Georgia’s standpoint on South Ossetia, Abkhazia conflict with Russia

Counterarguments to the Article of the Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Korea

In connection with my article devoted to the Day of Independence of Georgia (May 24, 2013), the Russian ambassador to the Republic of Korea, Mr. Vnukov published the reciprocal article regarding the Georgian-Russian conflict. In the article “Russia’s stance on events in South Ossetia, Abkhazia” (May 30, 2013) the Russian side produced unjust argumentations lacking credibility and sustainability. Therefore, we believe it is necessary to make clarification of those false statements.

E.g. the Russian ambassador mentions that “the Independent International fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in the Caucasus in August 2008 established under the EU (the Taghliavini Commission) confirmed that it was the Georgian leadership who began the bloody conflict in the Caucasus.”

In fact, the Report of Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia (IIFFMCG), so called Tagliavini Commission, states that the war in 2008 “was only the culminating point of a long period of increasing tensions, provocations and incidents.” The conflict did not begin on August 7 or 8, 2008. The armed hostilities were preceded by large number of illegal actions of the Russian Federation such as intensively militarization and illegal passportisation process in the Tskhinvali region, provocations and incidents in Kekhvi, Ergneti, Tamarasheni, Sveri, Prisi, Nuli and other Georgian villages.

Prior to the war 2008 Russia carried out the large-scale training exercises “Kavkaz-2008” near the Russian-Georgian border in which 8,000 Russian troops were involved. It is worth noting that the mentioned military exercises were aimed at the elaborating of operations of “Coercion to peace.” Furthermore, the Tagliavini Commission underscores reports and publications, including of Russian origin, indicating the provision by the Russian side of military equipment to Tskhinvali and Sokhumi forces, as well as an influx of volunteers and mercenaries from the Russian Federation to Tskhinvali region in early August, prior to the War. The former advisor of Mr. Putin, Andrei Illarionov attests that the order on the intervention in Georgia was issued at night of 4-5 August .

The preparation and readiness of Russia to the war have been demonstrated by the massive evacuation of the civilians from Tskhinvali region carried out by the Russian and South Ossetian authorities at the end of July and beginning of August. Furthermore, the Russian officials have not concealed their real intention and openly declare that the goal of the war 2008 was geopolitical to impede the enlargement of NATO.

Speaking to the officers of the Southern Military District in Vladikavkaz, on November 21, 2011, Medvedev seemed to suggest that the goal was preventing Georgia from joining NATO: “If we had faltered in 2008, geopolitical arrangement would be different now and number of countries in respect of which attempts were made to artificially drag them into the North Atlantic Alliance, would have probably been there [in NATO] now.”

Later in the day, while visiting Rostov-on-Don , he gave the comments to the reporters: “We have simply calmed some of our neighbors down by showing them that they should behave correctly in respect of Russia and in respect of neighboring small states. And for some of our partners, including for the North Atlantic Alliance, it was a signal that before taking a decision about expansion of the Alliance, one should at first think about the geopolitical stability. I deem these [issues] to be the major lessons of those developments in 2008.”

On his turn, Vladimir Putin vas also very open, while responding to the reporters’ questions in Kremlin, on August 8, 2012: “There was a plan in place, and I think it is no secret that Russia’s forces acted in accordance with this plan. I have spoken about this publicly before, and as I say, it is no secret. The General Staff drew up this plan somewhere in late 2006 or early 2007. I approved it. … We mobilised military equipment and arms and so on in accordance with the plan. There is no secret here. We have already discussed all of this.”

Further in the article, Russian Ambassador tries to justify Russian Military aggression by the need for self-defense: “In order to repel the Georgian attack and to comply with the commitments of Russia under the 1992 Agreement with Georgia and use the right of self-defense, in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, the units of the armed forces of the Russian Federation entered South Ossetia to help the Russian peacekeepers. Russian actions that time aimed at protecting lives and security of our citizens and peacekeepers in South Ossetia who were treacherously attacked by Georgian army at night cannot be called “aggression.” … Russia used the force in line with the international law to stop Georgian aggression and prevent the genocide of South Ossetians.”

First of all, Article 51 of the UN Charter regards the right of the self-defense, not the large-scaled armed hostilities and intervention into the territory of the other sovereign state. All kinds and massive military campaign of Russia deeper into Georgia, ranging from bombing strategic objectives beyond the Tskhinvali region to the deployment of navy units in Georgia’s Aquatory as well as holding and controlling of highways and towns in the middle of Georgia has nothing in common with the protecting of the Russian citizens and peacekeepers. Such full-scaled military intervention cannot be regarded as an act of the self-defense.

Despite of the Russian official position, the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia (IIFFMCG) concluded that the Russian intervention in Georgia cannot be justified as a rescue operation for Russian nationals, collective self-defense or humanitarian intervention and therefore estimated the “extended Russian military action reaching out into Georgia” as a “violation of international law.” Moreover, the Report says that the Commission was unable to confirm the attack on the Russian peacekeepers.

Apart from that, the Tagliavini commission has not revealed facts of the genocide. Consequently, all links of the Kremlin on the preventing of the genocide of Ossetian people is the attempt to justify one’s own aggression and illegal act of the intervention in a sovereign country.

Oppositely, the Tagliavini commission established that “ethnic cleansing was carried out against ethnic Georgians in South Ossetia during and, most importantly, after the August 2008 conflict.”

Human Rights Watch, International Crisis Group, Norwegian Helsinki Committee as well as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and NATO, the European Parliament, the Parliamentary Forum of Community of Democracies, the Seimas of Lithuania and the rapporteurs of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) have also recognized the fact of ethnic cleansing against ethnic Georgians.

While Moscow is claiming on the responsibility over its citizens in Georgia’s region of Tskhinvali, it should be emphasized that since 2005, the Russian Federation has deliberately granted the Russian citizenship to Georgian nationals residing in the occupied regions, thus attempting to create a plausible justification of its invasion of Georgia. The Tagliavini report concludes that the mass provision of Russian passports on Georgia’s territory, without the consent of the Georgian Government, “runs against the principles of good neighbourliness and constitutes an open challenge to Georgian sovereignty and interference in the internal affairs of Georgia.”

Despite the above findings of the report, the Russian side continues cynical misrepresentation of the facts, stating that “in the circumstances Russia had no way to ensure the peace and security of the peoples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia other than recognizing their independence and offering them a free democratic choice of their own state and national development. The presence of our troops and border guards under the bilateral agreements with South Ossetia and Abkhazia that have been ratified by the parliaments is absolutely legitimate.”

The recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region has nothing to do with protection of will and national choice of Abkhazian and South Ossetian people which was also confirmed by the Tagliavini Commission. Instead of independence, both these regions have become totally dependent on Russia. The state budgets of occupied regions have been completely filled by Moscow’s financial sources.

Military presence has been permanently raised (approximately 10,000 military and security personnel in both occupied regions; tactical-operational missile launch system “Scarab B“/“Tochka U,”operational range – 120 km. and multiple-launch rocket system artillery battalion in Tskhinvali region; multiple launch rocket artillery battalion of “Grad” weapons and S-300 type surface-to-air (anti-aircraft) missile battalions in Abkhazia); The Kremlin is directly involved in the decision-making process and personnel-policy in the both regions; and the best illustration of that is the fact of Russia’s roughly meddling with Presidential Elections in occupied Tskhinvali region, when using all administrative and also military means the Kremlin did not permit Alla Jioeva, the candidate elected by Ossetian people, to fulfill its legal mandate.

In light of the mentioned facts it seems cynical the assertion as if Russia worries and considers the free choice and will of Abkhazian and Ossetian people.

In reality, the recognition was nothing else but the attempt of Russia to create the legal basis for preserving the military presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in order to justify the fact of occupation by the bilateral agreements with these “quasi-states.” Even though the all mentioned acts from decree of recognition to bilateral agreements on military bases in Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region contradict with the Six-Point Ceasefire Agreement, brokered by the EU French Presidency and signed by the Presidents of Georgia and the Russian Federation on 12 August 2008. It is worth noting that, according to Russia’s constitution, the international agreements prevail over the internal legislation.

Russia’s military presence in Georgia is estimated as occupation by authorities and officials of plenty of states. The Parliamentary Assembly of OSCE (Resolutions July 2012; July 6, 2009), Council of Europe 4 (Resolutions 1647, 1648, 1801,1916), NATO (Resolution 382), GUAM and Baltic Assembly (Resolution, October 2011), “La Francophonie” (Resolution July 6, 2009); the European Parliament (Resolutions December 14, 2011; November 17, 2011; June 9, 2011; January 20, 2011; September 3, 2008), the Parliamentary Forum of Community of Democracies (Resolution March 12, 2010), the Senate (Resolution S.RES.175) and House of Representatives (Resolution H. Res. 526) of the USA, legislative bodies of the Czech Republic (October 8, 2009) and Lithuania (June 1, 2010) adopted numerous resolutions recognizing the fact of occupation of Georgia’s territories by Russia.

Instead of assertion of official Moscow, the unprecedented illegal military presence of Russia in Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region creates the instability and threatens the security of Georgia as well as the whole region of the South Caucasus.

Given all the above, the following statement of the Russian ambassador sounds rather surprising: “We insist that Georgia must unconditionally assume legal obligations not to use force not toward Russia, but toward the neighbor republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Only in this way can Tbilisi restore at least a minimum of trust toward itself on the part of the neighboring countries and the international community.”

Georgia has already assumed the obligation on the non-use of force. On November 23, 2010, at the European Parliament, the President of Georgia made a unilateral pledge on the non-use of force, which was recently reiterated by the Parliament of Georgia. While the international community lauded Georgia’s pledge, Georgia’s unilateral constructivism has not been reciprocated by the Russian side. Furthermore, Russia has further increased its military personnel and offensive military equipment in Georgia’s occupied regions and continued its provocative policy against Georgia.

The Kremlin avoids the responsibility, which it bears under international law as an occupying power, and rejects to make the commitment not to use force while the Russian military contingent (including offensive missile system with the operational range on 120 km.) is deployed at a distance of 40 km. from the Georgian capital city.

After the war 2008 it has become evident for everybody that Russia is not a neutral mediator, oppositely, it presents a side of the conflict. That is why it is necessary Russia to take obligations on the non-use of force as well as to implement the Six-Point Ceasefire Agreement ensuring the restoration of the status quo ante existed before the outbreak of the hostilities on August 7, 2008, in order to avoid any escalation of the situation in the region.

It is a common practice among Russian politicians to criticize Georgian government, take decisions affecting Georgian state and at the same time express their loyalty to Georgian people. In his article Russian ambassador also refers to the “traditions of good-neighborhood and friendship with the Georgian people” stating that Russians “sincerely want to see Georgia as a stable, independent and really democratic state living in peace with all countries.”

Georgia has been always interested to normalize the relationship and to establish the good neighborhood with Russia. On numerous occasions and within different formats, Georgia proposed to start a dialogue with the Russian Federation without any preconditions. The new Government of Georgia has elaborated even more constructive approach towards the Russian Federation in order to begin the immediate dialogue with its Northern Neighbor on gradual normalization of the bilateral relations.

In this direction Georgia has already taken very important measures which were aimed at establishing favourable conditions for normal neighbourhood relations with Russia:

– Undertook the unilateral non-use of force obligations at the European Parliament on November 23, 2010.
– Agreed on Russia’s accession to the WTO in November 2011, thus creating the precedence of constructive and compromise-oriented dialogue with Russia.
– Unilaterally abolished the visa regime for Russian citizens in February 2012.
– Rejected the idea of boycotting the Sochi Olympics in October 2012 and expressed its readiness to cooperate with the Russian Federation on the security-related issues.
– Constituted the post of the Special Representative for Relations with Russia in November 2012 and created an additional channel for the establishment of immediate dialogue with the Northern neighbor.

Instead of reciprocating to Georgia’s peaceful initiatives, the Russian side further intensified its provocative policy and launched the process of the installation of barb-wire fences across the occupation line in the Tskhinvali region, thus disregarding and violating the right of free movement and other civil, social, economic and cultural rights of the local population. In certain segments, the barb-wire fence goes far beyond the initial occupation line and intrudes into the territory controlled by the central Government of Georgia, in flagrant violation of Georgia’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and its internationally recognized borders and the August 2008 Ceasefire Agreement. As a result of the mentioned process, families were compelled to leave their permanent places of residence, thus, creating a new generation of IDPs.

In spite of that, Georgia has been still hoping that the Russian side will adequately react to the above mentioned constructive measures of Georgia which so far have unilateral character and will undertake real steps in order to accomplish the declared intention of normalization of bilateral relations with Georgia.

Article of the Russian Ambassador, Mr. Vnukov can me found here.