terça-feira, abril 29, 2008

Será inevitável uma guerra entre a Rússia e a Geórgia?


A diplomacia russa acusa as autoridades georgianas de estarem a concentrar tropas na fronteira entre a Geórgia e a Abkházia e os militares prometem responder de forma adequada.
“Segundo informação vinda, nomeadamente, dos postos dos capacetes azuis das Forças Colectivas da Comunidade de Estados Independentes para a manutenção da paz na zona do conflito georgiano-abkhaze, estão a ser concentrados em Verkhni Kodori armamentos, combustíveis, alimentos e outros meios técnicos e materiais, bem como militares das forças armadas da Geórgia” – informa o Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros da Rússia.
Num comunicado publicado na capital russa, a diplomacia de Moscovo afirma que Tbilissi “concentrou nessa região mais de 1500 homens de destacamentos militares e policiais”.
“A análise da constituição da estrutura das forças presentes nessa região permite concluir que está a ser preparado um ponto de apoio para o início de uma operação militar contra a Abkházia” – considera o MNE da Rússia.
O Ministério da Defesa da Rússia vai mais longe e acusa a Geórgia de “provocações contra os capacetes azuis russos”, prometendo “uma resposta adequada a quaisquer tentativas da parte georgiana de utilizar a força contra as forças de manutenção da paz e os cidadãos da Rússia na Abkházia e Ossétia do Sul”.
“Quaisquer tentativas da parte da Geórgia de utilizar a força para resolver os conflitos, de empregar medidas de coersão contra as forças de manutenção da paz e os cidadãos russos que se encontram no território da Abkházia e da Ossétia do Sul, irão receber uma resposta adequada e dura” – lê-se num comunicado do comando militar russo publicado em Moscovo.
Mais de 80 por cento da população da Abkházia e da Ossétia do Sul, repúblicas separatistas da Geórgia, são cidadãos da Rússia e os militares russos e de outros países da CEI mantêm um contingente de capacetes azuis na fronteira entre a Geórgia e a Abkházia a fim de garantir o cessar de fogo assinado em 1994.
O Ministério da Defesa da Rússia afirma que “os capacetes azuis russos nas zonas de conflito no território da Geórgia continuarão a cumprir as suas tarefas com base nos acordos internacionais assinados”.
“Porém - lê-se no comunicado – o aumento pela parte georgiana de tropas perto das zonas de conflito, as ameaças do emprego da força militar, as provocações das autoridades georgianas cada vez mais frequentes impedem os capacetes azuis de realizar as suas funções de manutenção da paz”.
“Semelhante desenvolvimento dos acontecimentos tornou necessário o aumento, nas zonas de conflito, do contingente de manutenção da paz das Forças Armadas da Rússia, em conformidade com os acordos antes conseguidos no quadro do Conselho de Chefes de Estado dos países da CEI” – informa o Ministério da Defesa da Rússia.
Os militares de Moscovo aumentaram a sua presença militar na região com a instalação de 15 novos postos militares.
Estas declarações duras das autoridades russas são feitas no mesmo dia em que a Geórgia anunciou bloquear a entrada da Rússia na Organização Mundial do Comércio enquanto o Kremlin “não anular a sua recente decisão sobre a legalização das relações económicas directas com a Abkházia e a Ossétia do Sul”, duas repúblicas separatistas georgianas.
A Geórgia já tinha assinado um acordo com a Rússia que dava por terminadas as negociações bilaterais sobre a adesão de Moscovo à OMC, mas recuo a fim de travar aquilo que Tbilissi considera a “anexação da Abkházia e Ossétia do Sul” pela Rússia.
A maioria das pessoas com quem se fala sobre esta crise não acredita num conflito armado entre a Rússia e a Geórgia. Esperemos que assim seja. Mas, neste caso, vamos ver como é que Moscovo vai justificar estas suas ameaças quando tiver de recuar.

6 comentários:

Anónimo disse...

Infelizmente as partes fecharam-se às negociações, antes mesmo de tentá-las apropriadamente. A Rússia quer "resolver" o problema o quanto antes, pois se aproximam as Olimpíadas de Inverno de 2014, que terá sede em Sochi. Quem conhece esse belo balneário russo, sabe que está há uns poucos quilômetros de Sukhumi, capital da Abkhazia. Ou seja, tudo que a Rússia quer evitar é que o conflito interfira nesse acontecimento que está sendo tratado na Rússia como uma oportunidade para afirmação da imagem do país como uma potência organizada e hospitaleira. Logo, pela impaciência das partes, também acho que se aproxima uma radicalização desse assunto, não duvidando da ocorrência de conflitos armados.

Jose Milhazes disse...

Caro leitor, os Jogos Olímpicos são importantes, mas a forma como as partes do conflito estão a tratá-lo é a pior, em todos os sentidos, e também para esse acontecimento.
Acho que o problema é muito mais amplo, mais global, é um dos problemas das relações da Rússia, por um lado, e dos Estados Unidos, por outro, com a União Europeia a navegar no meio, ou melhor, à deriva.

bruno cunha disse...

Não advogando nem o império soviético nem a antiga URSS, com a queda do muro a Rússia ficou mais fragilizada e mais ao sabor do poder real que habita nela, seja a corrupção ou o crime organizado.
Mas sobre isso, tenho a certeza que o José sabe mais do que eu e até é capaz de ser uma análise algo redutora.

Francisco disse...

Estimado José Milhazes

Como leitor assiduo do seu blog, o interesse sobre questões relacionadas com o seu conteudo aumenta a cada dia.
Deixo-lhe um texto de um estudante, ganhador de um concurso de ensaios sobre assuntos politicos e outros da actualidade, numa instituição, EastChance, patrocinadora de inumeras bolsas de estudo em várias universidades, entre outras activdades irrelevantes para o caso.

Cumprimentos.

Francisco Peixoto

Author: Ciobanu Margarita

The transition in Russia. Is Russia a democracy or not?


Abstract:
It is generally admitted that Russia is not a democratic nation and will remain as such for ever. But, the Russia is not accused of being an undemocratic polity. The Kremlin`s efforts are appreciated in favor of achieving the democratization of the country. However nobody believe that this will done. It is regretted over the impotence of Russians to build a democracy and a citizens society and it is expressed a hope that the political developments there will be not like the Bielorussian ones. In the mid of the ninties, one of the Russian theorist wrote: „Today, it is obvious almost for all, that Russia is undergoing the transition period, aimed at the transformation of totalitarianism with his whole set of institutions, stuctures and relations into the new political system. It is not clear however, which road will be chosen effectively by the Russia: an authoritarianism or a liberal democracy, a fürerianism or a parliamentarism, a neo-totalitarianism or a republicanism (in the form of presidentialism or parliamentarism)?”

The events that caused the downfall of Soviet Union can be identified much earlier than the moment of its dissolution, at the beginning of the nineties. The period between 1964-1982 was characterized by frostiness and inflexibility for change or new reforms. The next period is followed by change between generations and establishment of new relation with United States, a period of “detant” that led to the reforms that caused later the break-down of Soviet Empire. 1985 is the year when Gorbachev took over the power after the death of Konstantin Chernenko. Gorbachev set up a range of political reforms known as glasnost, that included democratization, loosening of censorship, political repression and decrease of KGB’s powers. The reforms intended to reduce the resistance of conservatory elements from the Communist Party and open them to new innovations introduced by Gorbachev. As a result of these reforms there were set up competitive elections for the ruling places. The loosening of censorship and a larger political opening had the effect of re-birth of the anti-Russian and nationalist feelings that were a long time suppressed under URSS control. During the eighties more and more voices from component republics of Soviet Union claimed independence from Moscow. The nationalist feelings were mostly expressed in Baltic Republics, Ukraine and Azerbaijan. These nationalistic movements were also accompanied by economical regression, and Moscow became quickly the cause for all problems that Soviet Union suffered. This way Gorbachev released accidentally a force that destroyed the USSR itself. On 15 February 1989 the soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan, while continuing to support this country with financial aid until the end of 1991. In 1989 the communist governments from soviet republics were overthrown one by one without much resistance from Moscow. From the end of the eighties the process of openness and democratization skip out control and went much longer that Gorbachev expected.

The relaxation of censorship resulted in the lost of mass media control by Communist Party. More than that, the press began to point out the aggravated economical and social problems which the soviet govern neglected for such a long time. New problems became important on the social agenda of the society: the lack of housing, alcohol, the status of woman and human rights. The mass media even started to reveal Soviet Unions and Stalin’s crimes from gulag labor camps and deportation. As a result Russia’s positive image was very fast destroyed and the negative aspects of the state’s situation were very quickly revealed, and this led to the mistrust of the Russian people in soviet system. On 7 February 1990 the Central Committee of the Communist Party agreed with renouncing at power monopoly. The constituent republics of the URSS started with imposing the national sovereignty from the central government with the “war of rules”, refusing the Moscow legislation and paying taxes. This knock out has disorganized the economy, the provision flux was close down and that caused a deeper regression of soviet economy. Gorbachev had made desperate, badly inspired efforts to regain control, especially in Baltic republics, but the powers of the central govern were irreversibly destroyed.

On 11 of March Lithuania proclaimed the independence and announced the retire from the Union, while the Red Army still got a strong position there. Soviet Union began an economical blockade and maintained the troops in the region “for encouraging the ethnic Russian people”. Even though Baltic republics succeeded to free off from soviets control.

Among the other reforms initiated by Gorbachev was the direct election of the president of Russia which was held for the first time in June 1991. The populist candidate Boris Yeltin, who was a realist critic of Gorbachev have won the elections with 57% against Gorbachev’s candidate, Ryzhov who had 16% of votes.

Restructuring the post-soviet system-the way to democracy
The planned economy system was restructured that way that could let free the road of transition to capitalism, through shock therapy program, new measures for liberalization of prices, and state economy. The existent institutes were left before legal mechanisms of market economy became functional. Liberal economist believed that giving up the command system will lead to the increase of GDP growth and living standards through a better management of resources, a transparent of new market economy and privatization. Russia began successfully the transition to democracy at the beginning of 1991.

Today Russia’s Constitution sustain sacredly democratic principles which Kremlin undermine in practice. President Vladimir Putin's administration is effectively excluding citizens input from important governmental decisions, setting up hollow institutions like the Civic Chamber that imitate real mechanisms for social oversight. It is concentrating all power in the executive branch and minimizing the legislative and judicial branches’ ability to operate independently, largely taking control of the legislature's agenda and defining policies for the country's judges. Likewise, the presidential administration is undermining the ability of the regional and local governments to act as a check on other levels of government. Increasingly, groups of individuals around the president who control the levers of the state are taking over Russia's economic assets from individuals who do not have formal state power, using claims of protecting the national interest to cover up their own narrow goals.

Although at declarative level Russia voted for democracy, many occidental researches have shown that Russia is moving further from the ideal of democracy. The Kremlin continued to separate Russia from Western democracies by tightening control over the media, harassing the already, weak opposition, and seeking to put greater controls on nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). At the same time, the conflict in Russia's south is spreading from Chechnya and destabilizing much of the North Caucasus. The country's inability to adopt and implement military and police reforms made clear that the state not only lacked the tools to address these problems, but was actually making the situation worse by doing nothing. Although there were some signs of a vibrant civil society on the Internet and in opposing the most restrictive Kremlin initiatives, non-state groups have not gained a broad ability to check the growing power of the bureaucracy, and the level of corruption in the country grew, and also organized crime. The last examples are more than controversial and without forgiveness: the murders of president of the National Bank of Russia, journalist Anna Polytkovscaia, who was a virulent critic of the political aggression of Russia towards Chechenya, the manager of the press company Itar-Tass and secret agent Letvinienko are the most clamant examples.

Speaking of the actual governance in Russia, although it is a federal state is more than visible that political power is becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of the president. The executive power is exerted by a Govern named by the president, and the legislative power by a Bicameral Parliament: Federal Assemble and State Duma. In appearance, it is a democratic structure while in practice it is a top-heavy system with lower and lower outputs for citizens. Elections are becoming more controlled and less decisive in determining the national and regional leadership. By replacing votes for individual representatives with party lists, the Kremlin helped to strengthen the bureaucracy and its political party appendage, United Russia. There is little political opposition left in the country, and what remains is under constant attack by federal and regional officials.

The NGOs remain very tightened by political power, and every new critics addressing the Russian bureaucracy risks losing the hole NGO. Critics fear that the state will have broad powers to harass NGOs, thus blocking any real social oversight of the state. Groups providing alternative information about the conflict in Chechnya were a particular target.

The Putin administration continued its long-standing attack on the freedom of Russian media. Having already brought the three main national TV networks to heel, the Kremlin is increasingly using its television and radio stations to spread state propaganda and replace serious political debate with entertainment programming. Newspapers remained a secondary target, and Gazprom-Media acquired control of the prominent national daily Izvestia. Only the Internet offer alternative viewpoints on difficult question such as Chechnya, though only to a limited audience.

In relation with local governance there is no much real power assigned to local authorities which remain subordinated to regional governments. Efforts to make the regional elite more manageable by reducing their number also moved ahead. This was exemplified in the merger of Perm oblast and the Komi-Permyak Autonomous Okrug into Perm Krai, bringing the number of regions down by 1 to 88.

The judicial framework reduced popular trust in its independence, judges unfortunately have little ability to resist pressure from the administration on key decisions. Nevertheless, the number of people appealing to the courts is increasing, and they are frequently able to win decisions against the state.

Last but not least is corruption which increased in Russia during 2005 year. The basic problem is that current policies hand more power to state agencies while limiting the ability of social groups and the media to provide real oversight. This trend was most evident in the energy sector, where the Russian state secured majority ownership of the natural gas monopoly Gazprom and brought 30 percent of oil production under direct state ownership, creating numerous opportunities for corruption.

Conclusion

Thereafter, if we try to answer the question: Is Russia a democracy or not, it is not so difficult to answer it, as a state where the law is made accordingly to major interests, where the civil society is intimidated, bureaucracy is as inflexible as it was in the communist system, the freedom of media is subdued to central administration and the lack of transparency is as normal as never before, this country is far from becoming a consolidated democracy. This way the first statement of this paper can fairly well serve as a conclusion: Russia is not a democratic country and will never become one, as Russia is more than ever before a centralized bureaucracy, in which the president is a kind of a modern tsar or king who controls both political, social and economical powers as other communist leaders did. So, it seems that such an empire with no democratic roots is much easier to be an authoritarian regime than a democratized system, is much easier to detain power over the others and supremacy over the world. To make previsions on this subject is as dangerous as playing with the unknown, as only time can show what will be the best for this post-communist country.

Jose Milhazes disse...

Caro Francisco, aconselho todos os leitores a ler com atenção o texto por si enviado. É uma opinião importante.

Jose Milhazes disse...

Caro Francisco, aconselho todos os leitores a ler com atenção o texto por si enviado. É uma opinião importante.