As you know, yesterday the first meeting of NATO-Georgia Commission was held in Tbilisi. I would like to say that this meeting was conducted despite our requests addressed to the leadership of the alliance to abstain or, at least, postpone this event to a later date, as we thought that in that political context and in this timeframe this event looks in no way as a routine one but rather as an evident demonstration of support for Saakashvili’s regime after what happened in the Caucasus. And we cannot be reassured by the statements adopted at this event. In fact there is nothing new in them, nothing specific on Georgia’s plan of integration into the alliance. However, we consider the event itself out of place. In current circumstances everybody should be taking steps to manifestly deter further escalation of tensions both in the region and between the East and the West on the whole. Unfortunately, this standpoint is not shared by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Moreover, in fact, Brussels has waged war against Brussels! Earlier this week NATO’s Secretary-General Mr. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer made quite a remarkable statement which was addressed to the European Union and the European Commission. Essentially NATO’s Secretary-General has questioned the arrangements concluded in Moscow with the participation of both the President of France and the leaders of the European Commission. This means that despite the fact that a significant number of European countries are members both to the EU and NATO, two bureaucracies – European and NATO’s – are entering the phase of fierce antagonism. Why is it happening? First of all, it is probably due to the identity crisis of NATO itself. NATO is trying to find its role in this crisis. Unfortunately, it cannot find a balanced, moderate and steady position. NATO is rather trying to flex its muscles, putting emphasis on force rather than intellect, as the Russian saying goes. I don’t think that would contribute to calming down the situation in the region. Therefore we are now appealing personally to NATO’s Secretary-General with a request to abstain from aggressive rhetoric. Today we have heard yet another statement from NATO’s Secretary-General. He said that ‘Russia’s tanks will not help it keep Georgia from joining NATO’. One could certainly make a joke about that, saying that Russia also has missiles and planes, not only tanks but this statement is quite a serious one, and I just want to say that we are not using our tanks to keep anybody from anything.

We used force purely with the purpose of saving people. And we had every right to do so, including the right now confirmed by the chairman of the UN General Assembly and not by a Russian representative. That is why I think that the discussion about what happened in the Caucasus will continue in the nearest future in New York.

I would also like to draw your attention, dear colleagues, to yesterday’s publication in the respected newspaper ‘International Herald Tribune’. On its pages we could see a drama breaking out, the one that now the US State Department is engulfed in. As far as we know, a serious inquiry has been launched into which high-ranking officials of the US Administration and State Department basically gave an order for the Georgian troops to invade South Ossetia and to bomb the city of Tskhinval at night. And it is quite symbolic that 40 days after the tragedy an American newspaper gives a new version of the events based on alleged recordings of telephone conversations among border control officers of South Ossetia. Supposedly, these recordings prove that Russian troops crossed the Roki tunnel already on the 6th-7th of August, i.e. a day before the Georgian attack on Tskhinval.

This kind of information is just ludicrous. The USA has unique space reconnaissance capabilities, and the American intelligence is perfectly aware of the fact that no vehicle was in or crossed the Roki tunnel on the 6th,7th, or morning of 8th of August. Referring to the telephone conversations of some odd people speaking the Ossetian language without producing the recordings makes no sense to us. That only means that the State Department is panicking. And if the Americans indeed tried to use the non-existent telephone conversations (the existence of which they cannot even prove) so as to encourage the Georgian leadership to undertake the attack, this of course looks like an appalling provocation. And so we have even more reasons to demand that the Americans should stop deluding us all and making up this sort of publications. We insist on their producing space intelligence data so that everything is unambiguously verified. Such statements as, say, it’s not that important “who attacked who” are extremely cynical. If it is not important to our Western colleagues who attacked who on the 8th of August, then it would be logical to say to our Western colleagues that it is not important who attacked who on the 11th of September 2001. But for some reason it is important to the Americans who attacked them on September 11. So why should it be less important for us who attacked who?

Such remarks, I want to underscore this, are extremely cynical and hypocritical. Publishing such discreditable information on the pages of a respected newspaper signals that the US Administration is in dire fear of the public getting at the facts that they undoubtedly possess and is trying to somehow cover up their perfectly provocative actions on the eve of Saakashvili’s intrusion in South Ossetia. I would like to add that in no way can we be satisfied with the way the West keeps talking about disproportionate use of force by Russia or Russia’s intrusion into the territory of another state.

As promised, I will cite some statistics on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Our American colleagues should be more impartial to themselves and their own behaviour in the areas where their armed forces are stationed. The latest information from Kabul shows the following: Taliban militants fired several missiles on Kabul and elements of Afghan army in Gunary a couple of days ago. They also attacked a colony of NATO forces in Khowst, burned 18 NATO container vehicles carrying armaments in the province of Paktia, struck attack on a police station in the province of Vardak. Three petrol tankers in this province were also blown up in a mine. Two suicide-bombers blew up a police office in the city of Kandahar, local police discovered another 18 explosive devices in this city. A terrorist suicide-bomber set off a powerful explosive device in Herat near the office of secret service. In the centre of this province a suicide-bomber attacked a convoy escorted by Italian military. In the city of Zaranj in the province of Nimruz a terrorist blew himself up in the building of the local prosecutor’s office. The chief of the Secretariat of the Ministry for Public Work and head of the Court of the Special Division of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for fight against narcotics were killed in Kabul. Chief of the Office for fight against narcotics was heavily wounded in the city of Kandahar. Just in the past few days the Taliban militants took a Nepal national and a few Afghans hostage in the province of Vardak, 4 roadmen in Khowst, a doctor in Kunar, medical cargo was ransacked there too. The mayor of the city of Zurmat was taken hostage and subsequently executed. US Air Force struck air blows on several buildings. Two civilians were killed and ten wounded in Paktika. There are casualties among civilian population. In Farah eight militants were killed as well as seven civilians. With NATO aviation support around 100 Taliban troops were killed with three deaths among civilians as a result of a clash with the extremists in the district of Gormach province of Badhgis. In the course of the battle operation in Kandahar 3 Canadian soldiers were killed and 5 wounded. In Uruzgan 5 Australian and 1 Dutch soldiers were wounded.

There is a new turn in the inquiry into the bombardment of civilian population in the province of Herat. Pressured by the public opinion and mass media the American military command was forced to acknowledge the fact of killing civilians (90 civilians were killed there, 60 of which children). Commander in chief of NATO forces in Afghanistan general McKiernan supported the revision of American understated data on the number of casualties in this tragedy. I would like to quote the Human Rights Watch Report on human rights in Afghanistan. The report indicates that in comparison with 2006 casualties among civilian population last year as a result of US air strikes grew three-fold. 321 civilians were killed in Afghanistan last year as a result of NATO military action. From 2006 to August this year battle clashes resulted in more than three thousand civilians killed, 556 people among them as a result of air strikes and 530 as a result of land operations led by foreign troops. Moreover, the latest events that broke out on September 3rd signal direct intrusion of American forces in the territory of Pakistan.

Until recently American air operations were limited to air strikes, but now direct military operations are enabled on the territory of Pakistan. In particular, on September 3rd NATO forces conducted a land operation in the Federal Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan. Special forces on two helicopters attacked a number of residential houses in one of the villages with annihilation fire. As a result of radial bombardment seven civilians were killed. However, according to the information of the Pakistani government, it resulted in twenty deaths, including three women and three children. What happened in Pakistan is unprecedented. It is a brazen violation of territorial integrity and sovereignty of Pakistan.

Listen, I am reading you this data which we possess and how do we react to that? That means the US Administration reprimands us for saving civilian population from barbarian bombings in Tskhinval when we were compelled to move into the territory of Georgia and start a military operation to neutralize armed forces in Georgia, while they intervene in other states, not to mention Iraq, Yugoslavia or Afghanistan… Now here is an intervention in Pakistan! And this is happening when the Pakistani political leadership has just changed and needs help in controlling the situation. The US demonstrates, that the Pakistani government means nothing, and that it does not even have the right to sovereignty over its own territory. And after what the United States does in Afghanistan and Pakistan, including deaths of civilians, intervening into a foreign territory, carpet bombing of residential areas with no confirmed information of whether any militants or extremists are stationed there, and after all this our American colleagues reproach on us…

What I want to say is that we either start talking to each other as gentlemen and use common standards, respecting international law, or we watch closely the actions of each other. I am deeply disappointed that NATO’s position still remains obdurate, deathly-still, and that NATO is increasingly slipping into the standpoint when anyone who can create a problem for my country is a natural ally to NATO. This violates fundamental partnership principles, which we should follow in our relations. Therefore, I would like to say again: we call personally on NATO’s Secretary General to abstain from double-standard and aggressive rhetoric. And we address our request to NATO to be guided in its statements and actions by the vital principle – that of enhancing security. And there is no security without partnership. The language of threats and double standards is not the best way to attain this kind of security.

I understand that both in politics and in journalism there are certain dogmas, in particular there are dogmas attributed to certain states. Our colleagues at NATO do not call Georgia other than a “young democracy”. If there are any questions as to what sort of democracy this is, I am ready to give you the necessary information referring to renowned Western sources. In particular, I would like to cite the information of the democratic elections watchdog, ODIHR. This report is the outcome of parliamentary elections in Georgia this May. It abounds in evidence of undemocratic rule of Mr. Saakashvili. I am just going to quote some extracts from this report so that it is clear how Mr. Saakashvili survives in his country as a “democratically elected leader” as he is referred to.

Despite the commitments Georgia has taken upon itself in the OSCE, the May elections saw a merging of the United National Movement (that is the ruling party in Georgia) and the governmental structures of the country. The United National Movement disposed of privileged access to the administrative resources and essential majority in the Central election commission, as well as district and divisional commissions. The election campaign was conducted in the context of a serious internal political polarization. The authorities hindered the opposition parties from holding their events and employed wide-scale intimidation of activists. One of high-ranking officials ended in threatening his employees with resignation if they did not ensure Saakashvili’s party the appropriate level of support during the elections. The monitoring of Georgian mass media by the ODIHR exposed serious disproportion both in terms of the air time allotted to the parties and the tone of the coverage. In the electoral rolls there were numerous facts of registered electors’ doubles, those dead or with non-existent home addresses. And in certain regions the number of voters if compared with January presidential elections grew of 5-6 %, and as for the additional lists by another 10 %. On the election day May 21st the monitors from the opposition parties were widely faced with pressure, intimidation and forced expulsion from the polling stations. The voting was conducted in a tense atmosphere. There were registered cases of throw-ins of polling bulletins in favour of the ruling party. The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights has a special reproach regarding the counting of votes. A significant number of flaws, including systematic disregard for the procedures and numerous cases of protocol forgery was mentioned in the report. Way too often the commissions worked behind closed doors, misinformed the monitors, did not post up the protocols with the results of the voting for the public as is stipulated by the laws of this country. The examination of complaints in the Central election commission and in courts was biased and given a flat refusal under far-fetched pretexts, other complaints were given superfluous examination. Courts, under pressure coming from the authorities, were refusing to hear the testimonial evidence or examine it and analyze facts of violation, giving distorted interpretation of law ignoring its spirit, and not providing the necessary and clear legal justification for their decisions.

In a nutshell, this ODIHR report on Georgia confirms that we are faced with total lawlessness in Georgia. Therefore, I have a big request after we give you a link to this report: please, either address claims directly to the authors of this report, which is unlikely to happen as these people are quite competent in these issues, or stop calling Saakashvili’s regime a “young democracy” and treating Mr. Saakashvili as a democratically elected president. He is not a democratically elected president. And it is quite likely that it is this political regime that is established in Georgia allows Saakashvili to solely take appalling decisions to physically exterminate hundreds of people in the territory of the country, which he considered his land until now.

Why did I cite these data? For the simple reason that the documents issued in Tbilisi yesterday (here they are - the joint statement and the final communiqué of NATO-Georgia Commission) abound in democratic demagogy – the demagogy of support for democratic reform in Georgia. My colleagues at NATO are perfectly aware that there is no democracy there. Then why use these dogmas, these stereotypes that the Russian bear assaulted the small Georgian democracy? And the fact that the small Georgian democracy behaved like a tyrant vis-à-vis an even smaller democracy of South Ossetia needs no comment whatsoever.

Dear colleagues, the last thing I want to touch upon is that we can in no way be satisfied with the situation when facts are juggled with and the agreements signed in Moscow including the latest agreements signed by Presidents of Russia and France in Moscow in the presence of the European Union leaders are misinterpreted. In particular, we cannot agree with NATO’s arbitrary interpretation of these agreements allowing the observers that are due to arrive in Georgia on October 1st to operate in the territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The agreements have no provisions in this regard. Moreover, I can quote a provision from the signed document: paragraph 3, point 2 of the Moscow agreement reads: “It is necessary to move forward the preparations for the deployment of additional monitors in the zones adjacent to South Ossetia and Abkhazia, including the minimum of 200 monitors from the European Union”. It states – in the zones adjacent to South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In my opinion, it is evident in any language. If NATO hired new linguists, specialists on interpreting of what is written in black and white then perhaps the North Atlantic alliance should be transformed from a military-political organization into a Linguistics Institute. I have no objection to that. My first education is philological as well, then I will indeed be defending PhD theses with Mr. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer on the topic of how one can distort something that is evident as it is by using metaphors, metonymies and other word forms.