What the USA envoy thinks about the political situation in the country, about President, opposition, mass media, integration to NATO... What are his real thoughts about Georgia without any diplomatic restraints? This time the WikiLeaks deciphers USA Ambassador to Georgia John Baas. The analytical report which was a confidential letter to the USA Administration was made open. It is dated by February 17 of 2010.
About the prognoses of USA diplomat for our country Irakli Sesiashvili, expert in security questions talked with GHN.
- Mr. Irakli as the WikiLeaks informs the USA envoy in 2010 thought that the public and politicians feel themselves insecure. The provocations and improper ruling could easily make a new crisis outburst. Looking back to these events, who do you estimate the rightness of USA envoy internal political estimations?
- First of all should be noted that this analysis was prepared in February 2010, which touched events in previous year. Accordingly we should revise this in the angle of that period. Bass appeared to be a good analytic. He properly estimated what situation was in the country (the same is now) and the feeling of insecurity was (as it is now as well). This caused increase of political cataclysms risks. Unfortunately the results of this we have seen in May 2011, and if before the West and Baas in its reports were talking that authorities were restrained during the protest actions in 2009, this surely increased Saakashvili's rating. The same we cannot apply to the event of May 26 night. He loosed the control and was acting very aggressively. He purposefully demonstrated his power, this included the torture of people, inhuman treatment, concealing of the crime, and other improper actions. He accused those persons who were victims of the crime. Deriving from this I think that the next report from Baas concerning the political stability will be more critical. In a whole this is an interesting analysis and indicates many points. Moreover Baas gives an estimation of a political situation and indicates the political risks. He was prognosed there is a possibility to break the deadlock. Nevertheless now we can say that Saakashvili did not responded to the core question, did not pas main examination and the risks for the political crisis are increasing.
- In his report Baas touched a theme for the Saakashvili's frights he noted that "he is not sure in his security". "Saakashvili is afraid that the history will blame him for the final loose of the occupied territories."
- The position of Baas denotes that possibly USA are in doubt about the restoration of a territorial integrity of Georgia and there is a prognosis that our country cannot perform this. At the same time this is truth that Saakashvili is afraid that history will blame him for the loosing territories. In the contradiction to this situation Saakashvili makes many PR companies and conducts many patriotic arrangements, to show that he did not play a negative role in loosing of territories. I think that despite this sooner or later the history will adequately estimate the deeds of this government, including persons responsible for the loosing of territories. Saakashvili cannot escape the history...
- "Georgian politics for the disputable territories becomes more mature and reflects the recognition of the fact that the integration of these regions cannot be restored over the short military intervention. First of all the status of these regions should be discussed." - Diplomat wrote. Does this mean that the USA position in the misrecognition of these two republics might became weaker?
- No this is excluded. They simply said that Georgia has not chances to return territories over the force, and possibly this will be in the future. That's why the government has only one possibility to decide conflicts over the political negotiations. For this it is necessary to find an adequate form for the negotiations and to find the positive legislative status, over which it will be possible to restore the integrity of the state. By the way Baas very adequately asks the question he said that "the main question is how far the factual governments of these territories are controlling own fate, if the main ruler of the situation is Russian federation?" So, with whom the negotiations should be conducted and about which status the talks should be held? In his analysis Baas touched the theme of the mood those de-facto governments. Are they inclined to conduct negotiations? He said that it is quite right that Abkhazians have more desire for negotiations, than Ossetians have. But our government conceders that negotiations are possible only when Russia will recede in its positions. It is clear that from the one point of view this is a necessary precondition, but lets nobody think that with the Russian's move out, the de-facto governments will easily grant to us its power.
- Diplomat as well touched a theme about suggestion of the logistics for Afghanistan for NATO and USA. How do you think why Baas considers this suggestion as a risky one?
- It is clear that Baas estimated the situation as non stable, in which Saakashvili thinks he is unsecured. Saakashvili considers his future unprognosed. For this he tries to make an excessive contribution to Afghanistan for to get the benevolence from the West. At the same time USA envoy said Saakashvili is weak leader who has very shaky democracy. He said that if Georgia will not be able to strengthen the democracy the excessive share in the international peace keeping mission will be risky. As the international responsibility and getting the image of the international actor having a dictatorship in the country is a self-delusion. That's why Baas advises to the USA administration to give Saakashvili the feeling of its support for preventing him from such risky steps. Nevertheless at the end of 2011 it is clear that Saakhsvili continues to make risky steps without developing democracy in the country. For today the situation is even more instable than it was in February 2010. After this President doubled the ISAF mission. This was a wrong step. Moreover, he loosed control and dispersed peaceful meeting on may26, this much more weakened the situation.
- At the same time Bass wrote that Georgians consider the ISAF operation as a payment for the NATO affiliation. Baas himself said this is a wrong position. He advises the administration to make Georgians it clear that for the NATO membership the appropriate achievements in the civil society are necessary. Do you think this is an overestimated position? Is this right that Georgian government tries to get the green light to NATO over increasing a military presence in Afghanistan?
-This is natural that when Georgia directs to the Afghanistan inadequate m military contingent, for this some reasons should be. The authorities cannot say openly that is for the West turn a blind eye to the falsified elections in the future elections. That's why Saakashvili says that this increase is for getting closer to NATO. This makes Baas to say, it is an "illusion". For him is a big question why the Georgian government considers that increase of the military contingent in Afghanistan will help Georgia to enter NATO? This is not correct, he says. For the NATO membership Georgia needs democratic reforms. So in fact the increasing contingent in NATO is for the gaining the sympathy in eyes of the West for the political future of Saakashvili, but not for the closer relations with NATO.
- Do you wish to say that government does not need in fact the NATO affiliation?
- Our government knows well that they cannot enter NATO only over ISAF operation participation. They are aware that for this a democratic process is necessary. But the democratic process is a dangerous tool for authorities. Any democratic reform is a weakening of the power. For Saakashvili this means that he may disappear from politics or will be imprisoned.
- This denoted that government consciously avoids the democratic reforms?
-Naturally. The democracy for Saakashvili is an explosive. And the consideration that ISAF operation is for the NATO affiliation is not an argument. This is false.
- In his report envoy as well talks about the achievements of government. He pays attentions to the new Elections Code, which was disliked by opposition...
-Bass makes this estimation three month ago before elections. From the February to May much time passed. The government used the administrative resources this time and bribed the population (I mean so-called coordinators, who served to the National Movement and got wages from eh state budget) to addition the governmental mass media was oriented to the hailing of the government candidates and discrediting the opposition. This why the moths about the "successes", which Baas underlines in his report mentioning the Elections Code were discharged in the day of elections and after the elections, when the negotiations were not held between opposition and the government.
- By the way Baas touches the theme of s-called opposition and calls it bunt. Diplomat says the opposition divided to two categories - the forces which are responsible and those who are uncompromised. Such opinion one can consider as right and quite logic...
-Naturally. We better than others know about this. This opposition indeed is very bunt. It is not possible to group different political forces under the political theories - rights lefts and central. Now such regrouping happens in the political forces whose visions are not compatible with each other. They are not coordinated with each other. They have instable political positions and very differ in visions for the future of the country, including the orientation to the West and Russian Federation. But the classification of the opposition to the "responsible" once and "uncompromised" is too simple. If we talk about the so-called radicalism, we should say that the radicalism was initiated from the authorities. They established the radical position when said that they have to own 100% power and are the only one who can decided the fate of the country. When the development of the political processes are not going in the democratic way the s-called radicals arise. The radicalism invokes radicalism. It would be good if under this statement Baas would give reasons for the uncompromised ones and what is a responsibilities of others oppositional parties. The estimation is one-sided. It is not enough to give names to the opposition forces. One should say that the uncompromising position is invoked over the inadequate ruling from government. And over the fact the government itself is uncompromised towards the public. Maybe Baas well analyses this but it is necessary to open this more.
- Baas divided the media in two parts - governmental and oppositional. This is an explicit problem...
- This denotes that Baas is concerned with the absence of an unbiased media in the country which can see both sides - good and bad. He is right when says that journalists are not well paid. Journalists will not be independent till they will not get financial support. The absence of the finances itself makes quality of independence lower.
- One more question which was touched is a transportation of a Russian military technique over the Georgian airspace to Armenia.
- To be noted this part of the letter has some secret information, as our government assured us that were not allowing to the Russian Federation to use the Georgian airspace. Seems like Tbilisi give such right, Baas wrote that Russia continues to transport the military cargos to Armenia. This is outrageous that we are allowing to supply Armenia with weapons over our airspace only for not to spoil relations with Armenia. This step equals to the treason. We have the treats from the South as well as from the North. It is rights that they are afraid, nerveless are allowing Russia to transport such technique. This is a double policy. Here might be some private political interests. This is action against state, government should be liable for this. This increases the military treat from the South.
Lela Baghdavadze
