Suchergebnisse

The August 2008 events in South Ossetia marked an important stage in the recent history of the Southern Caucasus: they changed the course of the region's sociopolitical life and have become the axis of the very complicated relations among the biggest international players. The conflict settlement was achieved through a fairly long diplomatic struggle, which faithfully reflected the relations among Russia, the United States, and the European Union. Below I offer an analysis of the diplomatic aspect of the South Ossetian settlement.

Ponders the future of Georgian President Mikheil Saaskashvili in the wake of the August 2008 Georgian-Russian war. At issue is the survival of democracy given Saaskashvili's vulnerability & Russian interest in his removal. Reasons why Saaskashvili might not last as Georgia's president are presented before considering the prospect that he might refuse to relinquish power voluntarily. Attention is then given to why he is likely to survive this crisis, eg, broad power base across ethnic minority & low-income communities & the unlikelihood of a military coup or anything similar to the Rose Revolution. In this light, it is contended that Georgia's democratic institutions will persist & that Saaskashvili's government will be reinvigorated. D. Edelman

By ordering the military takeover of the secessionist region of South Ossetia on August 7, did the Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili fall into a trap set by the Kremlin? Was he too confident in the United States, expecting more concrete support? Did he believe that it would help his country along the road to integration in Europe or NATO? Whatever the case, the result of this operation is disastrous for Georgia. Its army was swiftly defeated by Russia; many civil infrastructures were destroyed: & South Ossetia, together with the other secessionist region Abkhazia, seem definitively lost. This episode demonstrates the real power balance in the Caucasus, where Russia reigns supreme. Will Georgia once again find itself under Moscow's control? It's not totally impossible. Adapted from the source document.

The 5 January, 2008 snap poll was the first ever truly competitive presidential election in Georgia. The incumbent, Mikhail Saakashvili, just managed to retain his seat, narrowly avoiding a run-off with the main opposition candidate, Levan Gachechiladze. According to the Central Electoral Commission (CEC) of Georgia, and the exit polls commissioned by government controlled television companies, Saakashvili received between 50.8 and 54 percent of votes, while Gachechiladze stayed below 30 percent. Local and international observers have noted numerous irregularities, but overall they have endorsed the elections as democratic. Opposition parties, however, have been less than convinced in fairness of the results as they have insisted that the current outcome is, indeed, a result of the noted irregularities. The snap presidential poll is a step forward for Georgian democracy, with credible opposition now emerging in the country. Both Saakashvili and the main opposition camps have made some gains. The main set-back for democracy was the suppression of Imedi TV, the only nongovernment controlled nationwide television channel. The January 2008 poll was the culmination of a very tense stand-off between the government and the opposition, which started in September 2007 with shocking revelations from a former defense minister Okruashvili. The stand-off reached its climax on 7 November, 2007, when the special forces of the Ministry of Interior brutally dispersed a mass rally in the center of Tbilisi, and the government imposed the state of emergency, suspending all news broadcast by TV and radio media, and closing down all but a couple television and radio channels. The November 2007 events demonstrated a huge erosion of popular support to once widely admired Georgian President Saakashvili. The latter, who was swept into power by similar mass rallies four years earlier, won his previous poll with more than 90 percent of the vote. The 2003 mass rallies, which was subsequently dubbed as the Rose Revolution, saw the resignation of then President Shevardnadze, followed by the snap January 2004 presidential elections, which Saakashvili won with overwhelming popular support. Since then, U.S.-educated Saakashvili has been billed a revolutionary pro-Western reformer, whose fiery anti-Russian rhetoric has appealed to many in Georgia. To save his regime from a complete isolation and collapse, Saakashvili had no other logical choice but to call for a snap poll, either presidential or parliamentary. He opted for the former, as his National Movement, which currently holds majority of seats in the parliament is even less popular than him, and besides, it was the spring parliamentary elections the organizers of the mass rallies in Tbilisi were calling for in the first place. Saakashvili's gamble has won him a short respite and some credibility, but in the long run he will likely be a lame duck of Georgian politics.

Following the war between Georgia and Russia in the summer of 2008, Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili seemed to be in a very delicate situation. Moscow officially proclaimed the Georgian head of state a "political corpse" and refused to hold any discussions with him. His Western allies kept their distance. The two separatist regions of Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, had officially declared their independence. And to top it off, domestic protests were on the rise. Despite all that, two years later Mr. Saakashvili is still the President of Georgia. What's his secret? In this exclusive interview with Politique Internationale, he explains his strategy and defends his past and future policies with his usual fire. According to Saakashvili, his country was the victim of outrageous aggression by its neighbor Russia, and has right on its side. Despite the bellicose attitude of Moscow, Tbilisi is still in favor of discussions to settle their many bilateral issues. And the country is more than ever committed to its heavily Euro-Atlantic flavored policy. Adapted from the source document.

This article analyzes the difficulties encountered in reaching democracy in Georgia. President Mikheil Saakashvili has been successful in eliminating low-level official corruption & has built a strong state for his people. Even though, Georgian society & Georgians' personal lives are free from state interference, Saakashvili believes that no potential political power can be allowed to remain independent. The actions of the Georgia government have a semblance to the old Soviet leadership & the problems blocking democracy are: 1) the use of power in order to gain wealth; 2) the absence of the rule of law; & 3) the passivity of citizens. Adapted from the source document.

Сегодняшние средства массовой информации, с одной стороны, предоставляют индивиду огромный выбор в информационном пространстве, с другой - этот выбор ограничивают. СМИ сегодня являются основным инструментом формирования общественного мнения и пропаганды. Говоря о пропаганде на территории постсоветского пространства, нельзя обойти стороной Грузию, где в силу экономических проблем население имеет постоянный доступ только к одному источнику информации - национальному телевидению, контролируемому местными властями. Кроме того, политические лидеры страны различными способами ограничивают доступ к альтернативным источникам информации. Каналы национального телевидения используются исключительно как инструмент пропаганды. Тем временем, анализируя грузинские и российские СМИ, мы наблюдаем два диаметрально противоположных образа грузинского народа. В силу этого я обратилась к данной теме, пытаясь найти ответ на вопрос, насколько изменился грузинский народ под влиянием политических процессов, происходящих в Грузии, и информационного пространства. В этой работе я постаралась отразить основные вехи, с чего все начиналось и к чему мы все пришли. ; Contemporary mass-media on the one hand provides a huge choice in the media space, but on the other hand this choice is limited. Nowadays mass-media is one of the fundamental instruments of the public opinion and propaganda management. Speaking about propaganda on the territory of the former Soviet Union Republics one cant skip Georgia, where due to economic problems; citizens can only have one source of information the national television, which is being controlled by the local administration. Moreover, political leaders of the country try to limit access to any alternative sources of information. Channels of national television are being used only as an instrument of propaganda. Meanwhile, while analyzing Georgian and Russian mass-media we can see two absolutely different images of Georgian people. I have appealed to this topic hopefully to find out, how much has the Georgian people changed under the influence of political process which takes place in Georgia? In this article I tried to display all the basics of what was the beginning and where we are now.