opposition leader Mikhail Saakashvili stormed the parliament building in the capital Tbilisi.

 

 

EVENTS LEADING TO 'COUP'

2 Nov: Parliamentary elections held

4 Nov: Anti-Shevardnadze protests begin

6 Nov: Election officials announce two-week delay until final results

18 Nov: Thousands of Shevardnadze supporters rally in Tbilisi

20 Nov: Central Election Commission declares Shevardnadze's party election victor; US claims "massive vote fraud"

21 Nov: Opposition supporters descend on Tbilisi

22 Nov: Parliament stormed; Shevardnadze denounces 'coup' and declared state of emergency

 

 

Mr Shevardnadze had been addressing the first session of parliament after the victory of his party and its allies in 2 November elections, which were declared fraudulent by international observers.

The president was bundled away by his bodyguards as protesters entered the building.

 

The opposition supporters then drove Mr Shevardnadze's supporters from parliament under a hail of books and pens after a number of fist-fights.

 

Live television pictures showed scenes reminiscent of the revolutions that toppled the communist governments of Eastern Europe more than a decade ago.

 

Mr Saakashvili and other opposition leaders declared they had carried out a bloodless - or "velvet" - revolution.

 

Opposition supporters later entered the building housing the office of the president.

 

TV 'off air'

 

The country's armed forces have so far not intervened in events, and it is unclear whether they will enforce the state of emergency called by Mr Shevardnadze.

 

 

Restoring order is what we need now

Eduard Shevardnadze

However, reports say that the main government-controlled television station has been taken off air by pro-government forces, who are also said to be attempting to close down a pro-opposition independent station.

The former Soviet republics have issued a joint statement condemning the opposition move.

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin is sending his Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, to Georgia.

 

The United States, an ally of Georgia, has expressed concern about the developments.

 

 

No 'weakness'

 

Speaking to journalists, Mr Shevardnadze announced the state of emergency.

 

"With such people around, a civil war may start tomorrow," he said.

 

"If I show weakness now, people will no longer forgive me."

 

 

HAVE YOUR SAY

Democracy must protect democracy

Steve Wagenseil, Block Island, Rhode Island, USA

 

Ms Burjanadze, leader of another opposition group, announced that she had assumed the powers of the president during a speech broadcast live by Georgian television.

"Until the issue of the president's capacity is finally resolved and until the date of the new presidential and parliamentary elections is fixed, I have to assume upon myself those functions for which I am responsible by the constitution," she said.

 

Mr Shevardnadze, a former Soviet foreign minister, has clung to power through war, civil unrest and economic crisis in his country.

 

He had been under pressure to resign for several weeks before Saturday's dramatic events.

 

 

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/worl...ope/3229266.stm

 

Published: 2003/11/22 21:43:02 GMT

 

© BBC MMIII

[MJ]

One out, one to go yet...

[joseph parikian]

BBC published 11/23 /03

 

 

People power forces Georgia leader out

Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze has resigned amid massive protests over disputed election results.

He announced the move after opposition leader Mikhail Saakashvili gave him an ultimatum to go at talks mediated by Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov.

 

The news was greeted by jubilant scenes in the capital Tbilisi, where fireworks lit up the night sky.

 

Opposition supporters broke into cheers outside the parliament building, which they took over on Saturday.

 

Speaking on national television, Mr Shevardnadze said: "It is probably better for the president to resign, all this to end, end peacefully and blood is not spilt and no casualties are caused."

 

 

MIKHAIL SAAKASHVILI

Age 35, lawyer

Studied in US and France

Former head of Tbilisi council

2000: Appointed justice minister by Shevardnadze

2001: Quit government

2001: Formed United National Movement

Pro-Western, radical reformer

Asked about who was succeeding him, he replied: "It is no longer my business."

Mr Saakashvili had threatened to lead a march on the presidential residence, where the final talks were held, unless Mr Shevardnadze stood down.

 

The BBC's Chloe Arnold, in Tbilisi, says the key to his downfall was that the army withdrew its support from the veteran president.

 

Earlier, Mr Shevardnadze - who had declared a state of emergency - said he was prepared to discuss holding an early presidential election, or the re-staging of the disputed parliamentary elections.

 

The presidential plane was being prepared at Tbilisi airport but an opposition leader said Mr Shevardnadze intended to remain in Georgia for the time being.

 

Dramatic scenes

 

Saturday saw the first session of the country's new parliament break up in pandemonium when opposition supporters led by Mr Saakashvili stormed the building, forcing Mr Shevardnadze and his supporters to flee.

 

 

Mr Shevardnadze had been addressing the first session of the newly-elected parliament after the victory of his party and its allies in the 2 November elections, which were declared fraudulent by international observers.

After Mr Shevardnadze was forced out of his offices by protesters, the outgoing opposition parliament speaker, Nino Burjanadze, said she was temporarily assuming the presidency.

 

It was the culmination of weeks of protests over the elections.

 

Former Soviet republics condemned the takeover of parliament by the opposition.

 

Plaudits

 

Correspondents say Mr Shevardnadze, once a popular and admired leader, is now seen by many Georgians as a failure who allowed corruption to flourish and poverty to spread under his rule.

 

When he first became leader of Georgia in 1992, he was praised for ending the anarchy that threatened to engulf newly independent Georgia following the break-up of the Soviet Union.

 

He had already won plaudits for the way he helped transform the Soviet Union when he was its foreign minister under Mikhail Gorbachev in the late 1980s.

 

But despite large amounts of US aid, Georgia, once one of the most prosperous regions in Soviet Russia, grew poorer under Mr Shevardnadze - partly because of widespread corruption and crime and partly because of the damage wrought by internal conflicts.

 

Mr Shevardnadze survived two assassination attempts in the 1990s.

 

 

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/worl...ope/3231534.stm

 

Published: 2003/11/23 18:08:38 GMT

 

© BBC MMIII

 

===========================================================

 

I hope this dose not leed to civil war ?????????????

Edited November 23, 2003 by joseph parikian

[joseph parikian]

One out, one to go yet...

MJ you have to wait 4 more years.....

[MJ]

One out, one to go yet...

MJ you have to wait 4 more years.....

JP,

 

You have misunderstood me. I am not running for president...

Edited November 23, 2003 by MJ

[joseph parikian]

JP,

 

You have misunderstood me.  I am not running for president...

Well MJ 4 years is a long time who knows you could change your mined

[MJ]

JP,

 

You have misunderstood me.  I am not running for president...

Well MJ 4 years is a long time who knows you could change your mined

In general, yes. But if I have to run for presdient, I'd rather do it in Iraq...

[Khazar]

It will be interesting to see how it all pans out. Kocharyan is now the senior, the most-experienced president in the South Caucasus!

 

In any other case, this would mean a new position of regional leadership for Kocharyan.

 

But I just don't see that happening. Armenia goes where Russia tells it to go.

 

(Which by the way, in the short-term is not a bad thing at all)

[Armen]

Telegraph.co.uk, UK

Jan 9 2004

 

US moves in as Russia retreats from Caucasus

By Julius Strauss

(Filed: 09/01/2004)

 

 

High in the snow-covered, ragged mountains of northern Armenia, just

a few miles from the Turkish border, a detachment of Russian soldiers

was on patrol this week.

 

Just as they have for the past 200 years, they marched out of the

Bolshaya Krepost camp in woollen greatcoats and high leather boots

with bayonets fitted to their rifles.

 

 

"We are here to protect this land from Turkish aggression," said

Oleg, a 26-year-old lieutenant from Moscow, in language that might

have been uttered a century ago.

 

To see the lines of determined faces it would be easy to imagine that

little had changed in the region since the days of the Tsars. But

today, for the first time in more than two centuries, the Russians

are being pushed out of the southern Caucasus, one country at a time.

 

Their forced retreat was given added momentum this week when Mikhail

Saakashvili, a stridently pro-western lawyer, was elected president

of Georgia.

 

Mr Saakashvili has made it a priority to ensure that Moscow closes

its remaining military bases in his country and stop supporting its

three breakaway republics.

 

The Russians are hugely proud of their conquest of the southern

Caucasus, which began in the 18th century as Tsarist forces pushed

south towards the Black and Caspian Seas.

 

The expansion into the region spawned some of the country's greatest

romantic literature.

 

Pushkin and Lermentov both wrote about the subjugation of the proud

and cruel Caucasian tribes. Mayakovsky, the Russian poet, was born in

Georgia.

 

In the centre of the camp where Oleg is based are the ruins of a

majestic Orthodox church, destroyed by the Ottomans when they overran

the area in the early years of the last century.

 

Russian rule came to the Caucasus piecemeal at the end of the 18th

century when imperial troops offered to help fend off attacks from

the Ottomans and the Persians.

 

They swiftly established the infrastructure of empire. Russian

engineers built the Georgian Military Highway to supply troops and

administrators in the area.

 

Following the 1917 revolution, the Red Army crushed nationalist

revolts in the region and Stalin, then "people's commissar" for

nationalities, divided the area into Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.

 

The republics were heavily garrisoned, partly to quell endemic ethnic

unrest and, later on, to guard against an attack by Nato through

Turkey.

 

But with the collapse of communist rule in Moscow, Russian domination

of the region began to fray. Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan all

declared independence in 1991.

 

Today the Georgian Military Highway is pot-holed and almost deserted

as traffic to and from Russia has slowed to a trickle.

 

The Soviet-era railway was cut by a separatist war in the Black Sea

region of Abkhazia a decade ago and intense negotiations to re-open

it have failed.

 

The main road south to Yerevan from the north is often little more

than a muddy track.

 

Where the Russians have been steadily pushed out, the Americans have

moved in to fill the gap.

 

The US military is training the Georgian army and there are rumours

of air bases being planned in Azerbaijan.

 

Last month, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, demanded that

Russia speed up the withdrawal of their remaining forces in Georgia,

eliciting a fierce protest from the Kremlin.

 

For Russian soldiers, such humiliation at the hands of their Cold War

enemy is difficult to swallow.

 

Oleg said: "I think we are still every bit as strong as the

Americans. We have modern arms and equipment and very high morale.

They are just better at advertising themselves."

 

Col Ashot Karapetyan, who also serves at the Bolshaya Krepost base,

said: "The Americans are pursuing an aggressive and expansionist

policy. The Russians first came here in 1775 and our presence today

is more important than ever.

 

"Without us the Muslims would overrun this area and in no time would

be on the southern borders of Russia."

 

But in Georgia and Azerbaijan, few locals are convinced. They see

their future as wedded to the US and Europe. The younger generation

is learning English rather than Russian. Only in Armenia, sandwiched

between historical enemies Azerbaijan and Turkey, is there still a

desire to see Russian soldiers on the streets.

 

"With the Russians here we sleep easier at night," said Anjella, a

48-year-old housewife in Yerevan.

 

"We are Christians in a sea of Muslims and Russia protects us," said

Narine, 37, a government employee. "Of course we'd prefer the

Americans too, but they are so far away and Russia is just next

door."

[Armen]

Looks like Russia is going to be out of Caucasus. I hope our govt has worked out scenarios for this.

-----------------------------------------

US offer for Russian base exit

 

Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow

Wednesday January 14, 2004

The Guardian

 

Washington has offered to help fund the withdrawal of Russia's two remaining military bases from the former Soviet republic of Georgia, raising the moral stakes in the regional battle between the two former cold war foes.

Russia has agreed to withdraw its troops, but recently said this might not happen for 11 years, a delay which is unacceptable to Georgia's new government. Georgia's interim leader, Nino Burdzhanadze, said: "Russian-Georgian relations would become much better if the bases were withdrawn."

 

Yesterday the US deputy assistant secretary of state, Lynn Pascoe, said in Tbilisi: "We would be happy to provide some assistance... to pull out the forces."

 

Washington's offer ensures that the only obstacle to Russia's quick withdrawal remains Moscow's unwillingness to retreat from the former Soviet Union while the US expands eastwards. Washington has been slowly increasing its presence in Georgia, training local troops and considering storing military equipment in the region.

 

Yesterday Mr Pascoe offered a further £1.6m to train Georgian troops, and 77 US heavy armoured vehicles arrived to aid the training.