Anti-Russian protesters flood the streets Tbilisi and other cities
In Georgia's capital Tbilisi, 100,000 protesters have crammed into the city’s main avenue as part of an anti-Russian demonstration.
Hand-holding protesters formed human chains in an echo of the so-called Baltic Chain of 1989, in which residents of then-Soviet Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia stretched the length of their homelands to protest Soviet occupation. Underscoring the Baltic example, some demonstrators waved Estonian and Lithuanian flags.
Organisers called on the European leaders meeting in Brussels to condemn Russia's actions.
Georgia hopes Europe will impose sanctions against individuals associated with the separatist movements in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Demonstrators draped themselves with Georgian flags and one group burned a Russian passport as a sign of protest.
Human chains proclaiming "Stop Russia" were also planned in Baku, Barcelona, Jerusalem, Kiev, Madrid, Sofia, Warsaw and Vienna, Georgian government spokeswoman Nino Imedashvili said.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Is Re-thinking Needed? Is Re-calculating worth it?
While US and almost all leading European governments are calling for harsh criticism and sanctions against Russia, Germany is the first to call for considerate approach, re-calculating possible economic implications of breaking normal trade and economic relations with Russia. Wise and objective, or tactful? You decide...and we all feel later...
Will the worsening of relations with Russia help the world?
Indeed, the tensions over Georgian-Russian war have escalated even further after the war ended this month. US is criticizing, EU is threatening with sanctions, Russia is responding fiercely...
But one should think whether it helps the world these days, as the fuel prices are already high and affecting each aspect of economic and social life of the societies in all parts of the world. If Europe is imposing economic sanction on Russian goods, will it include oil and gas in the coming winter season? Will this be good for European consumers who already feel financial burden and anticipate further problems of the financial markets? Are these questions well considered by politicians, or are they just playing already lost game just to save their image?
The world has changed, and it brings about the need to think twice before announcing new policies or actions towards any country of the world, as implications are becoming more and more unpredictable, if not analyzed through the prizm of new realities.
The world has changed to the point that price fluctuation in one part of the world is immediately felt in all countries and regions and small conflicts could lead to global confrontational disputes. Is this what the world needs now? Or something completely different and new? Your thoughts...
But one should think whether it helps the world these days, as the fuel prices are already high and affecting each aspect of economic and social life of the societies in all parts of the world. If Europe is imposing economic sanction on Russian goods, will it include oil and gas in the coming winter season? Will this be good for European consumers who already feel financial burden and anticipate further problems of the financial markets? Are these questions well considered by politicians, or are they just playing already lost game just to save their image?
The world has changed, and it brings about the need to think twice before announcing new policies or actions towards any country of the world, as implications are becoming more and more unpredictable, if not analyzed through the prizm of new realities.
The world has changed to the point that price fluctuation in one part of the world is immediately felt in all countries and regions and small conflicts could lead to global confrontational disputes. Is this what the world needs now? Or something completely different and new? Your thoughts...
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Latest UN Security Council Meeting on Georgia
Georgia exposes UN's weakness
Deadlocked over Georgia, ineffective on Darfur and impotent about Zimbabwe, the BBC's United Nations correspondent Laura Trevelyan asks, what is the point of the UN Security Council?
In the dog days of late August as Manhattan swelters, I have spent much of my time lurking by what is called the "UN Security Council stakeout".
It is the corridor where diplomats come to talk to journalists on their way in and out of security council meetings.
On the TV the stakeout radiates significance, but in reality it is rather faded.
Behind the diplomats hangs an enormous tapestry of Guernica, a reproduction of Picasso's famous anti-war painting, and a reminder of what the security council is supposed to try to prevent.
Georgia crisis
The stakeout has been unusually busy this August. Russia's eloquent Ambassador Vitaly Churkin has been a regular, denouncing what he calls "propaganda from Georgia".
Tibilisi's young telegenic envoy Irakli Alasania is as media savvy as Georgia's president, but his efforts with words have been no match for Russian firepower on the ground.
The sparks have been flying between Ambassador Churkin and his US counterpart Zalmay Khalilzad, reflecting the profound disagreement between Moscow and Washington. European ambassadors have tried to act as a bridge between the two.
UN SECURITY COUNCIL PERMANENT MEMBERS
China
France
Russia
United Kingdom
United States
Diplomats have spent many long hours consulting, trying to agree a resolution which would endorse the ceasefire plan brokered by France.
The security guards have gone into overtime, the stakeout carpet has become even more worn and smoke has filled the air (you can light up in bits of the UN as it is international territory).
I have even tried to count the threads in the Guernica tapestry, but the council has been unable to agree even the mildest statement on the Georgian situation.
Much diplomatic effort was expended in an effort to agree language on the territorial integrity of Georgia. Russia said the world could forget about it but the US and European countries insisted it should be respected.
The diplomacy finally juddered to a halt earlier this week when Russia recognised the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, rendering further arguments about territorial integrity futile.
With Russia being both a party to the conflict in Georgia and a veto-wielding power, the result this summer was paralysis at the council
But there is another reason why the council was deadlocked. Russia, like the US, Britain, France and China, is an all-powerful permanent member of the UN Security Council with the ability to block decisions.
That is the way the council was set up in the wake of WWII, with power going to the victors.
After the failings of the League of Nations, the idea was to give the UN Security Council teeth by enabling the five major powers to veto resolutions.
But with Russia being both a party to the conflict in Georgia and a veto wielding power, the result this summer was paralysis at the council.
Veto impasse
It is hardly the first time this has happened.
During what some are now calling the first Cold War, the Security Council was deadlocked because Russia and the US could both use their veto power.
But given the regularity with which the council reaches an impasse now, the obvious question is whether it is really working in the way it should.
The council is charged with maintaining international peace and security, a grand ambition, but if it cannot pronounce on Georgia, what use is it?
In July, China and Russia vetoed an attempt by the West to impose sanctions against members of Zimbabwe's government.
The peacekeeping force the Council despatched to Darfur is struggling, weakened because divisions between China and the West meant the Sudanese government was given a role in the force's composition, one it has exploited to the full.
Legitimacy doubts
You could say that the world is not united, so why expect the Council to be?
As China and Russia become more assertive, of course they will use the veto power as a tool of their foreign policy, just as Britain and France use their permanent member status to punch above their weight.
And it is not as if China and Russia are the only ones to use the veto.
The US uses the veto to protect its staunch ally Israel from what Washington sees as unbalanced criticism from the Arab world.
Security Council diplomats argue that the Georgia stand-off shows how important the forum is. If it was irrelevant, then no-one would bother trying to get agreement, say diplomats.
The failure is actually a reflection of the Council's power.
Meanwhile developing countries outside the Security Council question the legitimacy of a body set up to reflect the global power structure 60 years ago.
Divided world
India, Brazil, Japan, South Africa and Nigeria all have a strong case to be permanent members, and for 14 years, what are called in the jargon "open-ended discussions", have been going on over reforming the Security Council so it reflects the world as it is now.
Unsurprisingly those discussions have never concluded because many countries prefer the status quo to change, which would elevate their regional enemies.
Existing powers on the Security Council argue that enlargement is not without its perils. If too many countries have the veto, nothing would ever get done, they argue... self-servingly but also accurately.
Meanwhile I am still here at the stakeout, asking what the point of the UN Security Council is.
My conclusion is that it holds up a mirror to the world's divisions.
But if it does not start to reflect the schisms of the new world too, it will become as threadbare as the stakeout carpet.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7587863.stm
Friday, August 29, 2008
Georgia Breaks its ties with Russia
According to the recent news Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia has asked Russian diplomats to leave Tbilisi, as Georgia is cutting its diplomatic ties with Russia.
EU energy reliance on Russia to grow after Georgia
EU energy reliance on Russia to grow after Georgia
Tom Bergin - Analysis
LONDON, 28 Aug—Russia's invasion of Georgia has reinforced Europe's desire to avoid over-reliance on Moscow for energy but EU countries' reluctance to pay for alternatives and uncoordinated policies mean their dependence is likely to grow.
The European Union relies on Russia for around a quarter of its gas and much of its oil while imports are expected to rise as North Sea production falls.
In recent years Moscow has cut off energy supplies to neighbours on a number of occasions, prompting the EU to push for projects that would bypass Russia.
In the past month, this policy has gained new urgency.
"The Georgia conflict appears to reaffirm the Commission's continued policy on strengthening the security of Europe's energy supply, including by means of diversification," EU Commission spokesman Martin Selmayr said.
The EU is pushing the Nabucco pipeline, which seeks to bring Azeri and Central Asian gas to Europe through Turkey, and a trans-Caspian pipeline that would allow Central Asian counties like Turkmenistan to export gas without crossing Russia.
These pipelines have struggled to get off the ground. Now their future looks even more in doubt after Russia's action highlighted the vulnerability of the 850,000 barrels per day Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil link and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzerum gas pipeline both crossing Georgia.
"It was unlikely to happen anyway and what has happened in Georgia has made it a whole lot less likely," said Tanya Costello at Eurasia Group, the political risk advisory firm.
Costello said oil companies would now be reluctant to invest in pipelines that crossed Georgia or relied on oil and gas passing through that country. Also, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan may now fear pursuing non-Russian export routes.
"Russia's actions in Georgia make those Central Asian gas producers even less likely to risk jeopardising their relationship with Moscow for a pro-Western route," she said.
NO MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTH IS
Part of the reason Nabucco and the trans-Caspian pipeline have struggled is because Europe's governments have been reluctant to back the projects with cash or diplomatic pressure in the way that Moscow has promoted such projects of its own.
A spokesman for the UK government said it would press the case for Nabucco, which is also strongly supported by the United States, but added, in an email, that it was "conscious of the underlying principle that the market is best placed to deliver required investment".
Analysts say it is unrealistic for governments to expect companies like Royal Dutch Shell and BP to bear the costs and risks of providing Europe's energy security.
"If you looked at commercial factors alone, the Soviets would never have built the pipeline infrastructure from Siberia to Eastern Europe in the first place and now Europe relies on that pipeline network," Andrew Neff, Energy Analyst at Global Insight said.
In addition to cash, the EU could back projects by taking a more active role in securing energy supplies from countries like Turkmenistan.
"Finding enough supplies is the big problem and it cannot be solved just by the efforts of the companies in the Nabucco consortium," Bulgaria's Economy and Energy Minister Petar Dimitrov told Reuters in an interview earlier this week.
"Russia is holding political talks to buy out the available gas from the Caspian region ... I believe the EU should also hold such political talks," he said.
DIVIDED LOYALTIES
Another problem in diversifying away from Russia is that big countries like Germany and Italy tend to back projects which secure their own energy supplies rather than working with other EU members on behalf of the whole bloc, analysts and some European politicians say.
Berlin backs the Nordstream gas pipeline which is led by Russian state-controlled gas export monopoly Gazprom and in which Germany's largest utility E.ON and chemicals maker BASF own minority stakes.
Nordstream aims to bring gas from Russia to Germany across the Baltic rather than through Eastern Europe.
Poland and Lithuania have criticised the pipeline, saying it makes them more susceptible to supply cuts from Russia as they alone would be affected.
Previous reductions in Russian oil and gas exports to Germany and Italy, after Moscow cut supplies to Ukraine and Belarus as a result of price disputes, were short-lived.
By contrast, an oil pipeline to Lithuania, which Russia shut down in July 2006, after Vilnius opted for a Polish rather than Russian buyer for its state refinery, has never reopened.
"The way Germany sees this is the best way to reduce insecurity of supply is not to cut Russia out but to cut dependence on potentially troublesome transit countries," Costello said.
Similarly Milan-based oil company Eni, in which the Italian government has a 20 percent stake and whose chief executive is selected by Rome, is a junior partner in Southstream, a Gazprom-backed rival to Nabucco.
Eni has also offered to help Gazprom build a gas pipeline to Europe from Libya, from which Gazprom said in July it had offered to buy all future volumes of oil and gas, much to the discomfort of Brussels.
Katinka Barysch, at the Centre for European Reform, a pro-Europe think-tank, said the inability of European countries to act together was Moscow's gain.
"If they're divided, Russia would be foolish not to take advantage of it," she said. /// Reuters
Tom Bergin - Analysis
LONDON, 28 Aug—Russia's invasion of Georgia has reinforced Europe's desire to avoid over-reliance on Moscow for energy but EU countries' reluctance to pay for alternatives and uncoordinated policies mean their dependence is likely to grow.
The European Union relies on Russia for around a quarter of its gas and much of its oil while imports are expected to rise as North Sea production falls.
In recent years Moscow has cut off energy supplies to neighbours on a number of occasions, prompting the EU to push for projects that would bypass Russia.
In the past month, this policy has gained new urgency.
"The Georgia conflict appears to reaffirm the Commission's continued policy on strengthening the security of Europe's energy supply, including by means of diversification," EU Commission spokesman Martin Selmayr said.
The EU is pushing the Nabucco pipeline, which seeks to bring Azeri and Central Asian gas to Europe through Turkey, and a trans-Caspian pipeline that would allow Central Asian counties like Turkmenistan to export gas without crossing Russia.
These pipelines have struggled to get off the ground. Now their future looks even more in doubt after Russia's action highlighted the vulnerability of the 850,000 barrels per day Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil link and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzerum gas pipeline both crossing Georgia.
"It was unlikely to happen anyway and what has happened in Georgia has made it a whole lot less likely," said Tanya Costello at Eurasia Group, the political risk advisory firm.
Costello said oil companies would now be reluctant to invest in pipelines that crossed Georgia or relied on oil and gas passing through that country. Also, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan may now fear pursuing non-Russian export routes.
"Russia's actions in Georgia make those Central Asian gas producers even less likely to risk jeopardising their relationship with Moscow for a pro-Western route," she said.
NO MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTH IS
Part of the reason Nabucco and the trans-Caspian pipeline have struggled is because Europe's governments have been reluctant to back the projects with cash or diplomatic pressure in the way that Moscow has promoted such projects of its own.
A spokesman for the UK government said it would press the case for Nabucco, which is also strongly supported by the United States, but added, in an email, that it was "conscious of the underlying principle that the market is best placed to deliver required investment".
Analysts say it is unrealistic for governments to expect companies like Royal Dutch Shell and BP to bear the costs and risks of providing Europe's energy security.
"If you looked at commercial factors alone, the Soviets would never have built the pipeline infrastructure from Siberia to Eastern Europe in the first place and now Europe relies on that pipeline network," Andrew Neff, Energy Analyst at Global Insight said.
In addition to cash, the EU could back projects by taking a more active role in securing energy supplies from countries like Turkmenistan.
"Finding enough supplies is the big problem and it cannot be solved just by the efforts of the companies in the Nabucco consortium," Bulgaria's Economy and Energy Minister Petar Dimitrov told Reuters in an interview earlier this week.
"Russia is holding political talks to buy out the available gas from the Caspian region ... I believe the EU should also hold such political talks," he said.
DIVIDED LOYALTIES
Another problem in diversifying away from Russia is that big countries like Germany and Italy tend to back projects which secure their own energy supplies rather than working with other EU members on behalf of the whole bloc, analysts and some European politicians say.
Berlin backs the Nordstream gas pipeline which is led by Russian state-controlled gas export monopoly Gazprom and in which Germany's largest utility E.ON and chemicals maker BASF own minority stakes.
Nordstream aims to bring gas from Russia to Germany across the Baltic rather than through Eastern Europe.
Poland and Lithuania have criticised the pipeline, saying it makes them more susceptible to supply cuts from Russia as they alone would be affected.
Previous reductions in Russian oil and gas exports to Germany and Italy, after Moscow cut supplies to Ukraine and Belarus as a result of price disputes, were short-lived.
By contrast, an oil pipeline to Lithuania, which Russia shut down in July 2006, after Vilnius opted for a Polish rather than Russian buyer for its state refinery, has never reopened.
"The way Germany sees this is the best way to reduce insecurity of supply is not to cut Russia out but to cut dependence on potentially troublesome transit countries," Costello said.
Similarly Milan-based oil company Eni, in which the Italian government has a 20 percent stake and whose chief executive is selected by Rome, is a junior partner in Southstream, a Gazprom-backed rival to Nabucco.
Eni has also offered to help Gazprom build a gas pipeline to Europe from Libya, from which Gazprom said in July it had offered to buy all future volumes of oil and gas, much to the discomfort of Brussels.
Katinka Barysch, at the Centre for European Reform, a pro-Europe think-tank, said the inability of European countries to act together was Moscow's gain.
"If they're divided, Russia would be foolish not to take advantage of it," she said. /// Reuters
Thursday, August 28, 2008
There would be more questions...and more answers?
The war has ended, but the tension is high. What will be the reaction of the world to the situation here. While the positions of Russia and Georgia are known, how the rest of the world will react? USA? European Union? Japan? China?
Any suggestions? Forecasts?
Any suggestions? Forecasts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
