Paul Goble
Staunton, October 2 – Daghestani President Magomedsalam Magomedov has called for the convention of a congress of peoples of his republic in order to consolidate society against extremism, but many fear this will be only a public relations stunt and some are concerned that it could prove explosive, given the high level of tensions there.
On Wednesday, Magomedov called for the organization of a congress of all the peoples of Daghestan, modeled on the one his father who preceded him as president held, in order to “show the true attitude of Daghestanis to the criminal activity of the extremist underground and condemn terrorism” (www.kavkaz-uzel.ru/articles/174964/).
But condemning extremism in and of itself is not enough, the Daghestani leader said, arguing that “this Congress must serve as an impulse to the consolidation of society and of all healthy forces in the republic … and mark the beginning of an all-Daghestani dialogue about the future of Daghestan.”
Both those possibilities, however, have prompted some in that increasingly unstable North Caucasus republic to question the utility of such a meeting, even though, as a survey of opinion there by the Kavkaz-uzel.ru portal makes clear, Magomedov can count on the support of his own bureaucracy if not on the backing of others.
Gadzhimet Safaraliyev, who represents Daghestan in the Duma, said that he believes the measure would play “a positive role in the life of the republic,” all the more so because “the president of Daghestan … told me that he needs people who will speak the truth at the congress however bitter that truth might be.”
Akhmed Azizov, a deputy of the republic’s Popular Assembly, agreed and said that among those who should be invited would be “moderate Salafites” [those who advocate “pure” Islam against the Sufi traditions of the republic] because “now the time has come for open dialogues” not just with those who support the powers that be but also with those who oppose it.
And Akhmed Azimov, the chairman of the executive committee of the Russian Congress of Peoples of the Caucasus as well as an advisor to the leadership of the Council of Muftis of Russia (SMR), also supported the idea, arguing that if those who take part are prepared to speak “the truth in every case,” that could help “restore order and justice.”
He suggested that “today, Daghestan is at the edge of the abyss and needs an open conversation with the participation of genuinely authoritative personalities.” To that end, he suggested, the congress must include “representatives of all strata of the population, including Daghestanis living beyond the borders of the republic.”
But Isalmagomed Nabiyev, the head of the independent drivers and entrepreneurs union, expressed skepticism, noting that such meetings had been tried before without success, were bureaucratic exercises and did not offer any real possibility for a breakthrough. Indeed, he said, after Magomedov’s father held one, the situation got “much worse.”
Nabiyev said that the fight against terrorism and corruption should not be presented as “the work of one day” but rather must become “part of the routine” over a long period of time. Holding meetings is fine, but unless the actions of the powers that be change, nothing will be improved.
Zaur Cherilov, a Makhachkala resident with whom Kavkaz-uzel.ru spoke, also opposed the idea of the meeting. He said that he had never encountered terrorism but “on the other hand, each day I see incompetence, corruption, and the clanic quality of the bureaucrats, their triumph, the arbitrariness of the siloviki, the death of young people, and the collapse of infrastructure.”
As for himself, Cherilov said, “it would be funny to see on the tribune of [such a] congress a corrupt and incompetent bureaucrat who will call all of us to the struggle with terrorism as if we were in equal circumstances.” If that happens, it could easily make the situation worse.
Just how angry Daghestanis are was highlighted on Thursday when approximately 100 people assembled there to protest against state terrorism in the republic, including cases of kidnapping by official forces (www.zaprava.ru/component/content/article/89-k-akczii/2484-maxachkala-miting-protiv-gosudarstvennogo-terrorizma).
The meeting called on Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to take steps to protect the rights of Daghestanis as “Russian citizens” and pointedly warned that this week’s meeting is “only the beginning” because “we will no longer put up with the illegality and ignoring of our rights. Our patience is at an end and it is better that you understand that.”
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Window on Eurasia: Post-Soviet States Involved in ‘Dangerous’ Arms Build Up, Russian Commentator Says
Paul Goble
Staunton, October 2 – Despite the absence of real foreign threats, all the member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States are rapidly increasing their military spending, not only diverting funds from other uses but creating a series of regional arms races that represent “an extremely dangerous trend” for the region, according to a Russian commentator.
Yuri Sigov, Washington bureau chief for “Delovoye lyudi,”, says that “the latest events in Kyrgyzstan, the signing of a [basing] agreement between Moscow and Yerevan, the purchase by Azerbaijan of anti-aircraft complexes and the strengthening of the Russian military presence in South Ossetia and Abkhazia” are only the most visible aspects of this process.
And while military build ups in and of themselves do not necessarily create wars, such preparations for conflict by one country inevitably provoke others into doing the same. That means that the continuation of peaceful relations is put at risk and any cooperation among these countries less likely (topwar.ru/1604-vooruzhayushheesya-sodruzhestvo.html).
Moreover and perhaps even more important in many of these countries, the growth of the military not only is used by the powers that be to maintain tight control over their populations but ensures that senior officers have a major voice in the direction these countries take in the future, thus limiting the prospects for democratization.
Sigov notes that “not one” of the violent conflicts which broke out as the Soviet Union collapsed has been resolved by peaceful means, and that reality, plus the impact of the spillover of violence from Afghanistan, provides all the justification most of these countries feel they need for expanding their defense capabilities even at the sacrifice of social needs.
But what this means, Sigov continues, is that in the 20 years since the collapse of the USSR, “not one of its former republics has been living a peaceful life and all of them to one degree or another continue to arm themselves at an increasing rate,” often acquiring arms from Russia, NATO, Turkey, China and the United States.
Military spending in the 11 CIS countries rose “approximately 5.5 percent” this year, Sigov says, a figure that does not include the much higher rate of growth in such spending in Georgia which left the Commonwealth after the August 2008 war and which now enjoys substantial military assistance from NATO and the United States.
“The most rapidly arming” countries now in this region are Armenia and Azerbaijan, the journalist says. That is “not surprising” given that “the possibility of a military confrontation between the two neighbors in the CIS is very great.”
At present, Sigov says, Azerbaijan has increased its military budget “up to 10 percent of GDP. And Armenia’s increase while less is also large given that on the Armenian side, one must add the increased spending on the military units in Nagorno-Karabakh and the other occupied territories.
The situation in Central Asia is even more alarming. On the one hand, none of the militaries there is in a position to counter any external aggression from the Taliban. But on the other, each is trying to build up its forces either to control the borders it shares with its neighbors or even more often to maintain a tight hold over its own population.
Uzbekistan currently spends “approximately 3.5 percent of its GDP on the armed forces,” while Kazakhstan spend about one percent. Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan spend less but that is because they hope for assistance from the outside and especially on the defense capabilities of Russian or American bases.
Meanwhile, Turkmenistan, which proclaims its neutrality, “nonetheless spends large amounts in the support of its armed forces,” but this almost certainly has more to do with maintaining the powers that be in Ashgabat against any domestic challenge than responding to any foreign threat.
Ukraine has been increasing its military spending as well, apparently out of concerns about the Transdniestria situation and its territorial disputes with Romania as well as to present itself as an independent actor or potential partner, east and west. And Moldova too has boosted defense spending, Sigov says.
As for Belarus, the Russian commentator continues, evaluating the military budget is hard because it is “difficult and with regard to certain things impossible” to separate out “the ‘purely’ Belarusian military budget” from the expenditures of the Union State with Russia. But even given that, it is clear that Minsk now spends nearly 1.5 percent of GDP on defense.
Staunton, October 2 – Despite the absence of real foreign threats, all the member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States are rapidly increasing their military spending, not only diverting funds from other uses but creating a series of regional arms races that represent “an extremely dangerous trend” for the region, according to a Russian commentator.
Yuri Sigov, Washington bureau chief for “Delovoye lyudi,”, says that “the latest events in Kyrgyzstan, the signing of a [basing] agreement between Moscow and Yerevan, the purchase by Azerbaijan of anti-aircraft complexes and the strengthening of the Russian military presence in South Ossetia and Abkhazia” are only the most visible aspects of this process.
And while military build ups in and of themselves do not necessarily create wars, such preparations for conflict by one country inevitably provoke others into doing the same. That means that the continuation of peaceful relations is put at risk and any cooperation among these countries less likely (topwar.ru/1604-vooruzhayushheesya-sodruzhestvo.html).
Moreover and perhaps even more important in many of these countries, the growth of the military not only is used by the powers that be to maintain tight control over their populations but ensures that senior officers have a major voice in the direction these countries take in the future, thus limiting the prospects for democratization.
Sigov notes that “not one” of the violent conflicts which broke out as the Soviet Union collapsed has been resolved by peaceful means, and that reality, plus the impact of the spillover of violence from Afghanistan, provides all the justification most of these countries feel they need for expanding their defense capabilities even at the sacrifice of social needs.
But what this means, Sigov continues, is that in the 20 years since the collapse of the USSR, “not one of its former republics has been living a peaceful life and all of them to one degree or another continue to arm themselves at an increasing rate,” often acquiring arms from Russia, NATO, Turkey, China and the United States.
Military spending in the 11 CIS countries rose “approximately 5.5 percent” this year, Sigov says, a figure that does not include the much higher rate of growth in such spending in Georgia which left the Commonwealth after the August 2008 war and which now enjoys substantial military assistance from NATO and the United States.
“The most rapidly arming” countries now in this region are Armenia and Azerbaijan, the journalist says. That is “not surprising” given that “the possibility of a military confrontation between the two neighbors in the CIS is very great.”
At present, Sigov says, Azerbaijan has increased its military budget “up to 10 percent of GDP. And Armenia’s increase while less is also large given that on the Armenian side, one must add the increased spending on the military units in Nagorno-Karabakh and the other occupied territories.
The situation in Central Asia is even more alarming. On the one hand, none of the militaries there is in a position to counter any external aggression from the Taliban. But on the other, each is trying to build up its forces either to control the borders it shares with its neighbors or even more often to maintain a tight hold over its own population.
Uzbekistan currently spends “approximately 3.5 percent of its GDP on the armed forces,” while Kazakhstan spend about one percent. Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan spend less but that is because they hope for assistance from the outside and especially on the defense capabilities of Russian or American bases.
Meanwhile, Turkmenistan, which proclaims its neutrality, “nonetheless spends large amounts in the support of its armed forces,” but this almost certainly has more to do with maintaining the powers that be in Ashgabat against any domestic challenge than responding to any foreign threat.
Ukraine has been increasing its military spending as well, apparently out of concerns about the Transdniestria situation and its territorial disputes with Romania as well as to present itself as an independent actor or potential partner, east and west. And Moldova too has boosted defense spending, Sigov says.
As for Belarus, the Russian commentator continues, evaluating the military budget is hard because it is “difficult and with regard to certain things impossible” to separate out “the ‘purely’ Belarusian military budget” from the expenditures of the Union State with Russia. But even given that, it is clear that Minsk now spends nearly 1.5 percent of GDP on defense.
Window on Eurasia: International Turkic Peoples’ Congress Calls on Moscow to Restore Rights of Nogays
Paul Goble
Staunton, October 2 – Turkey’s efforts to promote an alliance of Turkic-language countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia have attracted a great deal of attention from other states around the world, but a parallel drive to promote unity among Turkic peoples, many of whom are minorities in other countries, has not even though it may prove equally important.
That is because each of these minorities has its own grievances and aspirations, many of which enjoy support from other Turkic peoples and governments but most of which are supported by too few people within the countries in which these nationalities find themselves to make a difference.
And consequently, the construction of such alliances for the Turkic peoples appears likely to play a role similar to the one Finno-Ugric groups have which add the strength of three independent countries – Estonia, Finland, and Hungary – to the numerically small Finno-Ugric groups within the Russian Federation.
A month ago, the International Organization of Turkish Youth and the Gagauz Social Organization Umut held the first International Congress of Turkic Peoples in Komrat, the Gagauz capital within Moldova. That five-day session has now been described in detail by a Daghestani journal (gazeta-nv.ru/content/view/4877/109/).
Among the groups represented, Ayshat Batyrmurzayeva reports, were Daghestani Nogays, Siberian Tatars, Chuvash, Crimean Tatars, Azerbaijanis, Kyrgyz, Turks, Serkels, Iranian Azerbaijanis, Bulgarian Turks, Iraqi Turkmens, Mafuns (Karelians, Finns and Maris, and the host Gagauz.
The meeting was opened by Semsettin Kuzeji, the deputy president of the International Organization of Turkic Youth, Nikolay Dudoglo of the Komrat mayor’s office, and A.Kh. Kharlamenko, the chairman of the Popular Assembly of Gagauzia, who said he was especially pleased that the meeting was gaining so many new friends for his people.
Dudoglo for his part stressed “the importance of this forum for [all] the peoples of the Turkic language world” and noted that Komrat “for seven years has been a member of the Union of Municipalities of the Turkic World,” another body that seeks to link Turkic groups across the world.
But in one of the meetings most important actions – and the reason that the session was reported in such detail by a Makhachkala journal – the session adopted an appeal to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin about the problems of the Nogays of Daghestan.
Noting that Nogays have “more than once raised the questions of building a civil society in Daghestan” but that “the policy conducted by certain highly placed officials in the power structures of the republic” has not taken the necessary steps to ensure it for “indigenous numerically small Nogay people,” the international meeting is calling on Moscow to intervene.
In order to overcome “the difficult social-economic situation of the Nogay people and the infringements of its constitutional rights in the Russian Federation,” the appeal continues, the central Russian government should take the following six steps, all of which would represent a challenge to the way business is done in Daghestan.
First, Moscow needs to evaluate and then move to quash the September 1996 Daghestan law which “infringes on the right of the Nogay people to use the territories” traditionally belonging to its members but that have now been taken over by other larger ethnic communities in that republic.
Second, the document says that “for the preservation of the native language, cultural customs and traditions, and the preservation and development of the unique culture of the Kum Nogays, it would be useful to consider and accelerate the re-establishment of the Nogay district in Stavropol kray centered on Kayasul which existed until 1944.”
Third, it calls for a revision of Makhachkala-imposed division of fighting rights on the Caspian so that the Nogay living on the shores of that sea can make a living. Fourth, it calls for “the construction of a hard-surface road” connecting Nogay auls and the extension of gas lines to heat the houses in these villages.
Fifth, it urges Moscow to investigate the ecological situation in all Nogay regions and to clean up contaminated areas. And sixth, it urges Moscow to “create a commission to consider the further correction of the illegal and criminal points concerning the Nogay people” in the January 1957 RSFSR decree allowing deported peoples to return.
None of these demands is new: the Nogays have been making them for more than 20 years. But what is new is that they and presumably other Turkic peoples in the region now have an international body they can use to gain greater attention and that Turkey has gained yet another means of projecting Ankara’s interests into the Caucasus and beyond.
Staunton, October 2 – Turkey’s efforts to promote an alliance of Turkic-language countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia have attracted a great deal of attention from other states around the world, but a parallel drive to promote unity among Turkic peoples, many of whom are minorities in other countries, has not even though it may prove equally important.
That is because each of these minorities has its own grievances and aspirations, many of which enjoy support from other Turkic peoples and governments but most of which are supported by too few people within the countries in which these nationalities find themselves to make a difference.
And consequently, the construction of such alliances for the Turkic peoples appears likely to play a role similar to the one Finno-Ugric groups have which add the strength of three independent countries – Estonia, Finland, and Hungary – to the numerically small Finno-Ugric groups within the Russian Federation.
A month ago, the International Organization of Turkish Youth and the Gagauz Social Organization Umut held the first International Congress of Turkic Peoples in Komrat, the Gagauz capital within Moldova. That five-day session has now been described in detail by a Daghestani journal (gazeta-nv.ru/content/view/4877/109/).
Among the groups represented, Ayshat Batyrmurzayeva reports, were Daghestani Nogays, Siberian Tatars, Chuvash, Crimean Tatars, Azerbaijanis, Kyrgyz, Turks, Serkels, Iranian Azerbaijanis, Bulgarian Turks, Iraqi Turkmens, Mafuns (Karelians, Finns and Maris, and the host Gagauz.
The meeting was opened by Semsettin Kuzeji, the deputy president of the International Organization of Turkic Youth, Nikolay Dudoglo of the Komrat mayor’s office, and A.Kh. Kharlamenko, the chairman of the Popular Assembly of Gagauzia, who said he was especially pleased that the meeting was gaining so many new friends for his people.
Dudoglo for his part stressed “the importance of this forum for [all] the peoples of the Turkic language world” and noted that Komrat “for seven years has been a member of the Union of Municipalities of the Turkic World,” another body that seeks to link Turkic groups across the world.
But in one of the meetings most important actions – and the reason that the session was reported in such detail by a Makhachkala journal – the session adopted an appeal to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin about the problems of the Nogays of Daghestan.
Noting that Nogays have “more than once raised the questions of building a civil society in Daghestan” but that “the policy conducted by certain highly placed officials in the power structures of the republic” has not taken the necessary steps to ensure it for “indigenous numerically small Nogay people,” the international meeting is calling on Moscow to intervene.
In order to overcome “the difficult social-economic situation of the Nogay people and the infringements of its constitutional rights in the Russian Federation,” the appeal continues, the central Russian government should take the following six steps, all of which would represent a challenge to the way business is done in Daghestan.
First, Moscow needs to evaluate and then move to quash the September 1996 Daghestan law which “infringes on the right of the Nogay people to use the territories” traditionally belonging to its members but that have now been taken over by other larger ethnic communities in that republic.
Second, the document says that “for the preservation of the native language, cultural customs and traditions, and the preservation and development of the unique culture of the Kum Nogays, it would be useful to consider and accelerate the re-establishment of the Nogay district in Stavropol kray centered on Kayasul which existed until 1944.”
Third, it calls for a revision of Makhachkala-imposed division of fighting rights on the Caspian so that the Nogay living on the shores of that sea can make a living. Fourth, it calls for “the construction of a hard-surface road” connecting Nogay auls and the extension of gas lines to heat the houses in these villages.
Fifth, it urges Moscow to investigate the ecological situation in all Nogay regions and to clean up contaminated areas. And sixth, it urges Moscow to “create a commission to consider the further correction of the illegal and criminal points concerning the Nogay people” in the January 1957 RSFSR decree allowing deported peoples to return.
None of these demands is new: the Nogays have been making them for more than 20 years. But what is new is that they and presumably other Turkic peoples in the region now have an international body they can use to gain greater attention and that Turkey has gained yet another means of projecting Ankara’s interests into the Caucasus and beyond.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
