Carl Thomson: Russia and the West should find common ground on the future of Transnistria

Carl Thomson is a public affairs consultant and commentator on Russian and East European affairs.  He was the Conservative Party parliamentary candidate for Glasgow East at the 2005 General Election.

“Everyone knows the Soviet Union didn’t occupy Eastern Europe.  We liberated it.  Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying”.  It crossed my mind that millions of people in the countries which had the misfortune to be on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain might take a different view, but it didn’t seem sensible to argue.  Our elderly taxi driver had taken his hands off the steering wheel and turned around to emphasise his point. We had already started to drift onto the wrong side of the road.  It was only our impact with a large pothole that brought his attention back to the oncoming traffic.

We were on the road from Transnistria, one of several breakaway states that form the legacy of the Soviet Union’s disintegration.  Although formally part of the Republic of Moldova, this sliver of territory, which straddles the Dniester River on the border with Ukraine, has its own president and parliament, national anthem, flag, currency, army and police force, but its independence is not recognised by any other country.  Its population of half a million is divided roughly equally between Russians, Ukrainians and Moldovans.

As the Soviet Union collapsed and Moldova became independent, the people of Transnistria feared their culture and language rights would be diluted in a state where they were a minority.  When it was announced that Romanian would be Moldova’s sole language, and radical elements in the ruling Popular Front started to call for the deportation of Russian and Ukrainian speakers, a separate Transnistria republic was proclaimed.

Carl Thomson: Apologists for Saakashvili are doing more to undermine democracy in Georgia than Russia could ever hope to achieve

Carl Thomson is a public affairs consultant and commentator on Russian and East European affairs.  He was the Conservative Party parliamentary candidate for Glasgow East at the 2005 General Election.

Shortly after the 2003 Rose Revolution which brought Mikheil Saakashvili to power in Georgia, his wife explained that her husband aspired to follow in the tradition of strong Georgian leaders “like Stalin and Beria”. Saakashvili gave a taste of things to come when his seizure of power was consolidated with a victory of 96% in an election where his nearest rival garnered just 1.9% of the vote, and an interview in which he said that he did not see the point of having any opposition MPs in the national Parliament.  At the same time, Saakashvili also pledged to bring his county closer to the West and seek both EU and NATO membership for Georgia, and so international observers chose to ignore the ominous warnings.

Ever since Georgia’s war with Russia in 2008, it has been fashionable to promote Saakashvili’s regime as a counter to Russia’s influence in her neighbouring republics.  When the war first broke out, politicians from all parties untied to condemn “Russian aggression” and praise Georgia as a thriving democracy on Russia’s borders.  It was even suggested at the time that Georgia could be admitted into NATO and the EU without having to meet the entry criteria, and British troops sent to confront Russia in the Caucasus.  The scale of this proposal, and what it would have entailed in terms of Britain’s military commitments at a time when we were bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, was apparently not considered.  Moreover, subsequent investigations by the EU and the OSCE placed the blame on Georgia for starting the conflict by ordering the shelling of innocent civilians.

It is true that Saakashvili can point to an impressive record in reforming Georgia’s moribund economy, turning it from a borderline failed state to one of the easiest places in the world to start a new business, and that this turnaround has largely been achieved by adherence to free market principles and lower taxes.  However, it is also the case that since Saakashvili came to power, human rights have been subjected to greater abuse, free speech stifled, and the rule of law sacrificed in favour of increasingly arbitrary state power.

Carl Thomson: Getting the Anglo-Russian relationship back on track

Carl Thomson is a public affairs consultant and commentator on Russian and East European affairs.  A former Conservative Party Parliamentary Candidate, he was elected to Woking Borough Council in May 2010.  He previously worked for Theresa May and John Redwood.

While Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev have successfully “reset” relations between the United States and Russia, putting behind them the acrimony of Georgia’s assault on South Ossetia and moving towards closer cooperation in missile defence, Afghanistan and investment in digital infrastructure and information technology, the Anglo-Russian relationship remains frosty. 

This is not for a lack of trying.  Shortly after becoming Foreign Secretary, William Hague made a trip to Moscow to assure the Russians that the door remained open to a better relationship.  The Russians too have expressed concern that ties with Britain remain unsatisfactory.  Attempts to wipe the slate clean last year were blown off course by allegations of spying, Moscow’s refusal to extradite the main suspect in the Alexander Litvinenko murder case, and even a perceived sour response to Russia’s successful bid for the 2018 World Cup.

The political ties between Britain and Russia might be in need of repair, but the economic relationship has never been better.  Since 2001, trade between the UK and Russia has been growing by an average of 21% year-on-year.  Britain accounted for 15% of all investment in 2009, and over six hundred British companies have a base in the country.  This is not a one way street or a trading relationship based purely on commodities either.  Rusnano, the state enterprise responsible for developing Russia’s nanotech industries, is planning to spend $8.5bn on research and development and has recently invested in a Cambridge based nanotechnology company.  Russian companies accounted for 13% of all IPOs on the London Stock Exchange last year.

Moreover, Russia’s elite value their links to Britain.  Russians make up 15% of all foreign buyers in the London luxury property market, and Russian tourists bring in some £500m a year, as much as their American counterparts.  Cultural ties between the two countries also remain strong.  Gone are the days when Russian “friendship societies” were euphemisms for left-wing political organisations that agitated for the acceptance of Soviet repression.  An exhibition at the London Victoria & Albert Museum of Sergey Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes has attracted over 50,000 visitors since September.  The UK and Russia recently signed an information exchange and support agreement on major sporting events to promote an economic legacy from the 2012 Olympic Games and the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi.

Carl Thomson: The EU should not try to hold Bosnia together by threats and coercion

Carl Thomson is a public affairs consultant and commentator on Russian and East European affairs.  A former Conservative Party Parliamentary Candidate and aide to John Redwood, he is also a Woking Borough Councillor and runs his own translation and interpreting business.

As a former Parliamentary candidate for a Scottish constituency, I find the endless arguments on ConservativeHome about the state of the union and the Barnett Formula tiresome.  Even so, I would never suggest that those who call for an English Parliament should have their bank accounts frozen, advocates of Scottish independence banned from standing for office, or proponents of constitutional reform prevented from leaving the country, in the same way that dissidents in the Soviet Union were once denied exit visas.

These, however, are the punishments that Baroness Ashton, as the EU’s foreign affairs minister, has demanded the Council of Ministers should hand out to Bosnian Serb politicians who refuse to accept EU membership for Bosnia as a multi-ethnic federal state controlled primarily by Muslims and Croats at the expense of the minority Serb population.  A confidential paper tabled by Baroness Ashton has suggested that any Bosnia Serb politician who “challenges the fundamentals of the Bosnia and Herzegovina state”, should be subject to draconian sanctions restricting their ability to travel abroad or contest elections. EU diplomats have confirmed media reports that the measures could be used against Milorad Dodik, the Bosnian Serb Prime Minister who has raised the prospect of a referendum on independence from Bosnia.

Officially, Bosnia-Herzegovina comprises two entities, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whose population is predominantly Muslim and Croat, and Republika Srpska, which is overwhelmingly Serb.  Both territories were established as part of the Dayton Agreement that marked the end of the Bosnian War in the mid-1990s, and contain a bewildering array of municipal and cantonal bodies designed to ensure that Bosnia’s mosaic of nationalities is equally represented at every level of government.

Carl Thomson: Ukraine’s upcoming presidential election shows that democracy isn’t always pretty

Carl Thomson is a commentator on Russian and East European affairs and was the Conservative Party candidate for Glasgow East at the 2005 General Election.

On 17th January, Ukraine will hold its fifth presidential election since it declared independence from the Soviet Union.  The incumbent, Viktor Yushchenko, has the lowest opinion poll ratings ever recorded by a serving head of state.  The most recent polls suggest he would have garnered just 3% of the vote had the election been held at the beginning of this month, putting him in sixth place and well behind Viktor Yanukovych, the man he defeated for the presidency in 2004.  Current projections indicate that Yanukovych is not only ahead, but would remain triumphant in a run-off election with the second placed candidate and Yushchenko’s former partner in the Orange Revolution, Yulia Timoshenko.

Yushchenko’s abysmal approval ratings are in some ways an indicator of how far Ukraine has come since the days of the Soviet Union.  It is easy to be a popular president when most media outlets are run by the state and competition for power is stage managed or non-existent.  But we should not underestimate the real problems the country is facing.  Ukraine is highly dependent on exports of raw materials and is suffering greatly as a result of the global recession.  Its economy contracted by an annual rate of 16% in the third quarter of 2009. 

At the same time, it is gripped by political deadlock that pre-dates the economic crisis.  A botched package of constitutional amendments in the aftermath of the Orange Revolution curtailed the powers of the presidency, but without going so far as to establish a parliamentary democracy.  The result has been political instability, with repeated elections leaving the president reliant on unstable and erratic coalitions made up of his most implacable opponents.

Carl Thomson: We should be wary about jumping to Mikheil Saakashvili’s defence

Carl Thomson is a commentator on Russian and East European affairs and was the Conservative Party candidate for Glasgow East at the 2005 General Election. Writing a year after the beginning of the Russia-Georgia War, he takes a somewhat different viewpoint than Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox, who wrote this article yesterday on the subject.

While the world’s attention was distracted by events in Iran, another country with a record of human rights abuses and rigged elections sent in the riot police to beat and arrest democracy protestors.  Masked policemen attacked dozens of demonstrators in Georgia early in the summer as they held a rally calling for the release of six opposition activists who had been detained on charges of spying for Russia.  The police arrested 39 demonstrators and warned of further reprisals should the protests that have swept the Georgian capital in recent months continue.

The violence follows similar attacks against opponents of Mikheil Saakashvili’s regime earlier in the summer.  A prominent opposition spokesman suffered a broken rib after being attacked by police who chanted the name “Saakashvili” as they held him down and beat him with truncheons.  Other critics of the Georgian president have been arrested or found their families on the receiving end of state harassment.  A recent report by the Organisation for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights into last year’s parliamentary elections in Georgia found “widespread and significant” irregularities, including ballot-box stuffing, the kidnapping and beating of opposition activists, biased news coverage from the state media, and government officials campaigning openly for Saakashvili’s United National Movement party.

Carl Thomson: How myths and half-truths led to one of post-war Europe’s bloodiest conflicts

Carl Thomson is a commentator on Russian and East European affairs and was the Conservative candidate for Glasgow East at the 2005 General Election.

It was ten years ago last month that NATO launched a massive 81 day bombing campaign against the rump Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, causing the deaths of more than 480 civilians and the displacement of some 800,000 refugees from the Serbian province of Kosovo.  This was only the second time NATO had engaged in military operations in its then fifty year history.  It was the first time the alliance had used force against a sovereign state without approval from the United Nations, and remains the largest military operation undertaken in Europe since the end of the Second World War. 

The bombing campaign was carried out ostensibly to protect the Albanian population in Kosovo from what was deemed to be acts of genocide at the hands of the Yugoslav military, and to bring about the removal of all Serbian police and paramilitary forces from the region.  A more detailed analysis of NATO's war aims at the time, however, suggests that concerns about genocide and human rights were only a partial factor in the decision to go to war.  Amongst the demands presented to Yugoslavia at the commencement of the bombing were the establishment of a market economy, the imposition of democracy in Serbia, self-government for the Kosovo Albanians, and the integration of Yugoslavia into the "mainstream" of Europe.

There can be no argument that Kosovo in late 1998 and early 1999 was a very dangerous place, and that many Kosovo Albanians suffered greatly as a result of attacks by the Kosovo Liberation Army and reprisals by the Yugoslav security forces.  One of the bloodiest single episodes took place in January 1999, when 45 Albanians were killed following clashes in the village of Reçak.  The Reçak incident formed the main pretext for NATO military involvement in Kosovo.  The Yugoslav government asserted that the casualties were members of the KLA who had been killed in a shootout with state security forces.  NATO, the EU and the OSCE disagreed, characterising the killings as the deliberate massacre of civilians by Serbian forces.

Carl Thomson: We should not view Saakashvili’s Georgia through rose-tinted glasses

Carl Thomson is a commentator on Russian and East European affairs and was the Conservative Party candidate for Glasgow East at the 2005 General Election.  He recently travelled to Georgia, Armenia and the breakaway republic of Nagorno Karabakh.

The Russians may have won the war for South Ossetia, but the long-term victory belongs to the Georgians.  Even though it was Mikhail Saakashvili who ignited the conflict by ordering the shelling of Tskhinvali, his government won the battle for Western public opinion.  Russia was clearly identified as the aggressor.  By issuing a joint statement condemning Russia in much stronger language than other EU member states did, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, along with Poland, moved from being suspicious and distrustful of Moscow to outright hostility, and demonstrated their ability to adopt a common stance against Moscow while the rest of Europe dithered.  The Kremlin has put a lot of diplomatic effort into trying to obtain a visa-facilitation programme with the EU and gain access to the World Trade Organisation over the last ten years.  These aspirations may have suffered a fatal blow.  The idea of expelling Russia from the G8, once shrugged off as unrealistic and impractical, is being taken a lot more seriously in Europe’s capitals following the events of the last few weeks.

Russia is a country which always makes for exciting headlines, and Georgia is sufficiently obscure to be portrayed as exotic, even romantic.  However, the ease with which the British press made broad-sweeping statements about both countries during the four day conflict is deeply unsettling.  It seems that, faced with a quarrel in a far away country about which they knew little, our media fell for the narrative the Georgians were trying to sell them: that this war was about a small, democratic country that was being bullied by its larger, imperialist, authoritarian neighbour; a simple case of good guys versus bad guys.  Sadly, most of the experts and commentators that appeared on our television screens and opined in the pages of our newspapers failed to ask the questions they should have been asking, such as whether Georgia under Mikhail Saakashvili really can be described as a democracy.

Carl Thomson: The Conservative Party should welcome Dmitry Medvedev's election as Russian president

Carl Thomson is a commentator on Russian and East European affairs and a former Conservative Party Parliamentary Candidate.

When Vladimir Putin was elected president of Russia in March 2000, Tony Blair hailed him as “a moderniser, with a focused view of what he wants to achieve”.  Eight years later, Britain harbours as political refugees those who call for the violent overthrow of the Russian government, and the Kremlin is blamed for the assassination of FSB defectors on the streets of London.  A range of disagreements between Russia and the West on issues such as Kosovo, missile defence, and Iran’s nuclear ambitions have prompted many to argue that we are now in the midst of a new Cold War.

Tomorrow marks the end of the Putin era and the dawn of Dmitry Medvedev.  Mr. Putin may stick around for a few more years as prime minister, but real power in Russia lies with the presidency, and we should expect Medvedev to assert his authority quickly.  He would be wise to do so.  Elements of the influential siloviki, a term used to describe former KGB agents and politicians with a military background, remain ill disposed towards him and suspicious of his apparent liberal sympathies.