Fledgling Democracies

In retaliation for sanctions the U.S. (and Europe) have imposed on Belarus since the controversial 2006 election of President Alexander Lukashenko, Belarus has expelled 10 American diplomats. The U.S. ambassador was sent packing in March.

U.S. officials say they won’t lift sanctions until Belarus releases imprisoned opposition leaders, but judging from today’s Washington Post story, odds are against it. Lukashenko said yesterday he has no intention of releasing Alexander Kozulin, the well-known leader sentenced to more than five years for organizing demonstrations following the ‘06 election. Of Kozulin, Lukashenko said:

“They have picked some putrid oppositionist who got 1.5 percent in the election and picture him as a political prisoner. He wants the whole world to rise to his release and the government to collapse.”

The State Department called the expulsion “unjustified and unwarranted,” but is it at all realistic, let alone fair, to expect a country we’re actively penalizing not to retaliate in some way, shape or form?

This is a great post about yet another contentious breakaway-from-a-breakaway situation, this time involving Moldova and a region called Transnistria, along the border with Ukraine.

The blog, Human Goods, deals with human trafficking and mentions the practice of some villagers in the region selling their organs in the face of extreme poverty. The author also includes some great segments from a BBC series entitled “Places that don’t exist,” since Transnistria has not been recognized as a country by, well, anyone else.

The folks at the World Database of Happiness recently ranked 95 nations on a happiness scale, asking people to rate how happy they are between 1 (least happy) and 10 (most happy).

Unsurprisingly, Denmark and Switzerland topped the list with ratings of 8.1, while dreary former Soviet republic Moldova came in dead last, managing only a 3.5 rating.

Commentary by Forbes notes that per capita income in the former Soviet republic comes in at a measly $880 per year. We all know money can’t buy happiness, but such a severe shortage of it certainly doesn’t help.

Belarus, Ukraine and Uzbekistan are other former Soviet republics which keep Moldova company near the very bottom of the list.

Just FYI, Americans reported an average happiness rating of 7.3, giving us the 17th spot.

A Russian NGO had its appeal to overturn the government’s ruling that it must dissolve thrown out of court this week, the Coalition for Democracy in Russia has reported. Sodeystvie (translation: “Assistance”), which helps refugees and forced migrants integrate into society, was found to be non-compliant with the ultra strict (and equally controversial) 2006 law regulating NGOs.

Critics call the law a front for government officials bent on extending broad powers meant to “weaken critical voices.” Oversight of groups who receive foreign funding is particularly stifling, as I alluded to in this earlier post. Groups can be dissolved for filing documentation “improperly,” a distinction so intentionally vague it includes typos.

The 2006 NGO law and it’s implications are likely to be recurring topics on this blog…it’s another example of how Russia’s boldness in what the West considers highly dubious moves towards authoritarianism are snowballing and really starting to impact Russian society.

A report by Human Rights Watch has probably the most thorough critique of the mandate and documentation of its effects thus far. So you get the gist of it, here’s the opening statement:

Over the past eight years, the Russian government under President Vladimir Putin has engaged in efforts to weaken beyond recognition the checks and balances inherent in a truly democratic political system. A recent aspect of these efforts has been a policy to subject Russia’s vibrant civil society to greater scrutiny and control, through a 2006 law that gives the government broad powers to regulate the activities of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The government has also used other measures, such as the amended 2002 anti-extremism law and a variety of administrative regulations, to target organizations that work on controversial issues, may be capable of galvanizing public dissent, or that receive foreign funding. This report documents the corrosive impact the 2006 law and other government measures have had on civil society in Russia. It demonstrates how these policies are aimed at weakening critical voices in Russia and have profoundly undermined independent activism.

A great interview has appeared on the Council on Foreign Relations website with an expert on Georgia and the Transcaucasus region, Elizabeth Fuller.

She does a good job explaining the motives behind Russia’s stance on Georgia and a number of the other already- or possible-breakaway republics, including (once again) the Georgia/Russia/Abkhazia spy plane saga. Of Russia/Georgia she says:

Russia will do anything to weaken Georgia without caring how the international community responds. But at the same time, the Russian leaders have a very cool head. They know exactly how far they can go in baiting Georgia and there is a red line beyond which it would be counterproductive to proceed.

It’s a substantial article and very much worth reading for anyone with an interest in the ever-changing region. And it’s really hard not to respect someone like Fuller who has a good handle on so many complex relationships there.

The spy plane story I referenced in a previous post seems to have changed significantly over the last several days. CNN now reports the situation entails Georgia accusing Russia of shooting down the spy plane in question, rather than Abkhazia claiming to have brought down the Georgian plane, though Abkhazia stands by the original version.

Vladimir Putin and Georgia’s Mikhail Saakashvili had a tense phone conversation Monday regarding the incident, and the Kremlin released a statement accusing Georgia of violating the 1994 ceasefire with Abkhazia by operating in Abkhazi airspace.

In a nutshell, these two graphs from the story sum up the general state of things between the two nations:

Saakashvili, the Georgian leader, has vowed to bring both Abkhazia and another breakaway region, South Ossetia, back under central government control. He also cultivated strong economic and military ties with the United States and actively sought NATO membership — much to Russia’s consternation.

Russia, meanwhile, has tacitly backed South Ossetia and Abkhazia, granting their residents passports and other support. Moscow recently announced that it was establishing stronger ties with both regions.

I hadn’t heard of it either, but Abkhazia is a breakaway republic of Georgia, the much better known former Soviet republic. Abkhazian air defense forces say they shot down an unmaned Georgian spy plane today, and that it wasn’t the first time Georgia had violated Abkhazian airspace. Georgia, however, denies the incident took place.

Abkhazia’s sovereignty hasn’t been recognized internationally since it declared independence in 1994 amid calls to dissociate itself from Georgia and focus instead on closer ties with Russia. Which brings us to related news from the US, where the state department Friday urged Russia not to move forward with plans to work more closely with the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which would only heighten tensions between Russia and Georgia.

Looking for help from NATO and the EU, Georgian Vice Prime Minister Giorgi Baramidze made haste to Brussels Friday. Russia had “crossed the red line” and “Europe and the Atlantic community must react,” he said. “We request the international community’s support in order not to let Russia legalize the de facto annexation of these territories.”

It seems the EU, NATO and, to a certain extent, the US could be kept busy for all of eternity sorting out the breaking-away-from-breakaway republics in the region.

So said Stanislau Shushkevich, former chairman of the Belarusian Parliament, at today’s opening of the Center for Belarusian Studies, at Southwestern College in Winfield, Kansas.

The Wichita Eagle didn’t offer any elaboration on Shushkevich’s hopes for his country to more closely resemble the sunflower state, but did provide these tidbits:

• They (Belarus and Kansas) are about the same size and feature relatively flat topography.
• Each is landlocked, with residents known for a strong work ethic.
• Belarus has more than 9 million residents — about triple the population of Kansas — and an estimated 11,000 lakes, carved out by glaciers.

Shushkevich, with Boris Yeltsin and Ukraine’s Leonid Kravchuk, declared the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. He was joined at the opening by David Swartz, former US ambassador to Belarus and Southwestern U alum, who said conditions in Belarus have gone from “bad to worse” while other former Soviet republics are making forward progress. The new center’s goal is to “promote the revival of the Belarus nation through higher education.”

To that end, may they reach “ad astra per aspera,” or “to the stars through difficulties,” just like it’s done in Kansas.

This 3,800+ word microfinance story focuses primarily on Mongolia, not a country this blog is primarily concerned with but a place where microfinance is experiencing what the piece calls ‘growing pains.’

The writer mentions early NGO microfinance initiatives such as the Golden Fund for Development, a UN program started in 1998, and offers up some relevant stats on microfinance for Eastern Europe and Central Asia: the total number of borrowers served has grown from 1.5 million in 2000 to 5.1 million in 2006, with the total loan portfolio of all MFIs reaching $12.5 billion.

The 11th annual Microfinance Centre Conference will be held in Ulaanbaatar, capital of Mongolia, May 20-30, and is expected to address competition and attempt to make some sense of the complicated landscape now inhabited by private investors who came on the scene as the market expanded. 

A Russian NGO calling itself the Institute of Democracy and Cooperation, which aims to challenge Western views of Russia, has published a book theorizing that the events leading up to the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, as well as the toppling of Slobodan Milosovec in Serbia and Georgia’s Mikhail Saakashvili’s rise to power all were masterminded by forces in Western countries.

The analysts who make the case point, in particular, to the Committee of Voters of Ukraine, a group the authors say used American funds to resist Viktor Yanukovich, the pro-Russian candidate. Nonsense, says spokesman Aleksandr Chernenko: “The money we received from Western donors was allocated specifically for monitoring the election. After that we haven’t got a penny from anyone.”

Regardless of the credence (or lack thereof) of the allegations the book makes, it’s premise does put the spotlight on just what rights and responsibilites foreign NGOs have when their motives go beyond providing humanitarian aid, and also seek to affect a nation’s politics. Its precisely the concern behind Russia’s decision to closely monitor all foreign NGO activity.

The Discovery Institute’s Russia Blog has a great piece re: the above-referenced Institute for Democracy and Cooperation.