Opinion: Rahmon challenged Putin….

“What are we missing? Something is missing. Something doesn’t work. As it was the main reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union. (Addressing Vladimir Putin – ed.) You are not offended. We have witnessed with you. I witnessed how it fell apart… Then, excuse me, as now, there was no attention to small republics, small nations. Attention. Traditions, customs, everything else were not taken into account. They did not provide assistance, support for development” – Tajik President Emomali Rahmon (13.10.2022)

Yesterday, the Presidenet of Tajikistan, Emomali Rahmon spoke with passion and heart about how Central Asia is treated in concern or as an ally of the Russian Federation. The historical ties and the current alliances, which still remains. Though, there are new expectations and also new ways the nations are diplomatically tied. That is a part that has been forgotten or not cared about from Kremlin.

That’s why Tajik President Rahmon said what he said. It is a unique speech in a diplomatic conference between several of nations. The President of Tajikistan has certainly poured gasoline on the manner of which Putin has acted towards the former USSR republic’s. Therefore, these words should sting, but also get the Russian President to reflect on how the Russian Federation has been seen or acted towards it’s neighbours.

While we know that Putin has a dream of building his empire and be remembered as one of the legends of Moscow. That’s how it seems and how he has used Soviet and old grievances to annex or have war against former USSR republics. That’s why there are lost regions in Georgia, Moldova and in Ukraine, which Putin has used to legitimize Russian interference and annexed too. Which is really the reality here.

His words becomes even more sincere here:

“Vladimir Vladimirovich, our request to you is that there be no policy towards the countries of Central Asia, as happened in the Soviet Union. Each country has its own problems, each country has its own questions, each country has its own traditions and customs. We need to find a middle ground, we need to work with each of the republics separately” (Rahmon, 13.10.2022).

Putin should take this to heart. However, we cannot expect anything from him. At this point of time his not the sort of leader that listens or would understand the sentiment even. His more into power-games and outplay leaders. These words might make the Tajik President an enemy of Putin. While he was just coming with honest criticism of Putin. He addressed an issue that needs to be looked into and not forgotten about.

Tajik President is right in saying it and it is about time. However, is it to late for Putin and can he be salvaged in this regard? No, I don’t think so. This is for his successor to fix. Putin will not be interested or do anything about this. That’s my guess, but it would great if the Russian Federation acted upon it. Peace.

Tajik-Kyrgyz border skirmishes: The Conflicting Press Releases from the Ministries of Foreign Affairs…

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tajikistan and Kyrguzstan both released a Press Release on the skirmishes and persist conflict on the Tajik-Kyrgyz border. A place that has had several of skirmishes and cease-fires. The nations are clearly tense and has old grudges, as they are now in brewing conflict.

The Press Releases are certainly compelling and telling a story. Because, it shows what both sides believes and wants to state as fact. That’s why I will take the Press Releases by each side and just show how they portray it. Since that shows what is going down and how they are operating.

Let’s begin with how they claim it all started on the 14^th September 2022:

“On September 14, at 7:15am, military units of the Border Troops of the State Committee for National Security of the Kyrgyz Republic, without any reason, began shelling the Kekh border post of the Border Troops of the State Committee for National Security of the Republic of Tajikistan in the Vorukh Jamoat of Isfara Town, Tajikistan. During this unprovoked act of aggression, the Kyrgyz side used mortars, machine guns and other small arms. As a result of the shelling, two servicemen of the Armed Forces of Tajikistan were killed. At the same time, the Kyrgyz side carried out the transfer of additional forces and heavy equipment to the border areas. The Tajik side was forced to return fire” (Tajikistan MFA, 18.09.2022).

“We consider that groundless accusations of Tajikistan against Kyrgyzstan in “military aggression towards the Republic of Tajikistan” is an attempt to put the responsibility and guilt on Kyrgyzstan. The Tajik party has launched the campaign of misinformation in order to discredit the defensive actions of the Kyrgyz Republic. We state that any information from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Tajikistan and other public bodies does not correspond the reality. Kyrgyzstan has all the evidence (photos and video footages) of the beginning of aggression, crimes and atrocities of the Tajik soldiers on the territory of our country. We are ready to provide the evidence if necessary” (Kyrgyzstan MFA, 18.09.2022).

Here you see really vast differences in storytelling and in accuracy. The Kyrgyzstan MFA isn’t showing any sort of proof or clarity. Only saying they can provide it. While Tajikistan MFA is direct about where and when. That’s why their statement is more believable in the sense of the actions and how the whole skirmishes on the border started. The Kyrgyzstan on the other hand only dismisses the Tajikistan Press Release without going into detail. That’s concerning, because it isn’t flattering to say the least. When you are accused and only talks of providing evidence, instead of actually outlining how it possibly started. In that regard, I rather believe Tajikistan since they have unleashed details, which can be verified.

When we are seeing just these paragraphs it is obvious that they are both going against each other. They are pinning the blame on each other. However, the Tajikistan Press Release has more accurate details and that makes it more sensible. As the other is just trading insults and accusations against the other party.

Like in the end of the Kyrgyzstan Press Release: “Unlawful actions of the Tajik party are the aggressive and destabilizing campaign which contradicts with bilateral and multilateral agreements, the spirit of good-neighborliness and mutual support between peoples of our countries. We are gravely concerned with the active involvement of irregular paramilitary groups on the Tajik side. The actions of the Tajik side may lead to the outbreak of a large-scale interstate conflict, as well as to the destabilization of the situation in the Central Asian region as a whole. Moreover, the situation provoked by the Tajik side has already resulted in casualties among the civilian population, military personnel, serious damage to military and civilian infrastructure, health and property of local residents” (Kyrgyzstan MFA, 18.09.2022).

As we see, the Kyrgyzstan MFA continues but isn’t direct about where or when. It is just claiming that the Tajikistan forces entered their territories and act outside of the ceasefires. Alas, the Tajikistan MFA said this: “In recent days, with a view to creating the image of an “aggressor” in the face of its neighbor, the Kyrgyz side, not shunning outright lies and insinuations, continues an information campaign against Tajikistan, thereby escalating tension in the border area. On September 17, in his address to the nation, the President of Kyrgyzstan used the word “enemy” in relation to Tajikistan” (Tajikistan MFA, 18.09.2022).

Here we see the differences too. While one is stating and blaming the other party directly through the whole Press Release. The other is saying from the get-go, that it knows its being vilified while their territories are attacked by the neighbour. In this instance, I believe more in Tajikistan own wording. While the Kyrgyzstan only targets the neighbour directly yet again.

This here just shows the stories they are telling. It is compelling with the reports and the actions made by the neighbours. The skirmishes from Kyrgyzstan has surely occurred and they just want to pin Tajikistan in this matter. Certainly more is to come, but this doesn’t bound well for the days to come. Peace.

Opinion: The CSTO seems to be over…

This week has shown that the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) is a pointless and worthless defence pact. The nation in the alliance are not safeguarded or defended. The main sponsor or biggest army, the Russian army seems ambivalent or too busy in the Ukrainian invasion to help out others. The exhaust of the invasion of Ukraine is now showing Kremlin to be powerless and lack military strength to support other member states of the CSTO.

The CSTO was supposed to defend and help out Armenia this week. However, they never shown up and didn’t mind that Azerbaijan did attack Armenia. They could just violate the territories of Armenia and the CSTO wouldn’t do anything. Even when the Armenian government did invoke Article 4 in the CSTO agreement. This just shows that the CSTO is becoming a redundant defence pact. They cannot even show up when a nation call upon them.

In the same regard, which is even more striking is the Tajikistan attacks on Kyrgyzstan. Tajikistan has attacked and went into contested areas. Where the Tajikistan armed forces has gone after villagers, and attacked civilians too. There been at least three ceasefires, but Tajikistan has violated them again and again this week. Therefore, the CSTO cannot even look into the acts made by the nations itself.

The CSTO seems like a lost project. Especially, when nations who is members can attack each other without any ramifications and when a member is violated without any reactions or seriousness of it. Armenia is a nation like that. A nation that is an ally of Russia and still nothing. Azerbaijan seems to be living large and be okayed by Putin. Since, there is nothing of substance in concerns to military assistance or even diplomatic measures. The Azerbaijani forces can just do what it does and there is no noise.

The same can be said about the Tajikistan army who are violating and having skirmishes on Kyrgyzstan territories. That has been done and the CSTO hasn’t invoked any meeting or dialogue of any sense. No, the CSTO is a bystander and wondering what it does Certainly, Putin would support the aggressor. Since, Putin prefers dictators and tyrannies over democracies.

That’s why Putin is supporting Azerbaijan and Tajikistan in these wars. Even when these are deliberately showing the West and everyone else that CSTO is a dead-fish in the water. There is nothing there and it won’t care about the nations itself. The Russian army is maybe to damaged and stretched in war in Ukraine. That it cannot help or be at service to the member states of CSTO.

That just shows the weakness of the whole CSTO. As it all evolved around the Russian Federation and the “superpower” it was meant to be. The only thing it does is validating the sense of tyrants standing together and allowed to attack other sovereigns. While the CSTO “values” or actual “defence pact” is worthless. It is not even worth the ink on the paper it was written on.

That’s what is striking here. These wars in Central Asia or the Caucasus is only showing what Putin is losing. His not a feared man and neither is the organizations he has built. If the CSTO was supposed to be a reaction or a defence pact in comparison to NATO. It has surely lost its value and is meaningless. That’s obvious when member states attack each other or a member state is attacked; and nothing is happening at all.

The CSTO is bound to fail and dissolve. The wars and skirmishes in Caucasus is showing that. If this is a plan. Certainly, Putin is losing influence and only weakening his own case. Because he have no Defence Pact and leverage with former USSR republics. They are more independent and don’t even have to be concerned with Kremlin or what Moscow might want. There is no connection or no bother really. They know Putin or Kremlin won’t mind either. He just looks away and is unbothered about the whole thing. Peace.

Opinion: Is the CSTO ready to be tested? [In Armenia or Tajikistan]

This week the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) is put under pressure. That is happening as the Russian army is under fire and getting hit hard on the front-lines in Ukraine. Russians as the “superpower” of the CSTO and with the losses in Ukraine. Certainly the warfare in Ukraine is weakening not only Russia, but the CSTO itself. That’s why this weeks actions against Member States of CSTO begs to question. Is the CSTO up to it? Or was it a dream turned into a nightmare in Kremlin?

The CSTO has been Moscow controlled and centralized from there to have some sort of military alliance and influence over former Soviet Republics. That’s why the CSTO consist of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan. Former Member States are Azerbaijan, Georgia and Uzbekistan. While Serbia is the only state, which is an observer to the CSTO.

Why I am saying CSTO is in trouble?

Well, the recent skirmishes between Azerbaijan and Armenia is the first push. Where the Azerbaijan has attacked Armenia in contested areas. Which has killed unknown amount of soldiers and used artillery on Armenia soil. The Azerbaijan army has even attacked a Russian FSB van in the border region. So, this here shows how volatile things are.

In addition to the acts and skirmishes between Azerbaijan and Armenia. While the Kyrgyzstan’s border force has attacked the Tajikistan as well. That’s two more conflicts involving the member states of the CSTO.

The Armenian state has already invoked or plans to invoke the article of the pact, which says the other member state has to help them out in a conflict. This means the fellow alliance members has to come to Armenia with military aide.

The question here now will be… has Russia or Belarus any real army capacity to offer? Will, the Russians depleted armies and stretched manpower be able to help Armenia in the hour of need?

There is already talk of the very independent Armenia not helping in the war in Ukraine. That the Russians might be reluctant to help them now. Since, the Russian would have needed support, both equipment and brigades in the war in Ukraine. However, there has only been help and support from Minsk.

Tajikistan has offered equipment and ammunition to the Russians for the war in Ukraine. So, that’s another ball-game.

We will see who Moscow will come to support. This is their alliance and counter-pact to the NATO. So, it has to prove it’s value now, as the members are now hurt and their sovereignty is hit by neighbours, which is what Moscow is doing to Kyiv. However, Moscow can be a hypocrite about that, as long as that fits the interests of Kremlin or His Excellency, Putin.

This will surely be a test for the Russian alliance, the CSTO. That is under fire right now. The border skirmishes and clashes are only showing how the Member States needs support. That Azerbaijan and Kyrgyzstan is attacking their neighbours. There is certainly a lot at play here.

We just have to see how the Kremlin moves now. They have to show their worth. In the moment and time, when their own forces and armies aren’t in a good place either. As the Ukrainian advances are hitting everywhere. The launched Special Operation in Ukraine is certainly backfiring and we can wonder if they have enough resources to boost their allies of the CSTO. Peace.

Power eats our big-men – The reason for why we need Presidential Term limits

There is for some strange reason a big discussion on the matter. Since some countries have them, some don’t. It is not like every constitution should be written the same with the same accords. In my homeland for instance there is no limit on how long the Prime Minister can sit in power, but that that depends if the people of my country get tired of the PM or the party affiliated with the PM. In bigger countries like the US there is a limit of two terms and only once a President who has broken that rule, was during Second World War and that was Franklin D. Roosevelt. Who had three terms and is the only one well known.

I am sure that Greece would have seemed happy with more often change of leadership. So if they hadn’t sunk that deep with loans and debt. Then it wouldn’t matter how long a regime is in power, if it essentially good, but if it’s not. Then it would be healthy with changes, so that the government recharge and fix the issues of old.  That is for check and balance, also to stop cogging the machine with nepotism and local graft from local councils and smaller government entities.

Now that Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Rwanda and Burundi is following Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Sudan, Zimbabwe and Uganda. They have big-men who have been sitting for ages and continue to break a certain switch of leaders. Burundi has just been through a farce of a election that brought their President Pierre Nkurunziza to his third term. Paul Kagame in Rwanda is thinking the same. Paul Biya the President of Cameroon has ruled since 1982 and is still sitting comfortable. Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo has been the president of Equatorial Guinea has been in charge since 1979. Omar Al-Bashir in President of Sudan has been the chief since 1993. Robert Mugabe is the President of Zimbabawe is the big-men of the country since 1987. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni the President of Uganda has been the head honcho since 1986.

Have in mind Ben Ali in Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Muammar Gadaffi in Libya. All of them had a hard fall during the Arab Spring. So during a short period of time these long times serving rulers was ousted by the public or militias in their countries. And those people mentioned that has been sitting since 1979 to now should have them in mind. They could be next.

Its reasons like this big-men why countries and constitutions, law and rule of laws should fix the longevity for the leaders of the countries. Even if some countries has benefited from leaders sitting long. There have been many who show other tales. That their starting and dealing with matters. Making sure that the countries are progressing, but the issue with all men, power can eat you and when it’s at your grasp you don’t want to leave it. The power corrupt and make sure your family eats and friends to. An leave the matters and supposed people your supposed to serve. That makes the basic issue of leaders who becomes the proof of states where there is “taxation without representation”. They goes from being heroes and big-men with legacy into Machiavellian and Orwellian monsters that swallows the governments, states and organizations. That evaporates and follows the pinpoints from the leaders, but not actual procedures or democratic values. Transparency does matters, checks and balance of information from the regimes dies down especially if it pokes at the government. Ethics of codes of conduct matters for the ruling party, but for the opposition is otherwise since they will be thrown into shackles and dungeons for standing up against the regimes.

There is a reason why media has to be strong against this leaders and big-men. Why term limits is a good thing? It’s because power corrupt and eat men. When you first get a spoon of the sweets they want the champagne and cocktails in the statehouses. While many of the big-men don’t strengthen the basic institutions and ministries of the countries they are in charge of. Instead they put more money into the security and armies, but not too strong because then they are worried that their general’s would make a coup d’etat, especially since some of them took power by the gun themselves. So they usually promise grand changes and grace periods where the institutions left soiling by former leaders. While they does certain things and necessary by them, if so only what needed and supported through aid or donor money they might do something more with this.

While these leaders also often toiled with multilateral organization that put strains on the economic freedoms and loans that funds the countries. The forced moves of liberate institutions instead of strengthen the powers of the nations. Free market thinking that has weakened the economies then making them stronger. So that they import more then they export. Produce simple raw material or farm products and import finished sophisticated products that give the budgets negatives for the countries and also a reason why the countries end up with loaning more money from the multilateral organization. Because of this the big-men make shady deals with international donor countries and producers that lead to more corruption. Their zealous and loyalist under-leaders get cuts and that happens as long as they follow the party lines. The sellers from abroad couldn’t care less because usually they get overpaid for the product and there wasn’t a fair process of the sale. So if there is a transparent overlook of the sale and ordering of the products to the country it wouldn’t have gotten a green light.

This thing grows and grows until it hit either the moon or the sun. The terms are what people looking at. Then you could have discussed and talked more directly about the countries that don’t have it. There isn’t like universal rules to how the constitutions should be and what countries should have in it. There is other ways around that countries has to follow the international agreements, resolutions, charters and convents they have to follow and make amendments to their existing laws. But that is whole other matter. The term limit question is more about the ethical place and trust in the big-men that is either elected or taken power on their own. And if you have issues with leaders taking power on their own, there is a slim chance of them actually caring about rule of law. Instead even if they say something they will turn against close to date of the final period of terms. Just like Yoweri Museveni did in Uganda, Pierre Nkurunziza did in Burundi, Paul Kagame in Rwanda and Joseph Kabila in Democratic Republic in Congo (DRC). They all did a turn-around in limited time right before the end of the official second term. So they could fix the laws and get an official third term.

We the people and the citizens care about our big-men and nations, about the institutions that are made to be around us and supposed to support us. As we want good leaders that actually lead and make changes, and structures to secure their people. Instead when their reign for so long that their stealing of wealth, lands and positions for loyalist can be vial and hurting the country, instead of reaching and making the place better. This could be less of a viable possibility if there were structures and codes into place that pushed leaders to leave behind a legacy and go off in grace instead of sitting into the man with a scythe coming and taking their souls to eternal rest.

If society fears that leaders will lead into nepotism, graft, corruption and other evils of long term stand still of leaders and philosophy. The journey that the political climate needs is sufficient tools to stand in rainy days and in glorious ones. Also proper training to lead the next generations into a secure place and leave a foundation that can bring something positive for the people and the nations as whole.

And it isn’t pure and true leadership if they aren’t coping with the ability of leaving the power. They know that and we the people know this. When that happens we see the issues translate into situations that nobody really wants to see. Like the failed Coup d’etat in Burundi in 2015 and the violence that has surged since. Then the failings of the ‘Walk to Work’ protest after the 2011 elections in Uganda. That only led to few fallen activists for the cause, but lead to now initial change. Also the reactions in the DRC after lawfully allowing it’s president a third term, this made people react and the #Telema uprising happened as a aftermath. This because the leaders don’t accept their reach and doesn’t step down in time, instead tries to sit until the chair is breaking. And in due time they will fall out of the chair, it’s just about how they will land and which legacy they want to leave behind.

I am Sure Honorable Mister Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe could have been a real gentleman and been in the league of freedom fighters who fought a just cause against oppression of a foreign power. He could have been seen as that if he stepped down in proper time and given security to the country. Instead he has let the economy run loose, people fleeing the country, rigging elections, letting special army and police trained by North Koreans go into villages before elections and spread fear amongst the citizens. If he had stopped before turning into a villain, he could have been seen as hero. Something that would been worthy actually of how he fought with the comrades against a far-away rulers to secure peaceful nationhood to Zimbabwe together with Joshua Nkomo. Today he will not only be remembered only for the Lancaster House Agreement! But for all of the other madness that has happen after.

The same will happen with these other leaders who might have done great things. And they have made a difference. They have made some kind of changes and progress in their countries. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni of Uganda has made progress in Uganda. Even by sitting very-very long in the chair of power. After uncertainties of the 80s he has with the Movement system made the land peaceful and that has made gains in the aspect of food productions. Even with help of neighbors and the U.S. sent LRA on the run to C.A.R. where he is trying to get them again. Though with lingering into power it’s now taking a toll on the budgets, inflation levels, value of the currency and the enormous level of spending to local councils since there is new district every 5 years or so.

I could go on about every leader I have mentioned and what has happen because of their steadiness of power. How that effects and what that has led to in the countries that their leading, still. Similarities are still that the countries don’t earn much on having the same leaders reigning for many terms. Because the countries getting sucked into the system and patrons of the big-man instead of build functioning institutions and ministries to really developing the countries.

And let this be clear, I don’t want the systems of the West unto these countries that is not what I am implying. The simple thing I am pounding on is how it will be healthy for a nation to have leaders and their big-men for too long. I doubt if it is healthy. The same with MPS and Ministers, they all will eat too much and become fat, instead of serving the people. The same happens with the grand big-man; therefore the change of leadership is an essential feature to society and government.

Therefore what I am initially implying is that no matter what kind of society the human soul and body will be eaten by the power. That’s simple reason is that this is a universal issue, the location and countries could be a mayor in my town for the matter or the leader of European Union, the secondly it could be a president in South America or Asia. This is a phenomenon that is everywhere if the big-man has the possibility. Let me take a few more honorable mentions:

• Alexander Lukashenko has been the president of Belarus since 1994.
• Saparmurat Atayevich Niyazov has been the president of Turkmenistan since 1985.
• Nursultan Nazarbayev has been the president of Kazahstan since 1989.
• Issas Afweki has been been the president of Eritrea since 1991.
• Emomali Rahmon has been the president of Tajikistan since 1992.
• Hun Sen has been the president of Cambodia since 1985.

So thanks for reading. Hope it was worth it and that this wasn’t as long as the tenure of certain big-men. Peace.