Ossetians Given a Voice, Humanitarian aid to Georgia
By Sean at 17 August, 2008, 10:19 am
The Western media is finally discovering the Ossetians. The Washington Post details the destruction of Tskhinvali. The Post’s Peter Finn writes,
The scale of the destruction is undeniable; some streets summon iconic images of Stalingrad during World War II or Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, which was leveled in two wars between Russian and Chechen separatists.
The Financial Times also gives voice to the anger Ossetian refugees feel toward Saakashvili. My favorite quote in the article comes from an Ossetian woman’s take on the assault on Tskhinvali. “They must have been Nato troops,” she told the Times. “The Georgians don’t know how to shoot.”
The quote by this woman raises another interesting aspect to the coverage of the war. The vast majority of quotes from “average people” are from women. It all makes me wonder if the prevalence of women’s voices is because they are the majority of refugees (all the men have gone to fight), are more apt to talk to reporters, or women have more truth value as victims. Perhaps it’s a strange combination of all three.
The Independent’s Shaun Walker looks at how the ethnic tensions in the Caucuses are the result of Stalin’s footprint in the region. “Borders between the different entities of the union were changed at will, often with the express intention of fomenting ethnic unrest,” he writes. Actually, he’s wrong. Borders weren’t changed at will nor were they drawn to foment ethnic unrest. The “divide and rule” thesis doesn’t apply anymore in light of archival evidence. Soviet border drawing was a complex process that implemented all the knowledges of modernity: census taking, ethnographic surveys, map making, as well as central and local administrative and political concerns. As Francine Hirsch writes in regard to border drawing in Central Asia in her masterful Empire of Nations: Ethnographic Knowledge and the Making of the Soviet Union,
The archival record suggests that the Soviet approach to Central Asia was consistent with its approach to the Belorussian and Ukrainian republics. In all of these cases, Soviet administrators and experts evaluated ethnographic, economic, and administrative criteria, while giving priority to larger all-union concerns. The archival record further suggests that the classic argument about the delimitation, which asserts that Soviet leaders set out to subordinate Central Asia by drawing borders in a way that would intentionally sow discord, misses the mark.
Adrienne Edgar finds a similar process in the formation of Turkmenistan in her Tribal Nation: The Making of Soviet Turkmenistan. Given the consistency in the making of Soviet national republics, one can assume that the process in Transcaucasia was no different. I suggest that Walker familiarize himself with this literature before making reductive assertions about the relationship between Soviet border making and ethnic identities and conflict. More often than not these conflicts tend to be more localized and contingent rather than an outgrowth of some grand scheme from the center.
Ossetian and Abkhazian self-determination is finally creeping into the agenda. The Russians have been emphasizing the breakaway regions right to decide their own fate for years (though they at the same time denied the Chechens theirs). Now the Organization for Security and Cooperation Europe has come on board to the idea. Marc Perrin de Brichambaut, the OSCE’s secretary general, told reporters that “The fate of South Ossetia must be decided by the people of South Ossetia. They live in very difficult conditions and the context of what has happened is quite complex.”
The only problem is that the Ossetians already have. Twice. The first was in 1992 where the vote was 99% in favor of independence. The second was in November 2006. Again 99% of voters said “yes!” to the question: “Should South Ossetia preserve its present status of a de facto independent state?” Both votes, however, were dismissed as fixed by Russian interlopers and subsequently ignored. Maybe they should have the referendum again. What will be said is the outcome is the same?
Father Vissarion, the head of the Orthodox Church in Abkhazia succinctly defined Abkhazian sepratism to Reuters, “What does separatism mean anyway? It means you want to separate. And who do we want to separate from? From murderers.” “If a man beats his wife,” he continued, “a court will allow her to leave him. People say we are Abkhazian separatists, but this means what? Are we supposed to be Georgians? We have nothing in common with them.”
Russian President Medvedev announced that the Russian military will pull out its forces from Georgia beginning Monday, though there is no indication that they will leave South Ossetia. This will happen only after “the situation in the region stabilizes,” a Russian Defensive Ministry spokesman told Interfax.
Georgia has its own refugee problems. There is an estimated 100,000 displaced people from both Ossetia and Georgia. A lot has been said of the Ossetians. As for the Georgians, it’s clear that the Saakashvili’s government wasn’t even prepared. “This is a very hard situation for which we were absolutely unprepared,” said Besik Tserediani, a deputy in the Georgia’s Ministry of Refugees and Accommodation. “There’s a huge amount of people coming in, and it’s impossible to deal with it.”
The sentiment among Georgians is that the Americans and Europeans were supposed to help them. Now help, in the form of humanitarian aid, is coming after the fact. The Moscow Times reports that humanitarian aid is pouring into Georgia. The International Committee of the Red Cross is demanding safe access to South Ossetian but the Russians have provided no guarantees. As a result “South Ossetia is generally off limits for humanitarian workers at this stage,” says European Union spokesman John Clancy.
Here is Al-Jazeera’s take on aid to Ossetia:
The Americans have pledged aid to Georgia and Georgia only. Two military aircraft landed in Tbilisi on Wednesday bringing $1.28 million in emergency supplies. These cargo lifts, of course, concern the Russians.
The Russians are engaging in their own partisan humanitarian work. One of Medvedev’s first acts was to order humanitarian aid to South Ossetia. There is no doubt that this has helped getting doctors, nurses and other medical aid there.
With the Americans aiding their proxies in Tbilisi and the Russians aiding theirs in Ossetia, it sadly looks like the new front in the war will take place on the humanitarian front.
Popularity: 11% [?]
Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Just wanted to bring a fun fact unrelated to this post. Just heard an interview with Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, who brought up the following point. When Sarkozy was negotiating with Saakashvili with regards to the signing of the six-point peace treaty, Saakashvili was flanked by three US State Dept advisors. The French found this surprising. Many should not.
BTW, my personal knowledge of Lavrov does not suggest he fabricates info.
Not sure about Lavrov not fabricating. The claim of genocide sounds very suspicious coming from either side. Besides numbers, there was just not enough time to amount to that high a charge.
Sean,
I think you might want to add “million” after “$1.28.” Otherwise, it might look as though U.S. taxpayer money is being wasted quite egregiously!
Cyrill, shelling a city of Ossetian population from GRAD rocket launchers, hitting mostly civilian targets kind of does it for proof of genocide to me< especially given the general background of the conflict. Georgian spetznaz throwing grenades into cellars full of Ossetian refugees also fits in with the above.
But, the term of genocide can be fuzzy and manipulated.
Sean, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if the grisly, indestructible south ossetian women went searching for the news teams (why is it women are heavily overrepresented in PR? Duh!). Men in such situations (I suspect) are quieter and thinking about killing something. The formidable ladies certainly do like to let off.
I suppose the only upside is that if the women instead of the men were in combat, there really wouldn’t be much left…
Cyrill,
The definition of genocide has been has become much more elastic since 1989. I highly recommend that you read the ICTY judges summing up of the Srebrenica trial (and the dissenting judge, as well as the opinion of a former Nuremberg judge somewhere out there on the net). It makes interesting reading. Despite no women or children were killed, despite most of the men and boys’ (as the West’s glorious advocates of free speech and truth would have us believe) are actually listed as solders in the ArBih and were not unarmed, the court argued that it was not about ‘numbers’ (still no magic 8,000 dug up! Nowhere near in fact), but that by removing the remaining population of Bosnian moslems from this enclave, it fulfilled the ‘in part’ of the definition of genocide.
Basically, the bar for genocide is set very high for a judicial level of proof. The judges in the Hague picked the bits that they could use and changed the weighting, so they could ignore the other more inconvenient facts, not to mention that this was happening during a civil war and the usual cycle of revenge was on going.
Of course the West conveniently ‘discovered the ‘genocide’ shortly before the Croats launched Operation ‘Lightning’ & ‘Storm’, trained by US military advisors (MPRI), armed by everyone and ethinically cleansed over 200,000 croatian serbs out of their homes.
What coincidental timing! Not!
The journos report it as ‘genocide at Srebrenica’ where in fact the court wrote of act/s of genocide. Not one big one, but a ‘fun sized’ carry around in your pocket kind of genocide so in effect you can have several acts of genocide but not necessarily have a biggie. That’s how you get around embarrassing comparisons with the odd 500,000 tutsi civilians slaughtered that no one in the West did to lift a hand.
In PR in a war situation, if you don’t claim you are a victim of genocide these days, then you are a nobody. Very sad indeed.
Back on track, it can be claimed that bombing Tishkinvali(sp? whatever) showed intent to force the civil population to flee (at least ethnic cleansing) by the use of indiscriminate terror and that their eviction is permanent. For sake of repeating myself (i.e. where I started), no more ossetians in south ossetia fulfills the ‘destruction of a group in whole, or in part bit, and could be called an ‘act of genocide’. It’s a pick and mix approach based on the ICTY judgment.
…and were not unarmed…
Something which the forensic report fails to mention, despite listing in detail the items found on the bodies.
(still no magic 8,000 dug up! Nowhere near in fact)
The total number of victims accounted for by the ICTY activities at Screbrenica stands at 4,454. That the media initially touted a figure of 8,000 is irrelevant to whether genocide occurred.
Aleks “Of course the West conveniently ‘discovered the ‘genocide’ shortly before the Croats launched Operation ‘Lightning’ & ‘Storm’, trained by US military advisors (MPRI), armed by everyone and ethnically cleansed over 200,000 Croatian Serbs out of their homes.”
An operation that seems curiously similar to the attack on Tskinvali but without the overwhelming NATO air cover but with the protection of the mountain barrier.
Sean,
My well earned respect for taking the one right stance in this conflict: South-Ossetia should be heard.
I am not saying this for humanitarian reasons or pity only. The political reasons are so obvious it is deeply concerning that most of our elected leaders and paid experts don’t get it. As long as Russia is the only country that listens to the Ossetes and Abkhazians,takes their concerns seriously, these peoples (nations?) will develop no stimuli for a constructive approach to the rest of the world, with the consequence that the faultlines will only become deeper.
“That the media initially touted a figure of 8,000 is irrelevant to whether genocide occurred.”
The great majority of the media still touts 8,000 (‘men & boys’)or there abouts. It is still considered a significant factor which is why one always hears ‘it is not about numbers’ when the question comes up, though it does count when it is pointed out that most of these people were soldiers and not civilians (link below). The fact that no women were killed and that they are fundamental to the continuation of such a group was ignored in this case.
The ICTY ruling effectively lowered the bar for what can be called genocide.
Applying this definition to many past conflicts means that a lot more genocides have occurred than have traditionally been ‘massacres’.
See the NIOD site below about the ArBiH breakout to Tuzla (and other stuff)
Cyril,
The NIOD site:
http://193.173.80.81/srebrenica/
v. interesting though with significant holes in. Izetbegovic recalled to Sarajevo the top officers (such as Nasir Oric) beforehand that effectively left the ArBiH headless).
Numbers Do Not Make Genocide – Dani December 23, 2005
http://www.ex-yupress.com/dani/dani123.html
“But what about the thousands who were listed as soldiers, but were in fact civilians?”
You know, I think we are making progress. A “humanitarian gap”, and corresponding “humanitarian race”, beats a missile gap/race any day.
There can be a difference between war crimes and genocide. Genocide is the systematic eradication of an ethnic group. This take time and planning, both of which were lacking in the attack on Tskhinvali. On the other hand, if MLRS’ were used on civilian and civilian only targets on purpose, that could possibly rate as a war crime.
Still not sure that Georgians have used GRAD’s though. As far as I know, no independent third party has verified their use. After watching Russia Today lately, I wouldn’t trust anything coming out of the Russian media right now.
Well, as pissed off as I was about the atrocious coverage in the US, including plenty of fear mongering (about Russia taking over all of Georgia, etc, etc), I have to admit that Russia Today is even worse. And not only RI, actually. Lies, exaggerations, etc, etc.
Remember that Tsinkali was not so much badly damaged, but “totally destroyed”. Not that some innocent Ossetians died, but that it was a “genocide” that killed over “1,500 non-combatant Ossetians.” And how about all those African-American dead bodies? And about all those foreign mercenaries they either killed or captured?
The worst is that an intelligent man like Churkin ends up reading the 1,500 dead figure in the UN itself. A figure, I guess, that was a number pulled out of the hat by some Ossetian. At least Colin Powell, when he gave that bogus testimony at the UN, can claim that as he tried hard to verify the accuracy of the info he was presenting. Not so with the 1,500 to 2,000 figure, which was obviously a bogus from the start. Moreover, Russia did not need those exaggerations to justify its military actions.
“And about all those foreign mercenaries they either killed or captured?”
I would be surprised if there weren’t any.
(With apologies for my badly written comments…)
Chris, “hot spots” always attract mercenary types who want to do some fighting. Whether Russians fighting on behalf of Serbians, Balts fighting alongside the Chechens, Arab fighters helping the Kosovo Albanians. However, their number and significance is usually grossly exaggerated by the opposite side.
It was claimed that there MANY mercenaries fighting alongside the Georgians and that among the Georgian dead they also found the bodies (notice the plural) of African-Americans. Well, where are those African-American bodies? The fact that there is no more talk about them, indicates to me that those stories are a lie. If it’s true, it should be easy to prove.
“It was claimed that there MANY mercenaries fighting alongside the Georgians and that among the Georgian dead they also found the bodies (notice the plural) of African-Americans. Well, where are those African-American bodies? The fact that there is no more talk about them, indicates to me that those stories are a lie. If it’s true, it should be easy to prove.”
The speculative explanation of this that I have heard is that somebody didn’t understand the Russian idiomatic use of “chernyi.” Could be true; I don’t know.
With the Americans aiding their proxies in Tbilisi and the Russians aiding theirs in Ossetia, it sadly looks like the new front in the war will take place on the humanitarian front.
Why ’sadly’? Wouldn’t it be better if the conflict was always restricted to a humanitarian contest?
The great majority of the media still touts 8,000 (’men & boys’)or there abouts.
Actually, having done a bit more digging around (’scuse the pun)on the subject, I would have to lean towards the 8,000 number. This report identifies 8,106 individuals by name, although the methodology behind the list is unknown. The report I earlier linked to positively identified 4,454 which can be taken as an absolute minimum, and the real number is almost certainly higher, probably a lot higher. Citing a figure of 8,000 killed is not too far out all things considered, and far less of an error than claiming as some do (not you personally) that nothing really untoward happened at Srebrenica.
I would be surprised if there weren’t any.
I’d be amazed if there were many on the Georgian side. Governments tend not to keep mercenaries stationed at home.
Any separatist movement tends to attract soldiers of fortune, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the South Ossetians had a few handy.
re the so-called dead African-Americans…
“The speculative explanation of this that I have heard is that somebody didn’t understand the Russian idiomatic use of “chernyi.” Could be true; I don’t know.”
Perhaps that’s the reason. I’m too lazy to check right now, but I believe that it was the Russian Interfax that first reported this and supposedly they were quoting somebody in a position of authority.
Okay, I made a quick search. There may be other sources, but this what I found:
///
S. Ossetian President Eduard Kokoity stated that Georgia used mercenaries from several countries during its aggression against his nation.
“There were many mercenaries from Ukraine and the Baltic states. We have found dead bodies of African Americans too,” Interfax quoted Kokoity as saying.
///
http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/15-08-2008/106111-georgia_ossetia-0
Not a very creditable publication and not a very creditable source, I admit. I didn’t know about him before all this started, but after a few days I get the impression that Kokoity is either a sleazeball, a loose canon, or both. In other words, he’s probably harming the South Ossetian cause.
“Governments tend not to keep mercenaries stationed at home.”
Georgia’s government is not functioning very well, however. I would imagine they had volunteers just as the Russians do.
There is a Russian report that the Russian troops found Ukrainian diplomatic car number plates in a Georgian army depot. They say that a noticeable number of Ukrainian diplomatic vehicles were in S Ossettia on the afternoon of the attack by Georgia. They have made no comment and asked the Ukrainian government to explain.
If the Ukrainians are neck deep in a surprise attack on the Russian peace keepers (the real ones) then that might explain President Youshenko’s current hysterical behaviour and the deathly silence from Prime Minister Timoshenko.
Saakashvili was asked at a telephone press conference early in the fighting why he did not block the Roki tunnel and he said that they intended too but were too late. This sits oddly with his current claims that he was on holiday and knew nothing about anything. It may be that he did not think it would sound very good if he said that they left it open to do a bit of ethnic cleansing and chase the Ossetians through it. Better perhaps to admit to being inept than a war criminal.
I wonder if the Russians are keeping anything up their sleeves. They seem very sure of themselves. I dont suppose it will be anything as entertaining as the U2 incident in 1960, where the US thought their pilot was dead and made up a whole rigmarole of lies complete with repainted aircraft only to be confounded by the man himself, who had negligently failed to be blown to pieces or swallow his poison pill.
This is really funny:
http://oleg-panfilov.livejournal.com/580008.html
Sean, when you say,
“Soviet border drawing was a complex process that implemented all the knowledges of modernity: census taking, ethnographic surveys, map making, as well as central and local administrative and political concerns.“,
you are making the most common mistake by confusing Soviets’ intentions with actual results.
It is true that Soviets had great plans for all their endeavors anf put a great deal of effort in the preparations. They set up huge special agencies and dedicated institutions of learning to tackle all the problems in the world. And all their produced was s–t (with a possible sole exception of the Space program). For example, they had the greatest aviation engineering schools, but they couldn’t produce a decent commercial airplane. They had programs to develop the greatest computers, TVs and refrigerators in the world; we know what the outcome was.
Likewise with the resolution of ethnic problems. Great deal of effort went into preparations (beginning with Lenin directing Stalin to study the issue, years before 1917). But the end product was s–t, as usual.
Likewise with the resolution of ethnic problems. Great deal of effort went into preparations (beginning with Lenin directing Stalin to study the issue, years before 1917). But the end product was s–t, as usual.
I don’t know what you mean when you say Soviet ethnic policies were in the end shit. Could explain?
Because they were Soviet!
The lack of serious ethnic conflict in the USSR says the opposite, actually.
The s–ttiness of Soviet ethnic policies was demonstrated by sudden flaring of ethnic conflicts at the collapse of the USSR. That demonstrated the ethnic conflicts were not resolved but only suppressed for 60 years.
So the conventional perception that Soviet ethnic policies were brutal, arbitrary and ineffective is quite close to the truth. Your citing of all the scientific research that was conducted on the subject in the USSR proves almost nothing, because there was a huge disconnect between all the theoretical work conducted in the USSR academies (which was certainly quite extensive and thorough) and lack of practical application thereof on the part of the authorities in power. Otherwise you’d have to explain the “complex process that implemented all the knowledges of modernity” of such actions as forceful removal of the whole Chechen nation into Kazakhstan.
”For example, they had the greatest aviation engineering schools, but they couldn’t produce a decent commercial airplane.”
This is true, apparently. It took them years to figure how to mount engines on wings for big aircraft. The result was the shitty Tupolev 154 with its tail engines. By the time they figured it out (from industrial espionage and info exchanged with the US) they managed to produce the amazing Illyushin 86, one of the safest (but least fuel efficient) planes ever built. Its modern upgrade the IL-96 is in use and I was luckly enough to fly on one once. Massive beast of a plane, like a 747 without the humpy back.
Yeah, I know Soviet aviation had problems implementing their designs into reality. Here is an example:
http://i.i.ua/prikol/pic/1/1/151311.jpg
“The s–ttiness of Soviet ethnic policies was demonstrated by sudden flaring of ethnic conflicts at the collapse of the USSR. That demonstrated the ethnic conflicts were not resolved but only suppressed for 60 years.”
What funny logic.
The s–ttiness of Soviet ethnic policies was demonstrated by sudden flaring of ethnic conflicts at the collapse of the USSR. That demonstrated the ethnic conflicts were not resolved but only suppressed for 60 years.
Makes sense to me.
“I didn’t know about him before all this started, but after a few days I get the impression that Kokoity is either a sleazeball, a loose canon, or both. In other words, he’s probably harming the South Ossetian cause.”
Neeka seemed to have the situation nailed way back on August 10:
“…but I think all three sides are terribly guilty and wrong. All three. And I don’t see a point in trying to figure out who the good guys are and who the bad guys are here. I don’t see a point in taking sides. Medvedev/Putin, Saakashvili and Kokoity are assholes because of their failure to negotiate efficiently and to prevent casualties and destruction.”
http://vkhokhl.blogspot.com/2008/08/ive-done-two-translations-in-these.html
“The s–ttiness of Soviet ethnic policies was demonstrated by sudden flaring of ethnic conflicts at the collapse of the USSR. That demonstrated the ethnic conflicts were not resolved but only suppressed for 60 years.”
Exactly right and it applies to all totalitarian countries from Iraq to Yugoslavia and USSR was no exception.
“Makes sense to me.”
Not many ethnic conflicts get resolved in a mere 60 years. That’s kind of a short time scale for this sort of thing.
I knew it was only a matter of time until the magic space pony theory raised its Mongoloid head.
Exactly right and it applies to all totalitarian countries from Iraq to Yugoslavia and USSR was no exception.
Are the former Mexican territories in the South West of the USA a frozen conflict or merely an embryo break away dispute à la Kosovo?
I don’t think what happens nowadays in the old Mexican posessions in the US is “a frozen conflict”. There is a great deal of political activities going on and everything is out in the open and widely discussed over and over: old grievances and injustices together with the latest ones. Even the most radical groups can publish and distibute their stuff. Which is exactly the opposite of the USSR, where all information about ethnic problems was suppressed and nothing was discussed in the official media.
CM insistence that there were no ethnic problems in the USSR is just laughable because it’s only support is the lack of information in the USSR official media. In reality, there were many ethnic disturbances throughout the whole history of the USSR, that were suppressed by force and never revealed in the official media. You’d only hear rumors. In fact, the open discussion of all the ethnic havoc going on was one of the first noticeable results of the Glasnost.
I think modern Russia has certainly made a big step forward by bringing the ethnic issues into the open, so they are no longer ’suppressed’ and therefore the conflicts are no longer ‘frozen’.
And yes, 60 years is nothing to resolve an ethnic issue, but I was not the one to claim that ethic policies of the USSR were successful. I simply said they were brutal dead-end policies that offered no hope for resolution and proved to be a complete failure. Considering there is no USSR left in existance and the new rulers of Russia and other old Soviet republics are trying completely new methods, copied from the West, we can summarize the Soviet ethnic policies as wasteful and useless, I think.
“Are the former Mexican territories in the South West of the USA a frozen conflict or merely an embryo break away dispute à la Kosovo?”
Neither. South West of the USA is not a totalitarian state.
““Are the former Mexican territories in the South West of the USA a frozen conflict or merely an embryo break away dispute à la Kosovo?”
Neither. South West of the USA is not a totalitarian state.”
Are you suggesting that only totalitarian states have problems with breakaway regions? What was the American Civil War? A mild disagreement between fellow democrats?