President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin
The Government of Georgia on the 12th of August 2008 filed a complaint at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, against the Russian Federation for alleged acts of ethnic cleansing, conducted on Georgian sovereign territory (South Ossetia, Abkhazia and adjacent areas within Georgian territory) between 1993 and 2008. The case comes against the backdrop of the humiliating defeat Georgia suffered in its attempt to seize the former territory of South Ossetia by force.
As far back as 1989 South Ossetia was already at odds with its Georgian neighbour over its demands for increased autonomy, and by 1991 had made clear its intention to secede. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the people of South Ossetia in 1992 and again in 2006, voted overwhelmingly in favour of independence. The 1992 vote provoked a level of violence between Ossetians and Georgians in the territory that required Russian intervention in support of an armistice, and led to the creation of a tripartite peacekeeping force which had managed a fractious peace until the night of 7.8.08.
The linguistically and historically distinct South Ossetia and Abkhazia, have been autonomous Russian protectorates or regions since 1810. Over the last sixteen years, South Ossetia has had its own constitution, parliament and president. The Russian rouble has been the preferred currency, and the possession of Russian passports seen as a guarantee of their freedom. Russia was content to let this stalemate with Georgia persist but the blundering arrogance of American foreign policy has contrived to force its hand.
A policy of encirclement has seen the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) needlessly expand its membership up to the borders of the Russian Federation. NATO’s expansion, first proposed under the Clinton administration has reawakened Russian fears about encirclement by antagonistic forces. It seemed that America was pursuing a strategy of ‘containment’ to ensure that Russia would effectively be neutralised as a ‘threat’ to its ambitions in its new position as the world’s only super power.
Further aggravation came in the form of the ‘missile shield’ to be situated in Poland and American sponsorship of the Kosovo declaration of independence both of which Russia opposed vociferously. Spain’s Prime Minister Zapatero was a solitary voice in stating that acceptance of the Kosovo declaration was illegal under international law. Many Russians already felt that the west had a little too gleefully celebrated the demise of the USSR, and was deliberately slow and ineffective in helping Russia transform itself. It is no surprise that Putin remains the most popular politician, credited as he is with restoring order, strength and pride, to a nation that was once floundering. American policy has managed to ensure that a now capitalist and increasingly prosperous Russia remains acutely suspicious of its intentions around the globe.
It is difficult to understand the motivation of the Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili. It may be that his many internal political difficulties required the diversion a war provides. If his many lunches with the lame-duck president of the United States had persuaded him that Georgia was of such vital and strategic importance that U.S. personnel would actively intervene, with the ultimate threat whispered down the hotline to Moscow, he was to be proved tragically wrong. On the night of 7.8.08, Georgian troops in a surprising move, stormed the territory of South Ossetia, seized its capital Tskhinvali and unleashed a barrage of shells and rockets on its residents. Human Rights Watch, claims there is much evidence of inappropriate and indiscriminate use of force against the civilian population, evidence suggestive of war crimes. Their estimate of casualties is between 3-400. With the parliament building destroyed, the city centre in flames, and the Russian peacekeepers in disarray the Georgian forces had reason to think success was at hand.
The impassioned appeals of the South Ossetians dominated the news cycle, showing as they did, a people overwhelmed and put to flight by a neighbours aggression. The people of North Ossetia and Abkhazia were outraged and vowed to send irregulars to aid the resistance. Across Russia there was a determination that this attack by a former constituent part of the empire demanded a swift and unequivocal response. Prime Minister Putin cut short his attendance at the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics to take charge of the situation and within five days of initiating the counter-offensive, South Ossetia was free and Russia was in control of vast swathes of Georgia. With the crippling of Georgia’s military infrastructure, its ability to threaten and intimidate its neighbours has been significantly curtailed.
Low-level criticism from nameless American officials describe the offensive as “ill-prepared and ill-conceived”, while Britain’s Foreign Minister David Miliband has admitted that Georgia was “reckless”. The strongest criticism has been reserved for Russia whose response has been characterised as “excessive” and an “overreaction”. The columnist William Pfaff puts it well when he says, “this response evades acknowledgement that the real damage President Mikhail Saakashvili of Georgia has done has been to the United States and NATO, and to Georgia itself, which for the foreseeable future will be a nation of limited sovereignty, and an awkward embarrassment to its Western allies”.
Georgia is a troubled nation stumbling seemingly perpetually in crises. Mikhail Saakashvili presides over an increasingly repressive state where dissenting voices are not tolerated and critics now find themselves followed, bugged, threatened, and often assaulted. The oxygen is slowly being sucked out of Georgia’s pretence at democracy. A base nationalism now taints all discourse as Saakashvili uses every means to preserve himself in power and suppress the opposition. His preposterous claim is that a scheming Russia beguiled Georgia into attacking South Ossetia.
It is hard to imagine how the Abkhazians and South Ossetians could once more live within the borders of Georgian state. Their independence has been hard won, and the blood shed over the last two decades will not easily be forgotten or forgiven. The new republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are not immediately concerned with western recognition of their independence. The Russian Federation is a more relevant guarantor of their status and security. Georgia’s allegation of ethnic cleansing has no foundation and only serves to heighten tensions in the region.
It would serve the best interests of the U.S. and international security if Georgia were to withdraw the case against Russia and act to re-establish good relations with its neighbours. The International Criminal Court should not become the stage for post-war theatrics if it is to preserve its reputation. In as much the U.S. considers the independence of Kosovo irreversible, Russia will prove similarly inflexible where Abkhazia and South Ossetia are concerned. In the middle of the current global financial crisis, and with the burden of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Western alliance has little inclination or strength to expend in support of Georgia’s hubris.
