quarta-feira, agosto 13, 2008

O caso Cáucaso

Um artigo bastante informativo sobre a mais recente aventura americana no Cáucaso:

«The fall of the Soviet Union created three new independent nations in the Caucasus: Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia. Almost immediately the ethnic enclaves in all of these nations began to fulminate for territorial reunification with their co-ethnic populations in other nations. These included South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia, Nakhchivan in Armenia, which is mostly Azerbaijani; and Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan, which is mostly Armenian. Enter the United States. U.S. interests in this region were vastly different than that of the people of the region, or of Russia. The United States wanted access to Caspian Sea oil, and it wanted to contain Iran. The Caucasian nations were ideal for both purposes. The United States blasted ahead with no regard for the historical tensions in the region. Therefore the United States blindly pursued a steady policy of propping up the dictatorial regimes of the region. Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia are among the most corrupt nations on earth, and it was easy to buy a government. The price for this support was unquestioning alliance with the United States and its regional policies. Access to Caspian oil was one burning policy goal of all administrations since 1990. The easy route for transport of petroleum products from the region would be through Iran's well developed pipeline system. Literally just a few miles of pipeline would connect the Azerbaijani oil fields to the Iranian system. However, Washington was ready to do almost anything to avoid providing any economic benefit to Iran. Hence, working with U.S. petroleum producers, they constructed a difficult and tortuous pipeline across Azerbaijan and Georgia, to emerge in Turkey for shipping to the world. Many millions in government bribes changed hands to make this happen.
As Iran became a target of the George W. Bush administration, having friendly powers in the Caucasus became a priority for the Washington establishment. The Velvet Revolution in Georgia was aided by the United States. In Azerbaijan, the United States virtually installed the current president, Ilham Aliyev, son of the previous president for life, Heydar Aliyev. The election itself was highly controversial. Heydar Aliyev was in Cleveland, Ohio for medical treatment, and was rumored to have died four months before his son was elected. The United States government was reportedly involved in the cover-up, and supported Ilham's election despite mass protests among Azerbaijani citizens.
President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia has close ties to the United States, having graduated with law degrees from Columbia and George Washington Universities. He was the leader of the Rose Revolution in 2003, which ousted President Eduard Shevardnadze, former Soviet foreign minister, and striking a blow for Georgian independence. Elected president in 2004, he also greatly improved ties with Israel, and received an honorary doctorate from Haifa University, and has allowed Israeli intelligence to operate in Georgia. All of this endeared him to the Bush administration. The United States tried to engineer the entrance of Georgia into NATO in April, 2008, but was surprised when 10 NATO members vetoed the proposal. Russia viewed this as a hostile act on the part of the United States. President Saakashvili's presidency has not stopped continual ethnic violence from breakaway regions in his country. The South Ossetia conflict is only one of the latest, but it was different in that it serves as a smokescreen for Russian attacks on Saakashvili's government. If Saakashvili should be ousted from office, a major U.S. and Israeli outpost would be lost. The fate of the oil pipeline would be in danger, and pressure on Iran would lessen considerably. All of these outcomes are seen as disastrous for the Bush administration. Thus all of the high-minded rhetoric about Georgian sovereignty coming out of Washington is ultimately cynical. If U.S. interests were not at stake, no one would care. »

7 comentários:

VML disse...

E já agora estes dois também:

http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/Art...580136,00.html

«War in Georgia: The Israeli connection

For past seven years, Israeli companies have been helping Gerogian army to preparer for war against Russia through arms deals, training of infantry units and security advice
(...)
Israel began selling arms to Georgia about seven years ago following an initiative by Georgian citizens who immigrated to Israel and became businesspeople.
(...)
Among the Israelis who took advantage of the opportunity and began doing business in Georgia were former Minister Roni Milo and his brother Shlomo, former director-general of the Military Industries, Brigadier-General (Res.) Gal Hirsch and Major-General (Res.) Yisrael Ziv.(...)»

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1010225.html

«Georgian Minister Thanks Israel

Georgian Minister Temur Yakobashvili yesterday praised Israel for its role in training Georgian troops and said Israel should be proud of its military might.
"Israel should be proud of its military, which trained Georgian soldiers," Yakobashvili, who is Jewish, told Army Radio in Hebrew. He was referring to a private Israeli group Georgia had hired.
Yakobashvili, Georgia's minister of reintegration, said this training enabled Georgia to defend itself against Russian forces in the warfare that erupted last week in the separatist region of South Ossetia, Georgia(...)»

Anónimo disse...

Enfim, mais do mesmo...
Alguém ainda se admira?
Será dificil entender quem representa a maior ameaça?

Anónimo disse...

Sobre este assunto recomendo os seguintes posts:

http://cl-hammer.blogspot.com/2008/08/toda-uma-boa-vontade.html

http://viriatos.blogspot.com/2008/08/gergia.html

http://combustoes.blogspot.com/2008/08/hoje-somos-todos-georgianos.html

É curioso que para os russos,o que se aplica ao Kosovo já não interessa por aí além quando se trata da Ossétia, da Tchetchénia ou da Abcásia.
Perdem assim a autoridade para fazer "prescrições morais" aos outros.
(pena que alguns só enxerguem os "double standards" dos EUA, como se fossem só os "states" que os tivessem)

Já agora:

- Se aos governos da Ucrânia ou da Geórgia ocorrer entrar para a NATO ou andar a fazer o pino em cuecas quem são os russos para se intrometerem nas decisões de outros Estados?

- Só para arreliar os EUA não VALE TUDO.
Ou será que vale?!

(bem fez o governo de Salazar, a 4 de Abril de 1949. Na altura, provavelmente, os russos também não devem ter gostado mesmo nada)


Lennard

Anónimo disse...

Destaco ainda (a ler com atenção):

http://cl-hammer.blogspot.com/2008/08/avanada-continua.html

Está lá tudo.
Só não vê quem não quer!


Lennard

Anónimo disse...

Para o judeu-nato anterior:

se no cosovo há independência, também a deve haver na ossétia, etc...
Antes de de fazerem merda olhem ás consequências.

Quer dizer, os amérdicas matam milhões no iraque, mas os russos (não comuno-judeus soviéticos (e aqui está o cerne da questão)) não podem se podem defender junto às suas fronteiras?

Olha: Vai para israel e leva a força de ocupação americona na europa (nato) enfiada no olho do cu!

Atrida disse...

Para os países que fazem fronteira com a Rússia a opção é submeterem-se aos interesses do urso ou dos EUA. O que se escreve no artigo sobre os governos que alinham com os EUA também se poderia escrever sobre os que se submetem aos interesses russos. É quase impossível um país manter a sua verdadeira independência tendo um vizinho como a Rússia.

Anónimo disse...

Só que há uma questão importante que te esqueces pá, a escala!
Os amerdicas querem ocupar tudo, já os russos andam só à volta de casa.

A.H.