"Where Russia is, there is betrayal and humiliation."
Georgian experts assess events in Karabakh
How do you assess the events in Karabakh, what does it mean for Georgia and the Caucasus region as a whole?
JAMnews asked Georgian experts this question.
Conflictologist Paata Zakareishvili:
The events in Karabakh are Russia’s expulsion from the Caucasus. What happened was an absolutely expected result. Marquez has a famous novel “Chronicle of Death Revealed” and this is exactly what happened in Karabakh.
Just a few hours before these events I arrived from Baku, and before that I was in Yerevan for a week, where I met with many experts.
And everyone was saying there will be a war in Karabakh.
What is important here is that four players have been identified. And, unfortunately, Georgia is not meant here. Georgia is disconnected from these events, even its pulse is not felt.
The first player is Turkey. It is in the shadow and is a guarantor of Azerbaijan’s security, as if telling the whole world: if you oppose Azerbaijan, you will have to deal with me.
The main player, of course, is Azerbaijan. It implements its policy in agreement with Turkey, with the hope of Turkey and with the support of Turkey.
The third player is Russia. It has been turned into a laborer by Turkey and Azerbaijan. Russia has been told: if you want to stay in the Caucasus for a while, do the dirty work. For example, give up Armenia. In other words, Turkey and Azerbaijan imposed on Russia the rules of the Turkish-Azerbaijani game, Russia accepted this rule and fulfilled it with regard to Armenia.
And the fourth player is Armenia. It is forced to accept the rules of the game developed by Turkey and Azerbaijan and taken into account by Russia. Armenia has practically no allies.
Armenia’s mistake is that it did not realize that Russia is a traitor.
Who Russia is became clear in 2016 and 2020, when the first and second escalation took place and Azerbaijan made some progress on the Karabakh track. Then Russia silenced Armenia, and Armenia did not realize then that Russia is a traitor.
Georgian experts on Karabakh
▇ But now Armenia knows for sure that where Russia is, there are problems, betrayal, humiliation and cynicism.
In my opinion, Armenia’s position will be the most important. Armenia should make a clear decision on where it is going: whether it will remain a part of Russian policy or become one of the important players in the South Caucasus.
Its negotiations with Baku and Ankara must begin. It must begin relations with Brussels.
There should be a complete expulsion of Russia from the South Caucasus.
Today Armenia is under attack, I sympathize with the Armenian people, they have been through a lot. But it should look inside itself and realize where it has made a mistake. The problem is that everyone in Armenia realizes this, but no one speaks about it out loud.
As for Azerbaijan, geopolitics is changing significantly, and everything depends on what strategy Azerbaijan will have. The main question is whether Azerbaijan really intends to integrate the Armenian population or actually wants to stimulate the exodus of the Armenian population from Karabakh?
Initially it was clear that Azerbaijan would return Karabakh. But the question was whether Azerbaijan would create conditions. If it does, it is clear that part of the population will return there.
Whether Azerbaijan really wants to integrate the Armenian people, as Baku openly declares today, will be clear in three or four months, maximum in six months. Let’s see where Azerbaijan’s strategy leads.
If there is real integration, Azerbaijan does not need Russia in the region at all. And if there is no integration, Azerbaijan plans to cooperate with Russia as it did before.
Russia will agree to this. It wants to stay in the Caucasus and is ready to serve Turkish-Azerbaijani interests for that.
Turkey’s position in the Caucasus is very important. Turkey is a NATO member state, Georgia aspires to join NATO, and therefore Turkey should be our strategic ally in security issues.
Azerbaijan and Turkey have signed 16 agreements in the security and military sphere. And it is not Azerbaijan that does not declare its desire to join NATO, but Georgia.
We should sign the same documents with Turkey to protect ourselves from Russia.
Georgia today keeps saying that it has been left alone with Russia. But this is nonsense. We are not alone, Turkey is next to us and we should take advantage of that.
Georgian experts on Karabakh
Zurab Batiashvili, Research Fellow at the Foundation for Research on Strategy and International Relations of Georgia:
What happened in Karabakh is related to the weakening of Russia globally. The Russian army is now embroiled in the war in Ukraine, and it has no opportunity to open a second front anywhere. Azerbaijan took advantage of this situation and restored its territorial integrity.
Aliyev completed the work started in 2020 and became the first in the post-Soviet space to restore the territorial integrity of his country.
This is a precedent, and it means that the balance of power in the former Soviet space is changing. But that is not all.
The consequence of the war Russia is waging in Ukraine is a new wave of EU enlargement. And this is also a big geopolitical change.
Previously, Georgia’s European perspective was not even recognized. Now they not only recognize it, but actually beg us to fulfill the conditions and become a candidate for EU membership.
Georgian experts on Karabakh
▇ It is a pity that during such important geopolitical processes the Georgian authorities are pursuing such a weak and inadequate foreign policy.
The Pashinyan government is now facing a very serious challenge. Pro-Russian forces are trying and will try in the future to use the wave of public discontent to remove Pashinyan from power. So far it has not succeeded, and let’s hope it won’t.
Then, perhaps, the issue of whether Armenia will remain in the CIS will be raised, as well as the issue of the Russian base in Gyumri.
As for Georgia, unfortunately, we are moving very quickly towards Russia. This is directly related to the topic of sanctions, as well as to the fact that the Georgian authorities do not fulfill the 12-point plan. And these recent statements about some kind of conspiracy, and so on.
The authorities are preparing to start repressions after Georgia is denied the status of candidate for EU accession and people take to the streets.
As for the geopolitical situation, we see that changes have begun. Armenia is trying to change its political orientation with great speed. If until now it was dependent only on Russia, now it is trying to establish itself in the West at a rapid pace – because Russia has not become a guarantor of security for them.
The Armenian community in Karabakh is in a difficult situation. But when Pashinyan was re-elected prime minister after the second Karabakh war, it meant that society in Armenia had come to terms with the loss of Karabakh.
And in general, the fact that Pashinyan is still in power is a sign that the society in Armenia is very eager to move towards the West.
And the fact that Pashinyan made anti-Russian statements is also, of course, an order of the society.
However, Armenia has a long way to go, including in terms of rapprochement with NATO. Armenia is still a member of the CSTO, which prevents it from receiving weapons from the West, and the West is in no hurry to give these weapons to the still pro-Russian country.
In other words, Armenia still has a long way to go to become at least formally equal to Georgia in terms of European integration.
However, it is not excluded that events will develop very quickly and such a prospect will appear very soon.
The most important thing is that as a result of what happened in Karabakh Armenia got rid of a huge burden. It may be very painful for them now, but in fact the Karabakh problem was the burden that kept Armenia in Russia’s grip for a long time.
Georgian experts on Karabakh
Giorgi Bilanishvili, foreign policy specialist, professor at Ilyauni University:
In the post-Soviet space, Russia has always played a major role in conflict regions, whether as a mediator or a manipulator to fuel conflicts.
The current events in Karabakh are the first time when another state, influential in the region, has played a more important role than Russia.
Azerbaijan, on the one hand, has benefited from the fact that Russia is busy with the war in Ukraine.
On the other hand, it is a fact that a big deal was struck between Azerbaijan and Russia.
In any case, Azerbaijan expected Russia not to intervene. Pashinyan seems to have expected the same, which is why he has been making anti-Russian statements lately.
All of this points to a decline in Russian influence in the region. What is happening is in no way in Russia’s interests.
Russia has always believed that it should have exclusive control over the Caucasus region. It has used the Karabakh conflict for this purpose, to maintain its influence over both Azerbaijan and Armenia, and to prevent Turkey or Iran from penetrating deeper.
For Russia, Karabakh was leverage. But after the war of 2020 it partially lost this lever, because even then Turkey’s role in favor of Azerbaijan was obvious. And this role remains so today.
Turkey’s position in the region will be further strengthened. Which means that the situation in the region is completely changing.
Even if we assume that there was a deal between Russia and Azerbaijan, this deal will in any case have only tactical significance. From a strategic point of view, in my opinion, Russia has lost. It is a failure for her. And Moscow was probably forced to accept all this, to start getting used to this new reality.
There was a precedent. Russia abstained, and the West did not participate at all. And regional actors turned out to be the most important in solving the problem.
▇ For the first time Armenia was able to realize its own foreign policy more freely, it is no longer dependent on Russia. If Armenians really want to go to the West, they now have a chance to do so. This is a really positive moment for the region.
As for Georgia, if the relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Armenia and Turkey are settled, it will create a new environment in the region, and it will only be good for Georgia.
At the same time, Russia’s position in the region is weakening, which is also good for Georgia. The only question is whether the current Georgian government will want to use this situation.
The problem is that they do not want to use it. Therefore, nothing much is changing for Georgians at the moment, because opportunities have appeared, but no one is going to use them.
Georgian experts on Karabakh
Tornike Sharashenidze, Doctor of International Relations, Professor at GIPA
What happened in Karabakh was inevitable. The return of Karabakh to Azerbaijan had to happen, especially since it is a good time for Azerbaijan. Russia is busy with Ukraine, it doesn’t care about Karabakh at all.
And after Azerbaijan regained control of 3/4 of Karabakh in 2020, it was already clear that neither Armenia nor Russia would be able to stop it.
Three years ago, during the second Karabakh war, Russia did not actually intervene. And if it did not intervene then, it will not intervene now.
Therefore what happened is the best scenario, it could have been worse.
I absolutely do not welcome war and violence in the region. But it is not excluded that Azerbaijan would have gone straight to the territory of Armenia.
This scenario would have ended with the overthrow of Pashinyan, in which case pro-Russian forces would have definitely come to power in Armenia.
领英推荐
It is very good that Azerbaijan did not take such a step, because it could have easily done it, I do not think that in this case anyone would have protected Armenia.
The Azerbaijani leadership used the moment well, and most importantly, it met this moment well prepared. No one can oppose Azerbaijan now – first of all, because it is its internationally recognized territory and it has restored its territorial integrity.
There is another argument – Europe needs Azerbaijan as a corridor.
Everyone saw that there was no significant reaction from the West. And this was expected, because it would be complete madness to make harsh statements and confront Azerbaijan, which has only regained its territories.
As for Armenia, three years ago Armenia received such a shock that now they do not want a new war and are not going to do it.
Also the young generation in Armenia, as well as in Georgia, is of course pro-Western. And they realize that the overthrow of Pashinyan will lead to the domination of pro-Russian forces, and they clearly don’t want that.
I don’t consider Pashinyan an ideal ruler, and I have many critical questions and comments about him. But overthrowing him would be a victory for the pro-Russian forces. And this is probably understood in Armenia, first of all, by the youth.
And without the active participation of the youth I can’t imagine the overthrow of the government – unless, of course, there is a military coup. I hope it won’t come to that.
If we consider the general context, the precedent is very important. And I would like the residents of Sukhumi and Tskhinvali to wake up as well.
Georgian experts on Karabakh
▇ Let us hope that the Georgian population is so inclined that it will not agree to the start of war. But have the Abkhazians and Ossetians realized that they cannot rely on Russia?
Russia had no formal obligation to go to war over Karabakh. But when a Russian base is on the territory of another country and that country is at war, one would expect Russia to intervene.
But Moscow has abandoned its ally. And that should worry the Abkhazians and Ossetians. I am far from the opinion that Armenia will be freed from Russia instantly. But in the long run it will definitely happen.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chinese loans to Africa plummet to near two-decade low - study
By Joe Bavier and Rachel Savage - September 19, 2023
JOHANNESBURG, Sept 19 (Reuters) - Chinese sovereign lending to Africa fell below $1 billion last year - the lowest level in nearly two decades - underscoring Beijing's shift away from a decades-long big ticket infrastructure spree on the continent, data showed on Tuesday.
The drop in lending reflected in data from Boston University's Global China Initiative comes as several African nations struggle with debt crises and China's own economy faces headwinds.
Africa has been a focus of President Xi Jinping's ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), launched in 2013 to recreate the ancient Silk Road and extend China's geopolitical and economic influence through a global infrastructure development push.
Boston University's Chinese Loans to Africa Database estimates Chinese lenders provided $170 billion to Africa from 2000 to 2022.
But lending has declined sharply since a 2016 peak. Just seven loans worth $1.22 billion were signed in 2021. Nine loans totalling $994 million were agreed last year, marking the lowest level of Chinese lending since 2004.
While those two years coincide with the COVID-19 pandemic, researcher Oyintarelado Moses told Reuters that there are other contributing factors.
"A lot of that really has to do with the level of risk exposure," said Moses, who manages the database and co-authored a report released on Tuesday.
Beijing will host its third Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation next month to mark the 10th anniversary of the flagship initiative, with some 90 countries expected to attend.
While African governments largely welcomed Chinese lending and infrastructure projects, Western critics have accused Beijing of saddling poor nations with unsustainable debt.
Zambia - a major Chinese borrower - became the first African country to default during the COVID-19 pandemic in late 2020. Other governments, including Ghana, Kenya and Ethiopia, are also struggling.
China, meanwhile, is facing its own problems at home as policymakers fight to revive growth amid persistent weakness in the crucial property industry, a faltering currency and flagging global demand for its manufactured goods.
"China's domestic economy is playing a huge role here," said Moses.
The China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China - the two institutions behind most of the lending to Africa - have been redeployed to support the domestic economy, while much of the overseas lending that remains is going to markets closer to home.
The decline in loans does not necessarily mean an end to Chinese engagement in Africa, however.
The Boston University analysis found that certain trends - fewer loans over $500 million and more focus on social and environmental impacts - appeared to reflect China's stated push towards a more high-quality, greener Belt and Road Initiative.
"This is such a huge part of the relationship, I think there's still going to be interest from Chinese lenders," Moses said. "It's just that it's going to look different."
Editing by Tomasz Janowski and Bernadette Baum.
About: Rachel Savage - Thomson Reuters
Rachel Savage is Africa Senior Markets Correspondent at Reuters, where she covers finance and economics across Sub-Saharan Africa, from sovereign debt crises and IMF programs to foreign exchange markets and cryptocurrencies. Previously she was LGBT+ Correspondent at the Thomson Reuters Foundation for just over three years and was awarded Journalist of the Year in 2021 by the NLJGA: The Association of LGBTQ Journalists, a U.S. group. Before that, Rachel was based in Nairobi and then Lagos as an East and West Africa Correspondent for The Economist, after starting her career a decade ago as a business journalist in London.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Opinion:?What the billionaires planning a new Bay Area city can teach us about California housing
BY JOEL KOTKIN AND WENDELL COX - SEPT. 23, 2023
A cadre of Silicon Valley elites is drawing fierce criticism from local residents and environmentalists for planning a new city on the outskirts of the Bay Area, a project dubbed “California Forever.” But the effort should be applauded for revealing a truth about California’s failed housing policies.
This group of California’s most influential wants to build one or more new towns on the urban fringes, having spent about $900 million to buy an area roughly twice the size of San Francisco some 60 miles east of the city. The project breaks with the philosophy of the state’s housing policy, which has long been focused on urban densification.
Despite the state’s efforts to encourage residential development, California’s housing markets remain among the least affordable in the country. The homeownership rate is near the nation’s lowest. To afford a house at the median price today in Southern California, a family needs an annual income of $180,000, twice the region’s median.
Opinion: The $1-million home is becoming the norm in L.A. This is an outrage we could have prevented
Aug. 14, 2023
Some housing advocates insist that the solution is to force growth into existing neighborhoods. Yet the state’s supposedly pro-development new housing laws have yet to produce more homes at a scale sufficient to address the affordability crisis, and recent data suggest an accelerating decline in housing production.
Over the last five years, California has consistently lagged in construction not just of single-family housing but of multifamily housing as well. Not one California metropolitan area was among the top 50 in housing growth last year; Texas had six areas on that list, Florida 11. Los Angeles, the state’s dominant metropolitan area, didn’t crack the top 200.
Clearly we need a new approach that is more aligned with market demands. A recent report by London Moeder, a San Diego real estate consultancy, noted that California regulations make it difficult to build the kinds of housing people are looking for, particularly multi-bedroom homes that can accommodate families.
Research by Jessica Trounstine at UC Merced similarly found that “preferences for single-family development are ubiquitous. Across every demographic subgroup analyzed, respondents preferred single-family home developments by a wide margin. Relative to single-family homes, apartments are viewed as decreasing property values, increasing crime rates, lowering school quality, increasing traffic and decreasing desirability.”
Opinion: California housing development remains abysmal despite reforms. Here’s what’s missing
Feb. 19, 2023
Opposition to densification of existing neighborhoods remains staunch in many cities, with some threatening a voter initiative to restore municipal control of zoning.
California’s focus on increasing density in urban areas is also at odds with the national shift toward remote work and retail and office growth in more suburban, lower-density areas.
A sensible California housing policy would respond to these trends and consumer desires, much as the Bay Area project promises to do. This does not mean we will need sprawling growth.
California’s population is dropping and is not expected to increase in the next four decades, which alters projections of future housing needs. The solution lies in strategic growth. Rather than force growth in places that are declining in population and resistant to development, including Los Angeles County and San Francisco, the state needs to look at the parts of California that are growing, places such as Riverside and Yolo counties.
Opinion: California has passed more than 100 housing laws since 2016. Are any of them working?
May 5, 2023
To encourage growth where it’s happening naturally, the state could create a “Housing Opportunity Area” comprising the Central Valley and Inland Empire, subject to more liberal rules than the coast. Land costs are far lower in the interior of the state than in metropolitan Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego and San José. Policies that support inland development could help stem the outbound migration of Californians.
The rise of remote work means development away from urban centers is far more plausible and less environmentally toxic than in the past. Indeed, the International Energy Agency suggests that if everybody able to work from home worldwide were to do so just one day a week, it would save around 1% of global oil consumption for road transport per year. That would prevent 24 million metric tons of annual carbon dioxide pollution, equivalent to the bulk of greater London’s emissions. And roughly 40% of California’s jobs, including 70% of its higher-paying ones, could be done at home, according to research by the California Center for Jobs and the Economy.
Equally promising, many new suburbs are being designed in consciously more sustainable ways, as MIT professor Alan Berger suggests. Sophisticated systems for controlling energy and water use can make suburban and exurban communities more environmentally responsible. Another promising innovation is broader use of manufactured housing, which has the potential to speed construction by as much as 50%, according to a 2019 McKinsey & Co. report. A single-family subdivision is under construction by 3-D printer in suburban Austin.
There are still opportunities for innovative housing production in dense urban cores such as downtown San Francisco and Manhattan. New York Mayor Eric Adams is seeking to quickly add 20,000 housing units through office building conversions. He has also proposed a larger program to convert more than 130 million square feet of office space to residential use, though he needs state legislation to reach that goal.
Opinion: How L.A. can build more housing without looking like New York
Aug. 27, 2023
More such promising opportunities may lie in old, underused retail spaces in both cities and suburbs, which have the advantage of simple floor plans, ample parking and presence across metropolitan California. A recently announced plan to replace Buena Park’s vacant Sears building with 1,100 housing units could represent one piece of our housing future. Flagging malls in Orange County and throughout California provide similar possibilities.
Such developments are critical to our increasingly diverse middle and working class. Older, overwhelmingly white Californians have achieved high rates of homeownership, but the rates among millennials, African Americans and Latinos are well below the national average.
If they don’t leave the state entirely, younger generations will tend to continue to migrate outward in search of affordable suburbs. The majority of people of color in California live in suburbs, accounting for virtually all suburban growth over the past decade. Communities could be built in the exurbs and beyond for senior citizens, too, helping to produce new housing opportunities for young families near job centers. The outer suburbs and exurbs are the future homes of most Californians.
We have the land for such a new vision. While other populous states have devoted as much as a third of their land to urban development, California’s developed lands constitute only 6% of the state. A “7% solution” to the California housing crisis would free up 1 million more acres to build the new communities that we largely stopped building around 2000, when we had 5 million fewer people.
Relying on billionaires to build new cities in the hinterlands isn’t a generally sustainable answer to California’s housing crisis. But the California Forever project does rightly suggest that our solutions must build on the state’s penchant for innovation, capitalism and a distinctly suburban lifestyle.
Joel Kotkin is the presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. Wendell Cox is the principal of Demographia, a public policy consulting firm.
A lesson on California housing from the billionaires planning a new city - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
The End++++++++++++++++++++++