Nikolai Silaev and Andrei Sushentsov, "Georgia’s North Caucasus - TopicsExpress



          

Nikolai Silaev and Andrei Sushentsov, "Georgia’s North Caucasus Policy", a section of the report "Georgia After the 2012 Elections and Prospects for Russo-Georgian Relations", in "Georgia Report", Moscow: Moscow State University of International Relations, 2012, pp. 58-59. [mgimo.ru/georgiareport/i/Silaev-Sushentsov_MGIMO-Georgia-Report_Eng.pdf] Extract: “Activists from Circassian ethnic organizations are delighted by Georgia’s recognition of the ‘Genocide against Circassians’ during the Caucasian War. However, those who support the Russian government qualify this stance by saying that Georgia must first recognize the genocide against the Abkhazians and Ossetians. But this position appears to be more obeisance to Moscow than a sincere one. The rhetoric of Circassian activists mixes curiously with Georgia’s foreign propaganda: ‘Thanks to Georgia, the international community has learned of our tragedy’; ‘the issue of our genocide has now been raised internationally,’ etc. Both opposition and pro-government ethnic Circassian organizations see the Russo-Georgian antagonism as a way of manoeuvring between the two sides, improving their own political status, and strengthening their image in the media: ‘Since Russia won’t talk to us, we’ll talk with Georgia,’ ‘Moscow should have recognized the genocide earlier than Georgia,’ and ‘Poland and the Baltic states now recognize the genocide we have suffered.’ Russia has reacted firmly and with emotional restraint to the recognition of the ‘Circassian Genocide’ by the Georgian Parliament. The Russian government’s unwillingness to discuss this issue with Circassian ethnic organisations weakens the latter’s position. “If the cost of cooperation with Georgia (and also with the American Jamestown Foundation) extends beyond joint conferences and the erection of monuments, it could be prohibitively expensive for the Circassian activists. This cooperation has been the main driver of Tbilisi’s North Caucasus policy. The activists’ attempts at securing foreign financing for their efforts have been unsuccessful. Circassian ethnic organizations—both pro- and anti-Russian—are financed domestically by regional governments and Circassian businessmen, with no traces of Georgian financing for North Caucasus ethnic organizations. “Circassian ethnic activists have expressed dissatisfaction at the Tbilisi Circassian Culture Centre for attempts to expand its activity to the Chechen and Ingush peoples. These attempts were seen as a bid to combine the peaceful and secular Circassian opposition with the armed and Islamic opposition. Circassian activists of Kabardina-Balkaria—who, together with the Circassian Culture Centre, have been Georgia’s primary North Caucasus partner in the campaign for the recognition of the Circassian Genocide’—treasure their secular status. At the same time, the principles of a ‘New North Caucasus Policy’ (to be a major irritant for Moscow in a sensitive area) are pushing the Georgian government to a quiet alliance with Islamist groups in the North Caucasus. Proof of such an alliance has appeared in the Russian and Georgian press, and the Russian intelligence services have also pointed to this alliance in their statements. The most demonstrative incident was Georgia’s neutralizing of an armed Islamist group in the Lopota Gorge in August 2012, where Georgian citizens turned out to be among the rebels. “This kind of alliance is not a critical threat to the security of the North Caucasus. Georgia’s parliament recognition of the ‘Circassian Genocide’ is perceived in Russia as an extremely unfriendly move. Sustaining such a policy— especially in light of Georgia’s unclear relationship with the North Caucasus terrorist underground—only complicates Russo-Georgian relations. Georgia’s actions force one to doubt how responsible Georgia’s political elite are and call into question that country’s European and Christian identity. Improvement of Russian-Georgian relations is unlikely without clarifying Tbilisi’s approaches in this matter—both in political rhetoric and practical steps.” mgimo.ru/georgiareport/i/Silaev-Sushentsov_MGIMO-Georgia-Report_Eng.pdf
Posted on: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 10:46:57 +0000

Trending Topics




© 2015