Monday, February 27, 2017

Is Baku Going to Transform Azerbaijan from a Shiia to a Sunni Muslim Country?



Paul Goble

            Staunton, February 27 -- “A curious discussion” has broken out in the Azerbaijani segment of the Internet concerning the possibility that Azerbaijan could shift from being a Shiia majority country to being a Sunni majority one and that Baku would like that to happen so Azerbaijan would line up with Turkey and Kazakhstan rather than with Iran.

            In reporting this, Ali Abbasov of the OnKavkaz portal argues that this is happening because of tensions between Sunni Muslim states and Shiia Iran and because of Baku’s desire to line up with the former rather than the latter (onkavkaz.com/news/1558-baku-vozvraschaet-azerbaidzhan-k-sunnizmu-chtoby-uiti-ot-irana-i-vstat-v-rjad-s-ankaroi-i-astan.html).

            While such a shift in religious affiliation would seem unlikely in most cases, there are at least two reasons why it may not be in Azerbaijan’s case.  On the one hand, the split between Shiia and Sunnis in that country is much closer than many imagine, with roughly 60 percent of the population being Shiia and 40 percent Sunni.

            And on the other, the legacy of communist-era anti-religious efforts means that many in Azerbaijan just as is the case in other post-Soviet states know far less about the specifics of their religious attachments than many assume.  Indeed, for most of the past two decades, people there have referred to mosques as being “Turkish” or “Iranian” rather than Sunni or Shiia.

            Consequently, it could very well be possible for Azerbaijan to “flip” in religious terms and for the government to organize such a change, although it would certainly be contested by Shiia inside Azerbaijan, by Shiia in the Azerbaijani majority in Iran, and by the Islamic Republic of Iran itself.

            In any case, the discussion itself merits the close attention Abbasov has paid it.

            Those taking part in the discussion, he says, have pointed out that President Ilham Aliyev very much wants his country to be part of the Muslim world that has good ties with the West rather than part of it with bad relations not only with the West in general but with Israel in particular.

            Moreover, given Baku’s close relations with Turkey, the nature of Islam in Azerbaijan has become more important for Aliyev following the victory of the more religious party of Erdogan in Turkey. Consequently, to the extent that Baku wants to underscore its ties with Ankara, it now must focus on religion as well as nationality.

            And, according to the discussants, Baku views the primary supporters of Shiia Islam in Azerbaijan to be the Talysh and Tats, two Irano-language speaking nations who do not share Aliyev’s Turkic centric view of Azerbaijani identity.  Indeed, much of the recent crackdown in Shiia Muslims in Azerbaijan has been directed against members of these two groups.

            But perhaps most intriguingly, at least one person taking part in these discussions recalled that Heydar Aliyev, the father of the current Azerbaijani president, wanted to send into retirement Allashakhyur Pasha-zade, the Shiite head of the Administration of Muslims of Azerbaijan, because Pasha-zade was Talysh by origin.

            Heydar Aliyev didn’t take that step because of Pasha-zade’s influence in the North Caucasus and elsewhere, but if his son is going to try to  shift Azerbaijan from the Shiite to the Sunni camp, it is entirely likely that he will seek to oust Pasha-zade and possibly even disband his administrative structure.

Kiribati Turns Down Russian Millionaire's Plans to Make It Site for New ‘Empire of the Romanovs’



Paul Goble

            Staunton, February 27 – Three weeks ago, Anton Bakov, a Russian millionaire who earlier served in the Russian Duma as a representative of the Monarchist Party, approached the government of the Republic of Kiribati about the possibility of his renting three of that nation’s 34 islands in order to restore “a Russian Empire of the Romanovs.”

            The government of that country, whose population numbers just over 100,000 on islands that are dispersed over more than 3.5 million square kilometers, has now rejected the idea, according to a Radio New Zealand broadcast picked up by Russia’s Lenta news agency today (lenta.ru/news/2017/02/27/kiribati/).

            A Tongolese official commented to the BBC that Kiribati very much needs foreign investment, but even given that need, it fortunately has its principles and thus has rejected Bakov’s request.  The Russian millionaire promised that if Kiribati agreed, he would build schools, ports, and even a university.

            And Bakov declared, the Russian news agency says, that he planned to build “ecologically clean” hotels and fish-processing plants as the economic foundation of the new Russian Empire of the tsars. Lenta did not say who would be the ruler of this entity, but perhaps it would be one of the members of the surviving Imperial Family.

‘Stop Feeding Moscow’ Will Be Slogan of Next Russian Revolution, St. Petersburg Regionalist Says



Paul Goble

            Staunton, February 27 – The second anniversary of Boris Nemtsov’s murder near the wall of the Kremlin has sparked many memories about the late Russian politician and his ideas, but none may be more insightful about the future of the Russian Federation and its current opposition than the one offered by St. Petersburg regionalist Pavel Mezerin.

            Immediately after Putin’s Crimean Anschluss, Mezerin writes on the AfterEmpire portal, Nemtsov pointed out that “the annexation of Crimea had laid a bomb under the unity of Russia.  As long as oil prices remain high, Russia will not fall apart. But now imagine that oil will sell for 50-60 dollars a barrel” (afterempire.info/2017/02/27/nemtsov/).

                “A serious budgetary crisis will stimulate separatists to seek independence in places like Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Sakha and regions of Siberia,” Nemtsov continued. “That is, this will happen in the financialaly strong regions which could live quite well without the federal center. For the separatists of Russia, the example of Crimea will be inspiring.”

            Mezerin says that “as a citizen of the Russian Federation,” he wants to state the following: “If my native St. Petersburg in 1991 had become independent from Russia, then today it would be a European Singapore, Hong Kong and Monaco rolled into one.”

            Today, he continues, “I am terribly tired of all the imperialism” of the Russian state and also of the “’all-federation opposition figures’ like Khodorkovsky, Navalny, Yavlinsky, Kasparov, Kasyanov and so on … I want to tell them: Guys, please understand that the issue of independence of the current Russian regions will arise as soon as ‘the vertical’ begins to shake.”

            “You and your ‘federal liberalism’ are flesh of the flesh of the current system. You have exactly the same focus on leaderism and messianism as United Russia does.  Dear friends! Just what Russia are you talking about?  It hasn’t existed for a hundred years!  What ‘single national idea’ … do you want to proposes to the residents of Kaliningrad and Chukotka?”

            “Remember history,” Mezerin says.  “Every time when serious changes begin in Russia, all regions immediately try to take as much sovereignty as they can.”  And in that situation, those who back “’the single and indivisible’ immediately becomes the chief retrogrades and marginals” in the political system.

            At the same time, he continues, “the most farsighted, knowing this very history, break all ties with Moscow, burn their bridges and run away.” When this process of decentralization and independence begins, Mezerin tells the liberal leaders, “you will not be able to stop it” and if you oppose it you won’t be needed by anyone.

            “I assure you,” he continues, “the slogan ‘Stop feeding Moscow!’ will become the most popular one in a matter of a few weeks or months.”   

            Many Russian liberals today like to trace their political ancestry to the dissidents of Soviet times. The latter truly did “a very great deal for the defeat of the communism system” and they deserve enormous respect for their courage and consistency.  But very few of them could imagine or even support a post-Soviet world of 15 different countries. 

            Now these dissidents of the past sit around in Moscow and Petersburg and express their bitterness about “’the Russia which we lost.’”

            “My friends, the Yavlinskys, the Khodorkovskys, the Navalnys, the Kasparovs and the Kasyanovs!  Don’t repeat the mistakes of the Soviet liberal intelligentsia.” Don’t remain imprisoned by your “liberal imperialism.”  There are not and will not be any “liberal empires” now or in the future.

            Moreover, please recognize that “any federation or confederation will be established ‘from below’ and on a voluntary basis. Let us go! But the main thing is let yourselves go as well. And begin to think about life ‘after Russia.’ Believe me, that life is going to exist.”