NATO involvement in the Black Sea Region and its possible political consequences.
First question that comes into mind is why should NATO get involved in the so called “wider” Black Sea region? What is the significance of this region for the North Atlantic community?
First of all, NATO should engage the region in the process of bringing democracy and economic and social development to the wider territory, the territory of bigger importance called the Greater Middle East. more>>>
On the Abkhaz unity and Democracy-building
The major demand of the de facto Abkhaz Republic is total independence from Georgia. The de facto authorities are not willing to give up on this and furthermore trust to receive the desired political recognition from the international community.
In my opinion, there are particular directions de facto government puts impetus on that in their point of view are crucial for achieving the overall recognition and independence.
Notwithstanding the fact that de facto Abkhaz state is rejected by the international community on all possible levels it is still central for them to have unity and solidarity among their lines with respect of carrying out the internal as well as external political course. This is especially true with the unofficial negotiation, opinion exchange processes organized on international level (workshops, dialogue processes arranged by various international organizations, etc.). Since those representatives of the Abkhaz side who are willing to compromise could be identified and supported by international actors thereby weakening Abkhaz long term strive for full liberty. more>>>
Georgia, Abkhazia and Osetia And the Russian backward-looking factor
First, the manipulation of ethnic issues by freezing settlement negotiations, through Russia's monopoly on "peacekeeping" troops. On October 11, 2006, the Georgian parliament passed a resolution on the present state and current peacekeeping operations on the conflict regions of the country. Georgia’s major complaints against the Russian “peacekeepers” is their failure to execute those critical responsibilities they have taken and owe, to some extent to the international community, not to mention Georgia with its conflict regions in the first place. Further, Georgia thinks that the current peacekeeping operations and conflict resolution formats have run out of their effectiveness. Georgia demands replacement (just recently this demand was moderated into something more temperate from the Georgian Ministry for Re-integration, namely that Russian peacekeepers are joined by different corps too) of the Russian peacekeepers, who have started carrying out their duties under the UN aegis and the CIS countries resolution. This will be productive taking into consideration that the Baltic states, Estonia in particular and Ukraine have expressed their readiness to join the peacekeeping forces. more>>>
It is a special case to understand why those residents of S. Ossetia who are against “joining” the Georgian state feel the way they do. “Our citizens who suffered through the freeze, war, various misfortunes are being trapped by seductive offers for cooperation…
“Economic prosperity and happy life are being promised in a parcel with a dollar tie around it. We are called to forget our past (those who perished, who were tortured and humiliated…).We are offered free medical care, and employment in modern hi tech offices, etc. In exchange for what? Georgia is not so far and we all have a good knowledge of the jails that are overfilled, of the strikingly high amount of beggars on the streets and extremely high level of corruption in the horrifying Georgia. Look what they did to the Adjarian autonomy?! It is practically disfunctioned…” (Eduard Kokoity, newspaper, “Southern Osetia”, 14.04.07 N 30-31). more>>>
See the full version of the Bulletin here