Tweet
THOSE WHOM GOD DOES NOT PUT ON TRIAL SHOULD WORRY
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir
Jan 7 2008
Armenia
Judging by the preliminary result issued by the central election
commission of Georgia, the question of the presidential election
of this country has been solved, and the ex-president Mikhail
Sahakashvili who had resigned and appointed an early presidential
election was reelected president of Georgia. What will happen
afterwards depends on the consistency, stubbornness and good sense of
the Georgian opposition. In fact, however, it is the internal affair of
Georgia. For Armenia, it is important not to have stability shattered
in this country. It would have produced undesirable consequences for
us, which will impact transport routes, Javakheti and the Armenian
community of Georgia. Instability in Georgia would create complications
of those problems, which would add to Armenia's problems which does
not need them at all.
Apparently, however, instability in Georgia is not on the geopolitical
agenda of the world. Moreover, the early presidential election was
a move toward overcoming the danger of instability.
Consequently, it is hardly possible that in Georgia the opposition will
manage to repeat the surge which it had launched in early November,
holding lasting mass protests to prevent which Sahakashvili had to
sacrifice his democratic image. Meanwhile, the impression is that
the purpose of this mess was to have 52 percent Sahakashvili as the
CEC of Georgia officially reported, instead of 65 percent. Many may
think Russia backs all this, which does not want to have a strong
president in Georgia, especially if it is Sahakashvili whose office
was marked by a stubborn and consistent anti-Russian stance. However,
this perception is rather primitive than simple, and therefore it is
not even superficial but hazy.
In reality, Sahakashvili was "demoted" by the West. The grounds
for this supposition started to outline when during the surge of
mass protests of the opposition in Georgia no word of support or
encouragement for Sahakashvili was heard from the West. Moreover,
when the Georgian president solved the problem "to repress or not to
repress", and ordered the police to attack, the West condemned this
move, leaving no alternative to the Georgian president and pushing
him to hold an early election because if it could be avoided before
violence against the protestors, after it the early election was
inevitable. The question occurs why the West needed to corner their
favorite Sahakashvili, especially if it was going to recognize the
result of the election which was held on January 5. The point is
that after his first election where Sahakashvili got 95 percent he
behaved defiantly not only toward Russia but also the West, except
for the United States.
He uttered rather hard descriptions of the heads of European
organizations, calling them corrupt bureaucrats. Naturally, the reason
why the Georgian president felt so confident was his 95 percent. It is
clear that with such statements outside the Georgian president became
more self-confident and autocratic at home. The first warning came
during the visit of Bush when allegedly an attempt was made against
him, by the way by an Armenian. Most part of the society again chose
the easy way of tracing back to Russia. However, it is ingenuous to
think that the special services protecting Bush at more dangerous
and complicated places fell asleep in Georgia and failed to notice
the terrorist with a grenade come too close to Bush.
No. He had approached as much as it was needed.
Perhaps Sahakashvili had misunderstood the hint. He had thought that
an anti-Russian stance is enough to get limitless support from the
West, and if he does outside what he should do, inside he can do what
he wants. It turned out that he cannot. Simply it is not known when
patience will start wearing thin. However, it is Sahakashvili's and
Georgia's problem, and it is only necessary to be more attentive
because if they treat the "beloved son" so, what not they can do
with others. Although it is said that God puts those on trial whom
he loves. In this case, however, those whom God does not put on trial
should worry.
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir
Jan 7 2008
Armenia
Judging by the preliminary result issued by the central election
commission of Georgia, the question of the presidential election
of this country has been solved, and the ex-president Mikhail
Sahakashvili who had resigned and appointed an early presidential
election was reelected president of Georgia. What will happen
afterwards depends on the consistency, stubbornness and good sense of
the Georgian opposition. In fact, however, it is the internal affair of
Georgia. For Armenia, it is important not to have stability shattered
in this country. It would have produced undesirable consequences for
us, which will impact transport routes, Javakheti and the Armenian
community of Georgia. Instability in Georgia would create complications
of those problems, which would add to Armenia's problems which does
not need them at all.
Apparently, however, instability in Georgia is not on the geopolitical
agenda of the world. Moreover, the early presidential election was
a move toward overcoming the danger of instability.
Consequently, it is hardly possible that in Georgia the opposition will
manage to repeat the surge which it had launched in early November,
holding lasting mass protests to prevent which Sahakashvili had to
sacrifice his democratic image. Meanwhile, the impression is that
the purpose of this mess was to have 52 percent Sahakashvili as the
CEC of Georgia officially reported, instead of 65 percent. Many may
think Russia backs all this, which does not want to have a strong
president in Georgia, especially if it is Sahakashvili whose office
was marked by a stubborn and consistent anti-Russian stance. However,
this perception is rather primitive than simple, and therefore it is
not even superficial but hazy.
In reality, Sahakashvili was "demoted" by the West. The grounds
for this supposition started to outline when during the surge of
mass protests of the opposition in Georgia no word of support or
encouragement for Sahakashvili was heard from the West. Moreover,
when the Georgian president solved the problem "to repress or not to
repress", and ordered the police to attack, the West condemned this
move, leaving no alternative to the Georgian president and pushing
him to hold an early election because if it could be avoided before
violence against the protestors, after it the early election was
inevitable. The question occurs why the West needed to corner their
favorite Sahakashvili, especially if it was going to recognize the
result of the election which was held on January 5. The point is
that after his first election where Sahakashvili got 95 percent he
behaved defiantly not only toward Russia but also the West, except
for the United States.
He uttered rather hard descriptions of the heads of European
organizations, calling them corrupt bureaucrats. Naturally, the reason
why the Georgian president felt so confident was his 95 percent. It is
clear that with such statements outside the Georgian president became
more self-confident and autocratic at home. The first warning came
during the visit of Bush when allegedly an attempt was made against
him, by the way by an Armenian. Most part of the society again chose
the easy way of tracing back to Russia. However, it is ingenuous to
think that the special services protecting Bush at more dangerous
and complicated places fell asleep in Georgia and failed to notice
the terrorist with a grenade come too close to Bush.
No. He had approached as much as it was needed.
Perhaps Sahakashvili had misunderstood the hint. He had thought that
an anti-Russian stance is enough to get limitless support from the
West, and if he does outside what he should do, inside he can do what
he wants. It turned out that he cannot. Simply it is not known when
patience will start wearing thin. However, it is Sahakashvili's and
Georgia's problem, and it is only necessary to be more attentive
because if they treat the "beloved son" so, what not they can do
with others. Although it is said that God puts those on trial whom
he loves. In this case, however, those whom God does not put on trial
should worry.