More than 50% of the population of the countries of Central, Eastern, South Eastern Europe, and in the Former Soviet Union is not free

Freedom House has released its 2009 Freedom in the World 2009 Survey, and the map of Central, Eastern, South Eastern Europe and Central Asia (attention: 1 MB pdf-document) looks clearly divided, although this is not a big surprise.

The most interesting cases are the "yellow" (partially free) states.

Interesting to see are also the four separatist regions in Europe (excluding Kosovo...): Nagorno-Karabakh (in Azerbaijan) and Abkhazia (in Georgia) are rated partially free, while Transnistria (in Moldova) and South Ossetia (in Georgia) are among the non-free states (or quasi-states, in their cases).

The separatist agenda (2): Transnistria and Moldova

Have a look at the short article by Scraps of Moscow containing a number of interesting links to recent posts covering Transnistria, the eastern breakaway region of the Republic of Moldova!

Especially nice is the article by Thomas de Waal (who is also an expert in Nagorno Karabakh), qualifying the Transnistrian "conflict", which is often compared to the South Ossetian example, to be more like a "family quarral" than like a real conflict.

I have seen on the draft agenda for the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) in the first half of 2009 that Moldova will probably be covered during several sessions, which always also includes the question of Transnistria. I should therefore cite de Waal saying that

"The EU must decide how much of a priority this small obscure dispute is. Arguably, it should see an opportunity here to pursue an agreement that would open up a path to Europe for both Moldova and Transdniestria and make a model of successful cooperation with the Russians. That would suit everyone, except the black-marketeers."

The European Union should try to help to solve a conflict that does not appear to be a real one, and any step towards resolution will be a step towards a less divided Europe, something not only of advantage for the East but also for the Centre and the West.

South Ossetia wants to join Russia (updated)

German news source Spiegel.de reports that South Ossetian "president" Eduard Kokoity has proclaimed his "country" wants to join Russia.

Why am I not surprised...?

Update:

Now he has denied having said that, telling he was misunderstood since he doesn't want South Ossetia to lose its "independence". Okay...

On "Interethnic relations"

Thanks to Veronica Khokhlova from globalvoices.org we can read two personal stories from Georgia and South Ossetia, the first positively looking at how Russian-speaking people are treated in Tbilisi and the second about the fear of a South Ossetian mother about her son who is of Georgian ethnicity.

I recommend reading!

The separatist agenda

Le Monde reports that backed by Putin's majority the Russian Duma has unanimously voted today to recognise South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent countries.

The resolution voted upon is non-binding (source) and addressed towards President Medvedev, but it is still a strong sign by the Russian parliament.

At the same time, Russian President Medvedev has warned Moldovan President Voronin (Communist Party of Moldova) today at a meeting of both in Sotchi not to repeat "Georgia's mistake of trying to use force to seize back control of a breakaway region", which in the case of Moldova would be Transnistria. However, Medvedev also told Voronin:

"We have agreed ... to meet and discuss the Transdniestria settlement. [...] I think there is a good reason to do this today. I see good prospects of reaching a settlement."

Whatever that means...

And to make the list of breakaway regions almost complete, Unzipped remarked that "this move would strengthen Karabakh positions in its quest for independence" (via Onnik Krikorian at globalvoices.org).

For those of you not familiar with this conflict: Nagorno Karabakh is an unrecognised quasi-republic within Azerbaijan with a population that is in majority Armenian. Armenia therefor favours "independence" while Azerbaijan wants the region to stay a part of the country. The resolution of the conflict was one of the conditions for both countries to become (and stay) members of the Council of Europe (the committee working on that question within the CoE is called the "Ago" Group). The countries joined the CoE in 2001...

Finally, Europe and its media start talking about these issues of "separatism" on our continent that are on the agenda of the countries concerned and of diplomatic meetings for years already but have hardly received any attention elsewhere.

It's sad that we needed a war and an intra-European clash of civilisations for that.

Background chart: Development of the intensity of Georgia's secession conflicts

I have found the following chart in

"Conflict Resolution through Democracy Promotion? The Role of the OSCE in Georgia"

by Pamela Jawad, published in the June 2008 issue of the scientific journal "Democratization":

The chart visualises the development of the intra-Georgian conflicts. The 1 to 5 scale is indicating the intensity of the conflict:

• 5 = war
  
• 4 = severe crisis
  
• 3 = crisis (only sporadic incidents of violent conflict conduct)
  
• 2 = manifest conflict (non-violent)
  
• 1 = latent conflict.
  

I think, we could continue the chart to an unpleasant level for 2008.

South Ossetia: Poland asks for urgent EU summit [supplemented]

Several sources (here and here) inform that Poland requests an urgent EU summit on the situation in Georgia.

Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski is quoted:

"[I]t seems to me that a meeting will be convened."

I think that this is in fact necessary. The European Union, the EU Council Presidency, and the member states have to prove that they can react to such a crisis, and that the Union can take a tough but pacifying stand on this war at its borders.

I also think that the OSCE, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, should do more than just issuing a statement of the Chairman (currently Finnish foreign minister Alexander Stubb). Usually, a statement by the Chairman means that there is no agreement between all member states - if this would be the case, it would be the Ministerial or the Permanent Council presenting a joint statement.

I know that with Russia and Georgia being members of the OSCE, an joint statement is very unlikely to come.

But what is the OSCE for if it cannot even serve its basic goal?

The Chairman's statement does not even give a clear message that the OSCE will do everything possible to help with a peaceful solution of the conflict. And the only time that the important diplomatic term "condemn" is used is in connection with the OSCE premises in South Ossetia:

"I condemn the shelling of the OSCE Mission premises in Tskhinvali. The OSCE Mission to Georgia is intensively working with all parties to defuse tensions. The Mission's work and mandate must be respected by all parties in the conflict. I am ready to increase the number of OSCE observers as soon as the situation allows."

That is not much, to be honest.

If that is the strongest we are going to see from the OSCE, the European Union really has to take over the task of providing security and organising cooperation in Europe. A possible EU summit should deal with this question, too!

Blogosphere coverage of the South Ossetia war

Thanks to the translation of Veronica Khokhlova from globalvoicesonline.org , we can read some comments about the situation in Georgia posted by "cyrillic bloggers".

Wu Wei has also continued posting this morning while planning her evacuation and asking, what she will need for that:

The Greek: your wallet and passport. But he has already packed his case.

The Bosnian: lots of dollars to bribe your way past the guns; credit cards not so useful

My thinking: a car to get you out. Does the travel insurance pay?

These are sad days... Good luck for everyone who is in the region, no matter if Georgian, South-Ossetian, Russian, or from wherever else!!!

South Ossetia, Georgia, and Russia heading towards war (updated)

Let me start with saying: STOP THIS!

I do not get this. I really don't get it. This armed conflict does not serve either side, civilians get killed for nothing, and the situation that has existed more or less stabile during the last 16 years will not be solved with weapons now.

I was aware that the conflict(s) in Georgia was (were) getting serious when a colleague of mine who was working in the Georgian capital Tsibilisi from May to July was telling me that it could well become ugly. But I honestly thought that the smaller border clashes of the last weeks would be it.

But now it's getting really serious. The European blogosphere is starting to react to the Georgian invasion of the separatist region South Ossetia and the threats of Moscow to protect "its" citizens (which are mainly South Ossetian citizens having received Russian passports). European media (Le Monde, El País, BBC, SPIEGEL), even the local one's, are reporting about the situation, which is quite a good indicator that something is really going on.

From a Georgian blog we know that it is still "All calm in Tbilisi". But there are reports from the South Ossetian region that more than a dozen civilians have been killed. Georgia is calling on its reservist to mobilise. Russian prime minister Putin has threatened to "react" on to the situation.

It does not sound like the situation would quickly calm down. It seems as if we were going to see a violent situation - or even a war - that could well take some time.

And since I consider the Caucasus region a part of Europe - we are seeing Europe at the eve of yet another war.

---------------
Update:

Please read "A Fistful of Euros" on the issue: Here and here.