Day: February 5, 2024
A rare instance of an unexpected consequence of a bad policy advancing liberty is the growth in private schools enrolment and homeschooling that occurred as a result of the covid lockdowns. An October 2023 study by Eloise Burtis and Sofoklis Goulas of the Brookings Institution found that 79 percent of American school-age children were enrolled in government schools in the 2021-2022 school year, down from 84 percent enrolled in government schools in 2019-2020. The decline in children attending government schools accelerated because of the lockdowns, and enrollment in government schools continues to decline.
Other researchers have found similar results. For example, the Urban Institute’s Thomas Dee found that during the pandemic hundreds of thousands of children left government schools for private schools and homeschooling.
In October of last year, the Washington Post reported that since before the covid lockdowns there was a 51 percent increase in homeschooled children. The Post labeled homeschooling “America’s fastest growing form of education.“
The lockdowns served no public health purpose. In fact, the social isolation imposed on children by the closures of schools and even playgrounds did more damage to children than covid ever could.
However, the lockdowns did have a long-run benefit by increasing the number of parents rejecting government schooling. The school closures allowed many parents to see for themselves the problems with government-controlled education. Parents were horrified to witness their children logging on to Zoom and then being force-fed woke propaganda instead of receiving a quality education. Parents realized they had a choice: either allow their children to continue to receive an inferior education or seek out an alternative that would provide their children a quality, woke–free education.
Many parents were inspired to seek alternatives to government schools when teacher union officials used their political clout to keep government schools closed even after most business and government offices were open. It turns out that actions of Dr. Anthony “I represent science” Fauci, teacher union officials, and authoritarian politicians who worked to keep government schools closed ended up advancing the popularity of alternatives to government schools.
Parents looking to provide their children with a quality home-based education that promotes real learning that does not push a political agenda but does instruct in the history and philosophy of liberty should look into my homeschooling curriculum. My curriculum provides students with a well-rounded education that includes rigorous courses in history, mathematics, and the physical and natural sciences. The curriculum also provides instruction in personal finance. Students can develop superior communication skills via intensive writing and public speaking courses. Another feature of my curriculum is that it provides students the opportunity to create and run their own businesses.
The government and history sections of the curriculum emphasize free-market economics, libertarian political theory, and the history of liberty. However, unlike government schools, my curriculum never sacrifices quality education to promote a political agenda. Interactive forums allow students to engage with and learn from each other and give them an opportunity to interact with their peers outside of a formal setting.
I encourage all parents looking at alternatives to government schools — alternatives that provide children with a well-rounded education that introduces them to the history and ideas of liberty without sacrificing education for indoctrination — to go to RonPaulCurriculum.com for more information about my homeschooling program.
This article was published at RonPaul Institute
The recent commutation of former prime minister and convicted felon Najib Razak’s prison sentence on the last day of Sultan Abdullah’s reign as the Malaysian king, has exposed the nation’s two-tier system of justice. This has led to widespread criticism by traditional Pakatan Harapan (PH) supporters. The fact that the minister of the federal territories Zaliha Mustafa, a member of prime minister Anwar Ibrahim’s Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) sat on the Pardons Board and said the decision was a consensus has led to even more outcry.
The whole affair blatantly highlights the two-tier system of law and justice in Malaysia. There is one set of rules for the ruling elite, and another set of rules for the rest. The Pardons Board in its current secret composition reflects the feudalistic nature of Malaysian society today.
Any criticism of the above is technically sedition (as the government controls the definition), where the minister for communications Fahmi Fadzil has already warned Malaysians the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) will take action against anyone who discusses the commutation of Najib’s sentence.
However, this has not prevented peoples’ criticism online. There is also deep suspicion that prime minister Anwar Ibrahim had some direct involvement, even though he said any pardon or commutation of prisoner sentences are at the king’s sole discretion. Some are saying the commutation of Najib’s sentence and lowering his RM210 million fine to just RM 50 million has broken through a tipping point, where the bulk of political commentary is no longer favourable to the Madani government.
The poor are suffering and will suffer more
The economic outlook for 2024 could be much worse than what has been forecast by the experts. Prices are still rising, especially in the food sector. Income is not increasing, and doesn’t look like it will in the foreseeable future. New taxes are eating away at family consumption in the lower to middle income groups. On top of this, the Ringgit is reaching new lows, increasing both prices and the debt burden.
The leadership of the Madani government just don’t seem to have any empathy for Malaysians. The government is floundering (maybe purposely) in its own bureaucracy and long string of advisors. Monopolies still exist and Government linked corporations (GLCs) still control many strategic sectors in Malaysia’s economy. The Malaysian market-space is still overburdened with regulation. These inefficiencies are keeping prices on a rising trajectory.
The GLCs and crony rent-seeking capitalists with elite connections are obtaining billion Ringgit projects, while MSMEs are getting token assistance. This is making the cronies richer, while the MSMEs are still suffering from the Covid MCOs two years ago.
The Madani government is redistributing wealth towards the elite in society.
Anwar is not a leader of the people
Anwar emerged after his sacking as deputy prime minister under Mahathir Mohamed back in 1998, as a symbol of reformasi or reform. He became the symbol of hope that people gravitated around. His time in prison increased this ‘halo effect’. For 25 years there was a hope a new multicultural Malaysia would be reborn.
Upon becoming prime minister in 2022, the reformasi aura has quickly become tainted with the appointment of UMNO leader Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, who himself was facing 47 charges of corruption and money laundering as deputy prime minister. These charges were dropped by the public prosecutor in 2023, amounting to a discharge without acquittal (DNAA).
This turned any hopes of reform into wishful thinking. Reformasi became mocked and called reformati (the death of reform). Anwar quickly turned from being a leader of the Rakyat (people) to become a puppet of the political and economically powerful elites. He has very much done their bidding by extending monopolies and concessions, awarding contracts outside of tender to politically connected firms.
The hopes of people have been dashed, where now there is a feeling of hopelessness. There is now much talk of people trying to leave Malaysia for better prospects somewhere else. The brain drain is accelerating
Instead of using his leadership to enhance and develop Malaysia’s path to democracy, Anwar is steering Malaysia back towards Mahathir’s dark ages, where censorship, cronyism, favouritism under the justice system to the very symbol of kleptocracy, while heavily clamping down on criticism and free speech. The so-called ‘3Rs’ (race, religion and royalty) are now taboo in the Malaysian media.
Malaysia is now a country where opponents are persecuted by the nations legal system, which is politically controlled. The internet is illegally blocked, and the media is fearful of criticising the government.
Worst of all, Malaysia’s economic policies favour the elites. There is no wealth tax, where a new range of taxes have burdened the poor.
The Malay culture used to create class apartheid
Many Malays said when Anwar was appointed prime minister after the hung parliament following the 2022 general election, that Anwar’s government was one made with Royal prerogative. Consequently, the government should not be criticized, as this would be disrespectful to the king.
Anwar was the choice of the Malay rulers, and Anwar very skilfully through cybertroopers, used the rulers as a cover from criticism. Anwar also had a heavy price to pay for his position, in meeting requests from the rulers. Anwar is governing for the elites rather than the people.
The prosecutions of Malay politicians, are really persecutions of those who have fallen out of favour with the inner circle. To the public, it looks like Anwar is fighting corruption. To the elite, it is about settling old scores. Such is the Machiavellian nature of Malay politics.
Meanwhile, corruption continues unimpeded by the elites, with the big deals being done above any scrutiny and transparency. There will never be any investigations or prosecutions. Whistle blowers suffer very badly. Only the ‘small fry’ are being caught and prosecuted for public consumption.
Malaysia’s feudalism stems back to the British Colonial times, where the sultans were propped up as a symbol of authority the Malays would be obedient to. This has remained the same until today, as written into the Constitution, where the monarchy is actually the cornerstone.
The politicians under the monarchy have used censorship, repression, the creation of racial divides, and institutionalised Islam to create an obedient Malay peasantry.
Only a few Malays are groomed to become part of the clan of the elite. It takes connections with ‘god-fathers’ who nurture these young entrants into the professional, civil service, business, and political spheres.
The rest are just thrown crumbs.
While the Maldives is readying to host a Chinese “spy” vessel flouting India’s request not to do so, the Maldives is accusing India of intimidating Maldivian fishermen in Maldivian waters.
The Indo-Maldivian conflict over increasing Chinese influence on the Maldives since Mohamed Muizzu became President, now appears to be heading for a flash point.
While the Maldives is readying to host a Chinese “research” vessel which India claims is a “spy” vessel, the Maldives is accusing the Indian Coast Guard of intimidating Maldivian fishermen in Maldivian waters, not once, but twice, in the past few days.
These could have serious repercussions unless taken up and defused at the highest levels in the two countries.
The website www.maldivesrepublic.mv reported that a Maldivian fishing boat, ‘Maahoara-3,’ was stopped and searched by Indian soldiers for a second time on February 3 while the vessels were fishing within the country’s territorial waters.
The location was in the vicinity of a previous boarding incident on January 31.
The boat’s captain, Ibrahim Rasheed, recounting the ordeal to the local media, stated that the event occurred around midnight on Saturday, three miles from a buoy, near Molhadhoo in the Haa Alifu Atoll.
According to Rasheed, armed Indian military officers boarded the fishing vessel and demanded that the crew hand over their satellite phones—a request firmly rejected by the crew, citing instructions from the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF).
Rashid highlighted the aggressive posture of the Indian personnel, who kept their weapons aimed at the crew during the verbal confrontation, claiming that it was the protocol during such operations.
This incident follows a similar confrontation on January 31, in which ‘Maahoara-3,’ along with ‘Neru-7’ and ‘Asurumaa-3,’ were boarded and searched by Indian Coastguard officers.
In both instances, the Indian soldiers sought the boats’ satellite phone numbers. The soldiers in the second confrontation were reportedly from a different naval vessel than the one involved in the earlier incident.
The Bodu Kanneli Masveringe Union (BKMU), which had previously highlighted the January 31 boarding, confirmed the latest incident.
The Maldivian Defence Ministry issued a strong statement accusing India of violating international maritime laws by intruding into the Maldives’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
It noted that the Maldives government, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, had formally requested India to provide explanation for the boarding of Maldivian fishing vessels by the Indian Coast Guard personnel without prior notice or coordination with the relevant Maldivian authorities.
In the statement, the Defence Ministry identified the Indian vessels as “Indian coastguard ship 246” and “Indian coastguard ship 253.”
Former President Solih Condemns Intrusion
Meanwhile former Maldivian President Ibrahim Solih, who is pro-India, condemned the Indian intrusion.
“No one should be allowed to enter the Maldives’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) without permission. Such action is wrong and no country should encroach on the territory of another country,” he said.
Chinese Research Vessel
It is the expected arrival of a Chinese research ship Xiang Yang Hong 3 in the Maldives later this week that has heightened tension between India and the Maldives.
Officially, Xiang Yang Hong 3 is to “make a port call for rotation of personnel and replenishment”, which is innocuous. But India does not view it as innocuous. India feels that this vessel and other such Chinese “research” vessels are actually studying the seas in the Western Indian Ocean from the point of view of submarine warfare.
China experts, however, have shrugged off their concerns, BBC reports.
“The Chinese ships carry out scientific research work in the Indian ocean. Its activities on the high seas are entirely legitimate,” Zhou Bo, a former People’s Liberation Army Senior Colonel, told the BBC.
“Sometimes the ships need replenishment – like fuel, food and water. So, they berth in a third country port, which is normal. So, the Indian government shouldn’t make any fuss about it. Indian Ocean is not India’s Ocean,” Zhou, who is now with the Tsinghua university in Beijing, asserted.
In December, the Muizzu administration announced that it would not renew a hydrographic survey agreement with India that was signed by the previous government to map the seabed in the Maldivian territorial waters. But during Muizzu’s visit to China, he signed an agreement to do joint work on the Blue Economy and another on forming a “strategic alliance”. These two raised the hackles in New Delhi.
China and India compete for influence in the Indian Ocean even as they quarrel over their Himalayan borders
Two Chinese naval submarines made a port call to Colombo in 2014 and two Chinese research vessels visited Sri Lanka recently, causing concern in India.
The arrivals resulted in billions of dollars of loans to Colombo, which Colombo is unable to repay. The debt is keeping Sri Lanka chained to China.
Xiang Yang Hong 3, had in fact planned to visit Colombo for replenishment before proceeding to the Maldives. But that has been shelved because Sri Lanka has clamped a moratorium on visits by research vessels from all countries for a year.
But India is not happy with the moratorium on vessels from all countries including India. India wants a moratorium only on Chinese vessels. Sri Lanka has not obliged because it feels beholden to Beijing for economic aid as indeed it is beholden to India.
Sri Lanka’s excuse for the blanket moratorium as stated by the State Minister of Foreign Affairs Tharaka Balasuriya to the BBC was that Sri Lanka needed time to develop the technology and expertise to participate in ocean research activities on an equal basis.
Evacuation of Indian Military Personnel
Meanwhile, the Indo-Maldivian row over the evacuation of the 88 Indian military personnel manning two choppers and a Dornier aircraft doing medical evacuation work is continuing though in an attenuated form.
After the joint Core Group met in New Delhi recently, the Maldivians announced that India had agreed to begin evacuation on March 10 and complete it by May 10.
But the Indian statement did not mention any dates. It only said that both India and the Maldives had “agreed on a set of mutually workable solutions to enable continued operation of Indian aviation platforms that provide humanitarian and medical evacuation services to the people of the Maldives.”
India also talked of “replacement” of personnel, not “withdrawal”. It appears that the military personnel might be replaced by civilians.
Maldivian-Sri Lanka Agreement
Since the Maldivians had ceased to use the services of the Indian military personnel and planes, they entered into an agreement with Sri Lanka for help in medical evacuation and treatment in Sri Lankan hospitals.
But this may not go down well with India, which expects Sri Lanka not to undercut India in such sensitive matters.
In a recent long opinion article for the New York Times, pundit Thomas Friedman announces “a titanic geopolitical struggle between two opposing networks of nations and nonstate actors over whose values and interests will dominate our post-Cold war world.” (NY Times, January 26, 2024, p. A26). This perception is not silly. The essentially unipolar hegemony enjoyed by the United States since the end of the Cold War is surely under fire, and new constellations of power and influence are forming. But Friedman’s description of the emerging conflict is a sophomoric mashup of historical theory and primitive moralism. It is as if he were a sportscaster announcing a match between villainous and heroic boxers or wrestlers.
Welcome to the Fight of the Century! In the far corner is the Resistance Network, consisting of nations like Iran and Russia, and organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, that are “dedicated to preserving closed, autocratic systems where the past buries the future.” (You may hiss now). In the near corner is – no, not Rocky Balboa, but the Inclusion Network, “trying to forge more open, connected, pluralizing systems where the future buries the past.”
Guess which network the United States, the NATO countries, Israel, and Ukraine are part of! We “secularizing, pluralizing, more market-driven” nations are the wave of the future – in Friedman’s adoring terms, the home of “business conferences, news organizations, elites, hedge funds, tech incubators and major trade routes.” Wall Street is our Main Street! We weave things together like high-tech globalists should, and our reward is not just power but legitimacy.
The Resistance baddies, by contrast, want to return us to the rotten old days of great power competition and backward-looking cultures. They are good only “at tearing down and breaking stuff.” What it is, exactly, that they are resisting? Friedman can’t or doesn’t want to say. His conclusion is that the members of this network “have shown no capacity to build any government or society anyone would want to emigrate to, let alone emulate,” while the Includers, by contrast, “have the potential to redefine power structures and create new paradigms of regional stability.”
Whew! To those old enough to remember the Cold War, this sort of good guy/bad guy analysis (if it can be called “analysis”) will be entirely familiar. We – the “Free World” – strong and virtuous, were the party of free politics, free enterprise, and free fire zones. They – the Commie Conspirators – stood for nothing except unfreedom. We were the progressive future; indeed, Cold War apostles like Frank Fukuyama taught that, after us, there could be no history to speak of. They were the barbaric, prehistoric past.
The rest of the Friedman essay develops the policy implications of these stereotypes. For example, we (the U.S.) should give the Ukrainians everything they are asking for to fight the Russians and more, since they represent the Inclusion Network’s interests in Europe at a bargain basement cost. And we should convince Bibi Netanyahu to accept some sort of harmless Palestinian ministate so that Israel, the Gulf States, and the Saudis can become a “cultural, investment, conference, tourism and manufacturing center” that dominates the Middle East and undermines the power of the Resistance Network.
Assume for a moment that a new bipolarity in international affairs is developing, with Russia, Iran, China, and their allies on one side (although Friedman’s odd treatment of China – to be discussed in a moment – muddies the water) and the United States and its allies on the other. If so, what drives this conflict? What is it about? And what about the major players so far non-aligned, such as Brazil, Turkey, and India? The moralistic, neo-Cold War response is to distinguish between “our” superior institutions and good intentions and “their” inferior and evil ones and to consider non-alignment immoral. But all this leaves us without a clue as to the real ideas, emotions, and interests in play on both sides.
Friedman’s silence on this score is calculated. What he doesn’t want to admit is that the Resisters are resisting domination by the richest, best-armed nations in world history, the United States and its G7 allies, successors to the European empires that colonized and exploited the globe’s non-Western peoples from the sixteenth century onward. As soon one recognizes the historic character of this resistance, one understands that China, formerly the poorest and most brutally colonized nation on earth, is not only a member of this network but its leader.
This, of course, is why the US elite is currently so anxious to make a “pivot” from European and Middle Eastern affairs to Asia, and why it is so busily attempting to create an Asian equivalent to NATO in the form of a rearmed Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.
Nevertheless, the pundit will not recognize China as a party to the “titanic political struggle” he claims to be describing, much less as the leader of one side. Instead, he describes the Asian giant as a neutral! The Chinese leaders’ “hearts, and often pocketbooks, are with the Resisters,” he opines, “but their heads are with the Includers.” At first, this categorization seems purely bizarre. Then one thinks of the Chinese efforts to make peace between certain elements of the two competing networks – for example, Beijing’s attempts to mediate between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Finally, however, Friedman’s motivation becomes clear: China is excluded from the Resistance Network because it is economically and technologically so advanced! Its government may be authoritarian, but it doesn’t fit the stereotype of the backward-looking, culturally stagnant society without a future that the pundit has constructed to discredit the Resisters.
“Their heads are with the Includers,” indeed! But there is little doubt that the Chinese will continue to challenge the hegemony of the U.S. and its allies on virtually every front, using programs like the Belt and Road Initiative and organizations like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS alliance to achieve their goals and those of the other Resisters. Friedman’s neo-colonial stereotypes of advanced Includers and backward Resisters can actually help to define those goals. The imperial powers have always claimed cultural and political superiority to their subjects – and they have often been more “developed” in certain ways. Great wealth and physical security do give masters more room to play, take risks, and innovate than their impoverished, endangered servants. But if one loses sight of the basic division between “top dogs” and “bottom dogs” (as Johan Galtung puts it), one entirely misses the point that power and “development” go hand in hand.
The Resisters do not want to be included in the masters’ world order. They want the power to decide their own fate. As Franz Fanon wrote in The Wretched of the Earth, the natives do not want the settler’s status: “they want his place.” Fanon also wrote scathingly of the inability of native oligarchs and politicians wired into colonial and neo-colonial networks to represent their people’s real values and interests. It is time for Western global hegemony to end, but we have yet to see whether the new order proclaimed by Resistance leaders like China will be more than an updated version of imperial rule.
This conclusion, to put it mildly, is bizarre.
This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS)
But raises questions for Armenian-Azerbaijani relations
History repeats itself, and the dictum in question is particularly apposite to the overall picture and chronicle of the variable thorny relations among the three South Caucasus nations of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia with varying degrees of tensity.
Georgia, located geographically and strategically between Armenia and Azerbaijan, with access to the sea, normally plays the role of a bridge between Yerevan and Baku, which have been at loggerheads the most of their co-existence history both under the Russian empire and the independence periods with the exclusion of the Soviet period when the two were part of the 15-nation Soviet empire.
For over 70 years, political, economic, and people-to-people interactions among Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia were strictly directed and influenced by Moscow. In the face of such acts and behind-the-curtain activities that led to several minor encounters especially between Baku and Yerevan over the latter’s claims on Azerbaijani lands, the relations remained relatively in the saddle under Moscow’s rule until the demise of the USSR.
Armenia’s nearly 30-year-long occupation of Azerbaijani lands in and around Karabakh, which started in the early 1990s but failed to result in the recognition de jure, prevented Yerevan’s ambition to open a second front against Georgia’s Javakheti. Azerbaijan’s all-or-nothing approach vis-à-vis the occupied lands and accordingly the liberation of its territories saved Georgia from possible clashes in the Armenian-dominant region in addition to the loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, though the tension is still intact in the area.
Without exaggeration, Georgia is lucky to have a neighbor like Azerbaijan, rich in natural resources and home to several strategic oil and gas pipelines that go to Europe via its territory, contributing both to the neighbor’s well-being and peaceful coexistence with Azerbaijan. However, Armenia’s aggressive policies and aggression against Azerbaijan deprived it from benefitting what is accessible to Georgia now.
Armenian-Georgian economic relations are on the rise, what about political relations…
At a time when things are gradually getting back to normality between Baku and Yerevan, Azerbaijan’s unprecedented move in liberating the occupied lands on its own has emboldened Georgia to retain hopes to regain the occupied lands, discouraging Armenia against an open aggression in Javakheti.
At this very time, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who has been beating around the bush since 2020 about a lasting peace with Baku, visited Georgia on January 26 for a meeting with his counterpart Irakli Garibashvili, where the two heads of the governments chaired a session of the Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation.
Georgia and Armenia as neighbors are keen on further deepening various facets of economic collaboration, including in sectors such as transport, energy, tourism, culture, and education.
“Highlighting the significance of the bilateral economic relations, Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili emphasized that Armenia is one of Georgia’s crucial trade partners, consistently ranking within the top 10 in recent years. He also underscored the Intergovernmental Commission for Economic Cooperation as a pivotal platform for enhancing economic, trade, transport, and cultural ties between the two countries,” according to the press release.
The parties signed a joint declaration on a strategic partnership between Georgia and Armenia. Additionally, the parties signed a memorandum of understanding of cooperation in agriculture, and healthcare, and an agreement aimed at improving the working conditions of diplomatic missions and consular institutions of both countries. The two also addressed the future infrastructure projects that will have a significant impact on the region, including the Black Sea Submarine Cable project and the Armenian Crossroads of Peace project. The prime ministers also discussed the importance of peace and stability in the region, and Garibashvili expressed “Georgia’s ongoing commitment to fostering the peace process and readiness to sustain engagement in this regard”.
Although political issues are being kept under seven seals, pundits are confident that the prime ministers also mulled ways of improving political relations and overcoming obstacles, along with the Armenian-Azerbaijani peace process though no mention of it was made.
The Armenian prime minister stated that at his talks with Garibashvili, they also decided to instruct the governments to take effective steps to settle the issue of demarcation of the Armenian-Georgian border.
“We are traditionally and historically very strong allies and friends, not just neighbors. We maintain very good relations, cooperation, and partnership in all sectors. It can be said that we already were strategic friends and strategic partners and it can be said that this reality and this situation was formalised today. We officially signed today an agreement on strategic partnership,” Garibashvili said, adding that “we have always been and are ready to contribute to the establishment of long-term peace, which will be beneficial for the countries and peoples of the whole region”.
Georgia’s potential role in facilitating peace between Baku & Yerevan
At a time when Azerbaijan is making every effort to sign a peace deal with Armenia, the latter is avoiding Baku’s goodwill and at this point, Georgia’s mediation effort is much sought though it is not often tracked.
Since independence, Georgia has been neutral in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict and its potential as a neutral mediator or facilitator in peace negotiations could prove beneficial. Reports are sometimes available about Georgia’s diplomatic initiatives and efforts to encourage dialogue between Armenia and Azerbaijan and play a host though it has not yet managed to bring the Azerbaijani and Armenian leaders together at a negotiating table in Georgia.
Nevertheless, Georgia has not been steadfast in using all leverages at its disposal to compel Armenia to constructive positions to re-establish peace and order in the region. On the other hand, the presence of the conflict between Baku and Yerevan provided Georgia with an opportunity of the sole transit country from Azerbaijan to Europe. Another issue at stake that has hindered Georgia from fully getting involved in mediating conflict resolution is its separatist Javakheti region with ethnic Armenians in the majority, who were and are ready to back Armenia’s miatsum franticness.
Georgia could have leveraged its strategic location in pressurising Armenia and prevent its access to Russia via its own territories though this was not done or not properly exploited. Now that the Karabakh conflict has been completely hammered out by Azerbaijan on its own, Georgia can mediate peace efforts between Baku and Yerevan, offering its territory as a venue through several approaches.
Georgia can serve as a neutral ground for diplomatic talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan, providing a safe and neutral environment for discussions to take place. Georgian diplomats and officials can facilitate direct dialogue between Armenian and Azerbaijani representatives, helping them to communicate and negotiate effectively and encourage confidence-building measures between Armenia and Azerbaijan, such as cultural exchanges, people-to-people contacts, and joint projects to foster trust and understanding between the two nations.
Georgia can also engage other regional actors and organizations, such as the EU, the UN, and the OSCE to support peace efforts and provide additional mediation support. The Georgian government is also in a good position to promote economic cooperation and integration between Armenia and Azerbaijan, offering incentives for cooperation and demonstrating the potential benefits of peace for regional development and prosperity.
Georgian civil society organizations think tanks, and academicians can also engage in Track II diplomacy initiatives, organizing unofficial dialogues and peace-building activities to complement official negotiations. Tbilisi is also well placed to seek international support and recognition for its mediation efforts, leveraging its relationships with other countries and international organizations to garner support for regional peace.
This article was published at Caliber.Az
Categories