Central Asia and Caucasus after the August War

November 5 , 2008

A presentation by Central Asia Caucasus Institute (CACI) fellowship participants David Abesadze (Georgia ), Xeniya Rogan (Kazakhstan), Tornike Turmanidze (Georgia), Anar Valiyev (Azerbaijan) and Bakai Zhunushov (Kyrgyzstan) held at the Central Asia Caucasus Institute (CACI), SAIS, Johns Hopkins University on Wednesday November 5th in the Rome Auditorium.

The discussion began with Tornike Turmanidze from Georgia who spoke about the perspective from Georgia. He said that people abroad looked at the war as lasting five days but in Georgia it has been seen as an ongoing problem because of Saakashvili’s reform programs both domestic and foreign policy; domestic with the reform of state institutions and anti corruption measures and foreign with the interest in NATO membership and the effort to reintegrate lost territories.

The problem can be understood as coming from Vladimir Putin neo imperialist view who wants to restore the lost Soviet realm and Georgia was first.

The importance of Georgia to Russia is because of 1) energy routes 2) military (Russians had to withdraw in the 1990s from the territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and was irritated by it) and 3) symbol, Saakashvili is seen as incontrollable from Moscow and is pursuing democracy which does not fit with Putin’s ideas.

In the events leading to the war we see two trends since 2003. 1) Numerous attempts were made to overthrow the Saakashvili government and 2) increase in political and economic interference in breakaway areas has also been increasing since 2004.

Since none of these worked, the only option left by 2008 was the military option. In 2008 war there were two plans. Plan A was to incite violence in Abkhazia which was not successful. Plan B was to ignite hostilities in South Ossetia which worked.

Russia is now annexing the territories, they do not want their independence. It is territorial aggrandizement. Russia was not successful in its attempt to topple Saakashvili but they could pursue another attempt if they see the right opportunity.

The discussion was continued by David Abesadze also from Georgia. He looked at the international perspective.  He opened by comparing the situation in Georgia to a dark room in from which noise is coming and as it becomes more noisy the neighbor comes around and breaks the door down to have a look at what was happening. This is what happened in August. It was the West who came to look at what was going on during the August war.

The policies of the West towards Russia have been a failure in the 1990s.

There is a question as to whether is it worth for the west to alienate Russia over Georgia.

It is in Russia s interest not to have strong Islamist forces in the Middle East but they also have interest in the US remaining engaged in the region.

Russia in 2008 showed it wants to be a hegemon in its region. That is the language used by Medvedev. The war in Georgia damages US credibility in its international efforts of promoting democracy.
As the US was trapped in the Middle East, this was a good time for Russia to act.

Us needs in rigorous and long term policy and needs to contain Russia when needed.

Anar Valiyev from Azerbaijan continued by discussing the Azeri perspective on the crises. He sais that despite Azerbaijan not being involved, the conflict led Azerbaijan to change its long term perspectives.
Azerbaijan has its own frozen conflict and this showed the role of using the military card. The Georgian defeat was disappointing to Azeri public. And also the inability of containing Russia brought fear and some people thought “if the west didn’t save Christian Georgia will it save Muslim Azerbaijan?”.

The crisis led to movement on the Karabakh conflict in Russia. There was a meeting, organized by Moscow, which was important in convening sides which hadn’t met for many years. There was also an impact on projects, the oil projects are going through but gas seems to be a problem. Gas is more important because by undercutting Russian gas supplies through trans caucuses, Russia will lose its clout in eastern Europe, while oil is not such an important foreign policy tool.

Three months before the war, Russia offered Azerbaijan to buy gas at market price which was very good deal, but it is a political issue. It seems that Azerbaijan would sacrifice much to whichever party can solve the Karabakh conflict, either from the West or Russia.

Xeniya Rogan from Kazakhstan talked about the view from her country. She said that to understand the consequences, we had to see that Kazakhstan is a major investor in Georgia.  While also that one third or Kazakh population is ethnic Russian.

Many in the West did not understand that many people in the region thought of the events as a legitimate use of force. While some in the West worry about who will be next? It may be the case that there is no such plan.

Kazakhstan has a challenging international environment; it is not possible to stay neutral in Central Asia. It is a rapidly changing environment where enemies can become partners and friends, and the other way.

Georgia’s decision to withdraw from CIS will create a challenge for trade and investments in the region.

Bakai Zhunushov from Kyrgyzstan was the last speaker and said that Kyrdgystan closely followed the relation between Russia and Georgia as well as Ukraine and Baltic states, where Russia has a particular post Soviet policy.

We hear that having a good neighbor is better than having a far relative. We are more concerned with Russia. We have a common history and culture with Russia. We have also strong economic cooperation, there are important financial transfers from there as so many Kyrgyz live in Russia. This is why we have strong relations with Russia.

We did not see the August events as a war between Russia and Georgia but a war over South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

The United States has been too busy with Georgia and has forgotten about Central Asia. This was a good time to use soft power. Russia was much faster to influence people in Central Asia to get them to come to their standpoint over this conflict. There is very limited investment form the US into Kyrgystan, this should also be increased.