PDA

View Full Version : Not One Dime for Georgia



Michael Collins
09-06-2008, 12:02 AM
Scoop

Original Content at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0809/S00087.htm

September 5, 2008

Michael Collins: Not One Dime for Georgia
By Michael Collins

Not One Dime for Georgia

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/autorank/GeorgiaScoop.jpg
The president of the Republic of Georgia eats his tie on national television. BBC

$1.1 Billion Giveaway for the Republic of Georgia Announced:
"The United States Supports The Recovery, Stability,
And Continued Growth Of Georgia's Economy"
The White House, Sept. 3, 2008

Michael Collins

(Wash. DC) We're not talking about the great state of Georgia, which deserves everything it has coming to it and more. We're talking about the Republic of Georgia, a nation of 4.5 million people wedged between Russia and Turkey.

On Wednesday, September 3, the White House announced a comprehensive aid package valued at $1.1 billion dollars to help the Republic of Georgia recover from the whipping it took after it attacked Russian peace keeping forces in South Ossetia, a breakaway province of Georgia near the Russian border. That region experienced a major war in 1991 and varying tensions since.

Russian personnel were in Georgia as part of a multi-national peace keeping regime created by the United Nations and endorsed by the European Union in 2006.

As the Soviet Union dissolved, Georgia declared its independence in April 1991. This resulted in tensions with the Russian government, sparked a civil war, and also generated real concern among those living in South Ossetia. They're not ethnic Georgians and have experienced periodic conflict with the government. As a result of war related violence in 1991, for example, 100,000 fled South Ossetia for refuge and safety in Russia.

South Ossetia held two national elections which endorsed independence form Georgia. The Georgians refuse to recognize this claim and, unlike Kosovo, which had no elections, there was little international support for the aspiring nation. As a result, there have been ongoing skirmishes and political conflicts between the South Ossetia and Georgia from 1991 on.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/autorank/Articles/georgiawiki.jpg

Georgia is wedged between Russia and Turkey. South Ossetia
is near the middle of the Georgia-Russia border.
WikiCommons

Tensions between Russia and Georgia had been building in recent months. On Aug. 7, 2008, the Georgian president issued orders to his negotiators to meet with the chief Russian negotiator.

"We should find all the means to stop incidents and to stop the violence, to stop threats and creating of problems to the peaceful population. Of course, we will show maximum restraint, but we do not recommend anyone to continue provocations." Mikeil Saakashvili, Aug, 7, 2008, 12:45

A few hours later, the government of Georgia said it had "decided to restore constitutional order in the entire region" of South Ossetia" through military efforts. By the afternoon of Aug, 8, officials in South Ossetia confirmed that, "Numerous Georgian military units are moving towards the border [with the breakaway region]" and that Georgia was carrying out "large scale military attacks" against their country.

The TimesOnline (London) reported that this was the start of military conflict. They're clear that the conflict was initiated by the military actions announced by the Georgian government on August 8, 2008.

"Russia and Georgia edged dangerously close to direct conflict today after Tbilisi (Georgia) launched an overnight offensive to regain control over the breakaway province of South Ossetia.

"Fighting raged around the city of Tskhinvali, the South Ossetians capital, as Georgian troops backed by tanks and warplanes pounded separatist forces. At least 15 people were reported to have been killed." TimesOnline, Aug. 8, 2008

Those who insist that Russia started the military phase of this conflict need only check in with the government of Georgia. On Aug. 8, 2008, at 12:35, a Georgia news agency reported that "A senior official from the Georgian Ministry of Defense said Georgia had 'decided to restore constitutional order in the entire region' of South Ossetia." The release went on to say that Georgia took the military action after the South Ossetia refused to accept a cease fire.

Russian military actions came after the attacks on South Ossetia by the Republic of Georgia. The only people who fail to acknowledge this are found in the U.S. political and media establishment.

"Today, we're all Georgians!" Sen. John McCain, Republican Presidential Candidate, Associated Press, Aug., 12, 2008

McCain's battle cry drew little response form the general public. It did fall in line with Bush administration policies, however.

The leader of Georgia responsible for initiating the conflict, President Mikheil Saakashvili, is a U.S. trained lawyer who took power in Georgia in 2004 through the "Rose Revolution." The Bush administration and private groups helped advance the claim that Georgia's government had committed election fraud and lacked legitimacy.

George Soros, the activist billionaire, provided $42 million to oust the former government with the help of Freedom House, headed at that time by former CIA Director James Woolsey. Other private foundation funded "democracy" groups helped as well. Saakashvili had the foresight to hire Sen. John McCain's current foreign policy adviser as his DC lobbyist, Randy Scheunemann.

There were well organized public protests in the capitol, a chorus of international pressure for change, and Saakashvili was swept into power.

With Saakashvili in charge, U.S. and European firms made major investments in the nation and then praised the new government for rapid economic growth accounted for by those investments. Improvements to ports and infrastructure for a U.S. - European oil pipeline, intended to bypass Russia, were a central focus of the investments.

Once in power, the proponents of democracy followed the path of those they'd replaced by turning the country into a virtual one party state. Charges of corruption like that under the old regime have become more common. There are also charges that Saakashvili and his party are engaged in election fraud like that of the previous rulers.

Nevertheless, U.S. support has been unwavering. On July 10, less than a month before Georgia's attack on South Ossetia, Condoleezza Rice was in the Georgian capital lending U.S. support to Georgia's "territorial integrity," by which she meant the disputed area of South Ossetia.

Shortly after he attacked, President Saakashvili must have been further encouraged by White House orders to promptly fly 2,000 Georgian troops home from Iraq to help fight the Russians.

The Russians responded to the attack by Georgia in about the same way that the United States would be expected to respond if Cuba, for example, attacked U.S. military personnel conducting official business close to our borders. How hard was it to anticipate the disastrous outcome?

Hallucinogenic Politics

The volatile Georgian president held a bizarre press conference on Aug. 15 after it was clear that there would be no U.S. or other troops coming to his aid. Speaking at a joint press conference with Condoleezza Rice, Saakashvili blamed the Russian invasion on a NATO meeting in April 2008 where Georgia failed to gain admission to that organization. He said that Russia began a military buildup along the border that somehow made it clear that Russia intended to attack his tiny republic.

He skipped over some important events (like his troops attacking South Ossetia) and lashed out at the United States and Europe with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice next to him: "So who invited the trouble here? Who invited this arrogance here? Who invited these innocent deaths here? Who is - not only those people who perpetrate them are responsible, but also those people who failed to stop it." CNN, Aug. 15, 200 8 (3:41)and U.S. Dept. of State, Aug. 15, 2008.

In a clear contradiction to his claimed knowledge of an imminent threat of invasion, the president of Georgia indicated that he had no idea that a Russian military action was about to take place: "When the thing started, I had to rush back, cut my holiday short when the tensions started to raise." (4:41).

The very odd gap in Saakashvili's narrative concerns his orders for a Georgian attack on South Ossetia on Aug. 7, 2008. He knew that Russian personnel were present in South Ossetia. How could he forget about his order to restore Georgian "constitutional authority" by sending his troops on the offensive? What did he think the Russians would do? Did he actually expect that the United States would attack the Russians in response? And what kind of chief executive goes on holiday when he's convinced that his country is about to be attacked?

After a joint press conference where he insulted the United States for inviting "these innocent deaths" by inaction, the Bush administration decided to give him $1.1 billion to repair the damage that resulted from the rash actions by the Georgian president.

So Why are We Giving Georgia $1.1 Billion Dollars?

Sen. McCain had a point when he said that "Today, we're all Georgians." In fact, the Bush-Cheney regime and the cooperating "democracy" groups gave birth, so to speak, to the current Georgian state.

Could it be that some of the patrons of those who helped create Georgia will benefit from the $1.1 billion dollar aid bill?

If so, then a portion of the billion dollars will subsidize those firms that made the initial investments after Saakashvili s rise to power. These folks were truly Georgians on Aug. 12 when Georgia was put in its place. They'll surely be in line for the largess handed out by the fathers of Georgian democracy, the president and vice president of the United States of America.

The Russian response to Georgia's attack on August 8 was predictable. They have a number of vital interests in the region. The provocation by the tiny Republic of Georgia was a gift. It created an opportunity to extend Russian influence in response to an attack on their peace keeping personnel. In retrospect, this outcome was probably guaranteed with the installation of an intemperate, rash leader who received nothing but praise as he replicated the policies and tactics of the corrupt regime that he helped remove from power.

Giving Georgia a billion dollars may simply recycle those funds to U.S. firms that are doing business there. In addition, this financial reward will reinforce the tactically challenged president of Georgia for his grandiosity and lack of restraint. It may even create the opportunity for yet another Russian smack down followed by outraged reaction from those whose tears are more likely from joy at the ever expanding opportunity to promote the cycle of war and rebuilding around the world paid for by the hard work and taxes of the citizens of the United States.

END

This article may be reproduced in whole or in part with attribution of authorship, a link to this article and appropriate acknowledgment o any images used.

Authors Website: http://electionfraudnews.com

Authors Bio: Michael Collins is a writer who focuses on clean elections and voting rights. See this summary of his articles plus Election 2004: The Urban Legend and groundbreaking research and commentary in "" His web site, Election Fraud News & The Money Party, offers a collection of resources and commentary on critical issues facing the country.

Kid of the Black Hole
09-06-2008, 12:22 AM
The $1B in aid puts the entire conflict in a different light, although I can't help but think we shoulda seen this coming..

anaxarchos
09-06-2008, 01:12 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Stalin_1902.jpg/200px-Stalin_1902.jpg

This guy was a Georgian. He was born Josef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, in 1878 in Gori. His father was an Ossetian cobbler and his mother was a former Georgian serf. His native language was Georgian and he did not learn Russian until he was nine, speaking for the rest of his life with a strong Georgian accent. At the age of 16, he entered the Georgian Orthodox Seminary of Tiflis. In response to the forced "Russianization" imposed by the priests, he became a fierce Georgian nationalist (and a recognized poet). Slowly his views evolved, transforming him into a revolutionary. Even in this state, his attitude towards "Georgian Nationalism" evolved only slowly and initially he favored an independent Georgian revolutionary party. In time, however, he came to regard Georgian nationalism as "unalterably reactionary". At about the same time, he adopted the revolutionary pen name of Joseph "Man-of-Steel" or Stalin (from the Russian "stal" - steel).

Interestingly, he had a good deal to do with the survival of the hundreds of ethnicities (like "Georgian") that were "naturally" disappearing in the old Russian Empire. Many ethnic regions were created and languages were preserved. Of course, this only applied to the territories in which the ethnic cultures were defined. The language of the old Soviet Union was Russian and there was a good deal of movement. Thus, in each of the territories, a significant number of "Russians" appeared over time. Today, while Ossetians continue to exist, a large number of those who oppose two Georgian states for the United States of America are actually "Russians". But, there is more to it than that because "Russian" is not just an ethnicity but also a language. Thus, Georgians who immigrated to Lithuania and who naturally spoke Russian, are now "Russians" in that country, a significant but arguably oppressed "minority".

Complicated, ain't it?
.

Kid of the Black Hole
09-06-2008, 01:45 AM
.. The unquestionably revolutionary character of the vast majority of national movements is as relative and peculiar as is the possible reactionary character of certain particular national movements. The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression does not necessarily presuppose the existence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a revolutionary or a republican programme of the movement, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement. The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism... the struggle that the Egyptian merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of
the leaders of the Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reasons a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of that government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step..

Michael Collins
09-07-2008, 12:55 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Stalin_1902.jpg/200px-Stalin_1902.jpg

This guy was a Georgian. He was born Josef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, in 1878 in Gori. His father was an Ossetian cobbler and his mother was a former Georgian serf. His native language was Georgian and he did not learn Russian until he was nine, speaking for the rest of his life with a strong Georgian accent. At the age of 16, he entered the Georgian Orthodox Seminary of Tiflis. In response to the forced "Russianization" imposed by the priests, he became a fierce Georgian nationalist (and a recognized poet). Slowly his views evolved, transforming him into a revolutionary. Even in this state, his attitude towards "Georgian Nationalism" evolved only slowly and initially he favored an independent Georgian revolutionary party. In time, however, he came to regard Georgian nationalism as "unalterably reactionary". At about the same time, he adopted the revolutionary pen name of Joseph "Man-of-Steel" or Stalin (from the Russian "stal" - steel).

Interestingly, he had a good deal to do with the survival of the hundreds of ethnicities (like "Georgian") that were "naturally" disappearing in the old Russian Empire. Many ethnic regions were created and languages were preserved. Of course, this only applied to the territories in which the ethnic cultures were defined. The language of the old Soviet Union was Russian and there was a good deal of movement. Thus, in each of the territories, a significant number of "Russians" appeared over time. Today, while Ossetians continue to exist, a large number of those who oppose two Georgian states for the United States of America are actually "Russians". But, there is more to it than that because "Russian" is not just an ethnicity but also a language. Thus, Georgians who immigrated to Lithuania and who naturally spoke Russian, are now "Russians" in that country, a significant but arguably oppressed "minority".

Complicated, ain't it?
.

Very. I figured I would get some excellent input here. Thanks. I understand the above except for this

"Today, while Ossetians continue to exist, a large number of those who oppose two Georgian states for the United States of America are actually "Russians"...

"two Georgian states for the USA"???

I'm going to expand the theme of "democracy" movements to include the "low intensity conflict" strategy behind these democracy movements. The Ukriane is up next. Any pointers will be appreciated.

What struck me here is that the minute this guy got in, el presidente, he began consolidating power, turned the place into a one party state, effectively, and then attacks Russian troops. What the fuck did he think that the Russian army would do? From the reports I read, that army was well instructed to treat the civilians well and not trash the place. They did cut the country in half, as if to prove a point, then left at an infuriating schedule for Bush-Cheney - "Ok, we're outta here ... oops, just kidding .... no we're going, etc."

I'm struggling to understand the EU point - why isolate Russia with their pipeline? Russia is a seller of energy. They need buyers. Why would they mess with the market. The only assumptions I can imagine for the pipeline isolating them is (a) a fear that Russia will not sell to us without some political compromise and (b) a total commitment on the part of the US and EU to avoid alternate energy sources, which are already clearly available in the short term (5-10 years).

The idea of putting Georgia in NATO is another absurd notion. Yet Merkel of Germany jumped right in and said that would happen.

So what's our choice in the election - McCain - war everywhere or Obama-Biden with Brzezinski in the wings. In his speech, Biden had a big line about supporting Georgia.

Talk about election fraud - an election devoid of issues is truly a fraud.

Michael Collins
09-07-2008, 01:02 AM
.. The unquestionably revolutionary character of the vast majority of national movements is as relative and peculiar as is the possible reactionary character of certain particular national movements. The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression does not necessarily presuppose the existence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a revolutionary or a republican programme of the movement, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement. The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism... the struggle that the Egyptian merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of
the leaders of the Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reasons a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of that government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step..

... it's a "democracy" revolution, or as they're called, a "color" revolution. Think of it, revolutions so absent ideology and meaning, they're designated by colors.

anaxarchos
09-07-2008, 01:36 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Stalin_1902.jpg/200px-Stalin_1902.jpg

This guy was a Georgian. He was born Josef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, in 1878 in Gori. His father was an Ossetian cobbler and his mother was a former Georgian serf. His native language was Georgian and he did not learn Russian until he was nine, speaking for the rest of his life with a strong Georgian accent. At the age of 16, he entered the Georgian Orthodox Seminary of Tiflis. In response to the forced "Russianization" imposed by the priests, he became a fierce Georgian nationalist (and a recognized poet). Slowly his views evolved, transforming him into a revolutionary. Even in this state, his attitude towards "Georgian Nationalism" evolved only slowly and initially he favored an independent Georgian revolutionary party. In time, however, he came to regard Georgian nationalism as "unalterably reactionary". At about the same time, he adopted the revolutionary pen name of Joseph "Man-of-Steel" or Stalin (from the Russian "stal" - steel).

Interestingly, he had a good deal to do with the survival of the hundreds of ethnicities (like "Georgian") that were "naturally" disappearing in the old Russian Empire. Many ethnic regions were created and languages were preserved. Of course, this only applied to the territories in which the ethnic cultures were defined. The language of the old Soviet Union was Russian and there was a good deal of movement. Thus, in each of the territories, a significant number of "Russians" appeared over time. Today, while Ossetians continue to exist, a large number of those who oppose two Georgian states for the United States of America are actually "Russians". But, there is more to it than that because "Russian" is not just an ethnicity but also a language. Thus, Georgians who immigrated to Lithuania and who naturally spoke Russian, are now "Russians" in that country, a significant but arguably oppressed "minority".

Complicated, ain't it?
.

Very. I figured I would get some excellent input here. Thanks. I understand the above except for this

"Today, while Ossetians continue to exist, a large number of those who oppose two Georgian states for the United States of America are actually "Russians"...

"two Georgian states for the USA"???

I'm going to expand the theme of "democracy" movements to include the "low intensity conflict" strategy behind these democracy movements. The Ukriane is up next. Any pointers will be appreciated.

What struck me here is that the minute this guy got in, el presidente, he began consolidating power, turned the place into a one party state, effectively, and then attacks Russian troops. What the fuck did he think that the Russian army would do? From the reports I read, that army was well instructed to treat the civilians well and not trash the place. They did cut the country in half, as if to prove a point, then left at an infuriating schedule for Bush-Cheney - "Ok, we're outta here ... oops, just kidding .... no we're going, etc."

I'm struggling to understand the EU point - why isolate Russia with their pipeline? Russia is a seller of energy. They need buyers. Why would they mess with the market. The only assumptions I can imagine for the pipeline isolating them is (a) a fear that Russia will not sell to us without some political compromise and (b) a total commitment on the part of the US and EU to avoid alternate energy sources, which are already clearly available in the short term (5-10 years).

The idea of putting Georgia in NATO is another absurd notion. Yet Merkel of Germany jumped right in and said that would happen.

So what's our choice in the election - McCain - war everywhere or Obama-Biden with Brzezinski in the wings. In his speech, Biden had a big line about supporting Georgia.

Talk about election fraud - an election devoid of issues is truly a fraud.

I was making a joke about adding a Fifty First state - Georgia (Atlanta) and Georgia (Tiblis). The thing about EU and the driving point of U.S. policy is to drive Russia "all the way over" and to make the Russian counter-revolution irreversible. Barring getting Russia to be run by a new Christian Democratic Party (or whatever), the former Republics are used, as the opportunities present themselves, to marginalize and pressure the joint. SOP. Fuck me, though. Putting some American guy up as "The Prezidente of Georgia"? Shit, you would think they were dealing with Iraq or El Salvador.
.

anaxarchos
09-07-2008, 03:02 AM
.. The unquestionably revolutionary character of the vast majority of national movements is as relative and peculiar as is the possible reactionary character of certain particular national movements. The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression does not necessarily presuppose the existence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a revolutionary or a republican programme of the movement, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement. The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism... the struggle that the Egyptian merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of
the leaders of the Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reasons a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of that government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step..

... it's a "democracy" revolution, or as they're called, a "color" revolution. Think of it, revolutions so absent ideology and meaning, they're designated by colors.


Actually, the story on these "ethnicities" is a little different. They are artifacts of the patchwork of tiny Medieval territories that was Feudalism, and they existed all over Europe. The process of "National Formation" was simultaneously a process of the destruction of these ethnicities through a thousand cultural (and sometimes, actual) genocides. But, the Russian Empire was backward, so these largely survived to the Bolshevik Revolution. After the Revolution, there was no particular loyalty to the "National Idea", so many of these survived and were preserved through various "Republics" and "Autonomous Regions" and so forth. The "nationalizing" process remained still-born. Of course, this gave many opportunities for the revival of "Nationalism" at many points (such as during the Nazi occupation of the European part of the Soviet Union during WW2). Inevitably, these "nationalisms" ended up being the exact opposite of those seen in the colonies of the Capitalist countries - i.e. they were almost invariably reactionary as the U.S.S.R. gave little opportunity for the aspirations of any emerging national bourgeoisie. Neither was the Soviet Union the only such example. Yugoslavia was quite similar and much like a matryoshka doll, with each "ethnic minority" holding yet another, smaller, nested "ethnic minority" within it.

Just how reactionary a lot of these "nationalisms" became is a story in itself.

.

eattherich
09-09-2008, 03:26 AM
Georgia Is on Our Minds, But Abuses Are Ignored
Only Human
By Kathleen Peratis
Thu. Sep 04, 2008

Georgia has been America’s darling in the Caucasus since its charismatic and telegenic young president, Mikheil Saakashvili, took over from the nasty old Russian-style despot Eduard Shevardnadze in the fall of 2003, in what came to be called the Rose Revolution (because Saakashvili carried a rose, and not an AK-47, as he and the throngs breached the doors of the country’s parliament building). All the world (well, most of it) had high hopes for Saakashvili’s reformist, democratic, anticorruption platform.

Throughout last month’s hostilities with Russia and in the weeks since, little Georgia’s stock has only risen with the Bush administration, as well as with the mainstream press and both presidential candidates. “We are all Georgians,” John McCain said. No one in the Obama campaign demurred.

Despite — or even because of — this coalescing consensus, now may be a good time to knock a few chunks out of Saakashvili’s pedestal. While Saakashvili rightly gets credit for putting the fight against corruption at the top of his agenda (in 2004, Transparency International declared Georgia one of the most corrupt governments in the world) and for combating religious and ethnic discrimination, he and his government have also committed serious human rights abuses.

For one thing, Georgia tortures people. Every year since 2004, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have reported on Abu Ghraib-like treatment of prisoners in Georgian jails and prisons: Suspects have been suspended between poles and beaten with truncheons or burned with candles until they hemorrhaged from various parts of their bodies; there have been threats to beat their mothers and children if they do not confess to charges against them, according to Amnesty. In 2005 and 2006, Human Rights Watch detailed “several cases of torture” and reported that in 2006 alone, at least seven detainees died in Tblisi Prison No. 5. The group noted that Georgia’s government has neither adequately investigated nor held anyone accountable for these and other deaths in detention. Indeed, Georgia’s response in 2006 to prisoner abuse claims constituted an additional abuse: It “used the plea bargaining system to cover up allegations of torture,” warning prisoners, “If you tell anyone then it will get worse for you,” and “promising lower penalties to defendants who agreed to the official’s version of events,” according to Human Rights Watch.

The most well-documented abuses, however, are those against dissent and free expression. In the few weeks between the resignation of Shevardnadze and Saakashvili’s taking office, Saakashvili exploited the euphoria of the revolution’s success by ramming through parliament changes to the constitution that vastly increased the power of the presidency, decreased its accountability and weakened the multiparty system, according to Amnesty International’s 2005 country report on Georgia.

Shortly after Saakashvili took office, the vibrant press that he had inherited from the Shevardnadze era began to erode. Amnesty International reported that it “has become increasingly concerned about… allegations of government interference with freedom of the media.” Some of Georgia’s leading intellectuals — people who had enthusiastically supported the Rose Revolution and who had opposed Shevardnadze — wrote an open letter in October 2004, expressing their concerns about the disappearance of an open press and the threat of one-party dominance.

Doubts about Saakashvili’s true colors spread. In December 2006, the Georgian parliament, at Saakashvili’s behest, amended the constitution to delay presidential and parliamentary elections from early 2008 to the end of 2009, which, according to the opposition parties, gave an advantage to the ruling party. The move (later reversed) infuriated the opposition and became its rallying cry.

In 2007, Saakashvili arrested critic (and former defense minister) Irakli Okruashvili, who had accused Saakashvili of corruption and suppression of dissent, which further spurred the opposition. In November, there began a series of peaceful opposition demonstrations, the largest of which attracted about 50,000 people. The police turned one demonstration into a violent confrontation: They used a water cannon against the front rows of demonstrators and simultaneously launched a volley of tear gas and rubber bullets into the crowd. Masked riot police pursued fleeing demonstrators, kicking and punching them, and striking them with truncheons, wooden poles and other objects, according to eyewitnesses. At least 500 people were injured, some of them critically.

Later that evening, hundreds of heavily armed special forces entered the private television station Imedi — which was fiercely critical of Saakashvili — pointed guns to the heads of journalists and forced Imedi off the air (for what turned out to be more than six weeks), ejecting the staff and destroying much of the station’s equipment. A state of emergency was declared that lasted for eight days.

According to Saakashvili and the Georgian government, the demonstrators and the Imedi television station were dupes of the Russians, who were allegedly seeking to sow public disorder and spark a coup d’état. Critics, however, say the government never provided any proof for this claim (although the claim seems more plausible now than it did last year) and that the government’s conduct was in any case a wildly disproportionate response to a peaceful demonstration. Georgia’s promise to appoint a parliamentary commission to investigate the riot has never materialized and, in light of the escalating conflict with Russia, it seems to be off everyone’s agenda.

In response to these events, Saakashvili called a snap election for January 2008, which the opposition alleges he stole through voter intimidation and media dominance. International observers, however, said the election was fair. Since then, as hostilities with Russia have escalated, there have been few English-language reports of any internal opposition to Saakashvili.

Georgia, of course, has a strong claim on our sympathies. In light of recent events, the United States is legitimately concerned about preserving Georgian sovereignty. That’s why it may be tempting to cut Saakashvili a lot of slack on his government’s human rights record. But this would not be doing Georgia any favors. Americans know that cutting slack for human rights abuses does not make a country stronger. Seven and a half years of Bush administration abuses should have taught us at least that much.

Kathleen Peratis is a partner at the New York law firm Outten & Golden.

http://www.forward.com/articles/14141/

eattherich
09-15-2008, 10:13 PM
http://img.rian.ru/images/11670/23/116702359.jpg

http://img.rian.ru/images/11670/22/116702287.jpg

Complete slideshow with German captions. (http://de.rian.ru/photolents/20080911/116703396.html)