Bush Visits Georgia

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Very interesting. I hadn't looked into the history as you have. It puts a bit of a different spin on things. If South Ossetia was originally an independent state, then it could well be legitimate for it to regain its independence and break away from Georgia if it had been illegally annexed in the first place

 

Russia may want to re-annex SO, but that would require 'freely expressed will and desire' of hte people of SO - i.e. self-determination. You might suspect this could be rigged, but maybe that's what people in SO want (maybe), and maybe they might choose free association or independence if they were given the choice. So why shouldn't SO regain its independence, and then determine its political future as it sees fit? (because we fear it would be annexed by Russia?).

 

If anything then, Georgia is wrongfully denying SO's right to regain its independence. Russia have every right in international law to support a national liberation movement in a situation where this is trying to liberate from foreign subjugation - as may be the case in SO and Georgia (ironic as that might be!).

 

Gets complicated. The South Ossetians were moved from the Don region of present-day Russia in medieval times to part of the Georgian principality of Samachablo which lies entirely within South Ossetia. Under the protection of the Georgians the Ossetians found refuge there from Mongol invaders. So on that basis the SOs are trying to gain control over territory in which the Georgians allowed their SO ancestors to settle for safety.

 

Maybe the answer would be for the Russians to give the Ossetians a country back on the Don where they came from originally and let the Georgians retain their territory of 'Samachablo'???? Now that would be really generous and fraternal...Would not be the first time the Russians 'resettled' populations either.

 

I think all these ideas and talk about independence is unimportant. If the South Ossetians want independence simply to have their 'own' government I cannot think of any good reasons why I would support them. I say this simply because whether the South Ossetians have a government full of members of their own linguistic (or ethnic) background or one full of Gerogians it is still the elites who are in control, and not the people of these regions.

 

And I do not think it matters at all whether a country or nation used to independent or not in terms of whether it is right or wrong for a nation to demand independence. Yes, it may have meant a nation state has ceased to be, but it is simply a substitution of government, though often a more oppressive one.

 

 

However, if the South Ossetians would be oppressed far more under a Georgian government than I can understand their desire for self government. And I think the bombing of the South Ossetian capital, which is terrorism, probably demonstrates that it is right to see the South Ossetians as being a heavily repressed people. However, I was of the understanding that S.O. was an autonomous region. So what need do the S.O. have for independence?

[mollag]

Gawd these Yanks are so out of it----

 

Cheyney in Georgia bleating about terrotorial integrity---yes the same one who masterminded Iraq and Afghanistan

 

At the same time American troops attack targets inside Pakistan, whose Govt [an ally] is well pissed.

 

Could someone please point out the obvious to him.

 

 

Sauce for the goose politics

[Skeddan]

Gets complicated. The South Ossetians were moved from the Don region of present-day Russia in medieval times to part of the Georgian principality of Samachablo which lies entirely within South Ossetia. Under the protection of the Georgians the Ossetians found refuge there from Mongol invaders. So on that basis the SOs are trying to gain control over territory in which the Georgians allowed their SO ancestors to settle for safety.

 

From what I can gather SO / Samachablo was not formerly a sovereign state, but a part of Georgia. i.e. it is not seeking to regain independence as was the case with the former Soviet Dependencies such as Baltic States.

 

Instead it seems the basis for SO independence is quite different, and it looks as if the Kosovo principle is being used (even though it is pretty clear this is done with a view to integration with Russia).

 

“Those rules which work for Kosovo will work for South Ossetia,” (SO official in 2007).

 

Economist link

 

Which comes back to the problem of a shift in rules of international law created by Kosovo independence. I can't see the genie being put back in the bottle, and whether or not the Kosovo principle may be applied in a particular case will probably come down to power backing the claim - i.e. gunboat diplomacy - as with SO.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Gets complicated. The South Ossetians were moved from the Don region of present-day Russia in medieval times to part of the Georgian principality of Samachablo which lies entirely within South Ossetia. Under the protection of the Georgians the Ossetians found refuge there from Mongol invaders. So on that basis the SOs are trying to gain control over territory in which the Georgians allowed their SO ancestors to settle for safety.

 

From what I can gather SO / Samachablo was not formerly a sovereign state, but a part of Georgia. i.e. it is not seeking to regain independence as was the case with the former Soviet Dependencies such as Baltic States.

 

Instead it seems the basis for SO independence is quite different, and it looks as if the Kosovo principle is being used (even though it is pretty clear this is done with a view to integration with Russia).

 

“Those rules which work for Kosovo will work for South Ossetia,” (SO official in 2007).

 

Economist link

 

Which comes back to the problem of a shift in rules of international law created by Kosovo independence. I can't see the genie being put back in the bottle, and whether or not the Kosovo principle may be applied in a particular case will probably come down to power backing the claim - i.e. gunboat diplomacy - as with SO.

 

And I think Kosovo, and if South Ossetia achieves independence, may start a worrying trend of lots nationalisties all depending their own state and independence.

[Skeddan]

LDV - to some extent I sympathise with your view in earlier post - it may seem as if nations states shouldn't matter, let alone whether or not somewhere had been independent before and was looking at regaining independence. But it does - the Kosovo precedent has dangerously widened the rules of when there can be a lawful secession.

 

Unlike the old rules, such as regaining former independence from unlawful occupation or annexation, the post-Kosovo rules do not respect 'territorial integrity' (non-interference in domestic affairs). Worse still is these are subjective, flexible and fluid. Agitators can bring about situations where they can then claim these apply. As you say its a worrying trend - and it's already started.

 

I think there does need to be some way to deal with a state that oppresses a minority - as in Kosovo. But there need to be clear rules which are not subjective and open to abuse - and should be carried out by a proper authority.

 

To my mind, it is a bit like a law which says if someone thinks a parent is abusing their child, they can step in an take the child into care. There is no court order, legal process or public authority involved. So manipulate things so the child misbehaves, the parent smacks it, and the child wails. Then they can grab the kid under this rule. When it comes to their own children, they can rely on force - you can only take the child if you are strong enough to seize it from the parent. Inevitably there will be squabbles and fights, and people arming themselves heavily.

 

The old rule applied to situations where the child had been abuducted by the person it is taken from - i.e. the child doesn't belong to them in the first place - reasonable enough and non-subjective.

[manshimajin]

And I think Kosovo, and if South Ossetia achieves independence, may start a worrying trend of lots nationalisties all depending their own state and independence.

A couple of Economist articles. The first gives an interesting perspective on Russian actions

 

Russia in Ossetia

Mr Medvedev said he had no choice and had to protect human lives. The decision, he argued, was forced on him by Georgia’s aggression and “genocide” against South Ossetia. But the argument is spurious. It is true that, in the early 1990s, when Georgia was barely a state, its nationalistic leaders (one military commander is still hiding in Russia) committed atrocities in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. But it is also true that more than 200,000 Georgians were driven out of Abkhazia in a burst of ethnic cleansing, and that Russia backed Abkhazia militarily.

 

Abkhazia had the trappings of a nascent state, but South Ossetia was a chessboard of villages (Georgian and Ossetian) which suffered under a Moscow-sponsored, thuggish and corrupt regime whose main job seemed to be to provoke Georgia. Mr Saakashvili made mistakes: he was in too much of a rush to take back the enclaves and did too little to disown Georgia’s nationalist past. His worst mistake (which he does not admit to) was to order the shelling of Tskhinvali, South Ossetia’s capital, on August 7th. But this was not, as Russia claimed, genocide; the death toll was fewer than 200. Moreover, the ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia is all too evident: Georgian villages have been destroyed and thousands of Georgians displaced by South Ossetian militia under Russia’s watch.

 

If Russia had really wanted to resolve the separatist conflicts in Georgia, it had opportunities. It might have begun by not handing out Russian passports and then claiming a purported need to defend its “citizens”. It might also have avoided unleashing anti-Georgian and anti-Western hysteria in the Russian media.

 

Mr Medvedev’s recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia may also have unpredictable consequences for Russia’s north Caucasus. Russia has bolstered separatism in Georgia but crushed it brutally in Chechnya. “Talking about the right for independence, about genocide and the war crimes of Mr Saakashvili, Russia’s leaders are perhaps forgetting about the tens of thousands of civilians who were killed by Russia’s bombardment of Grozny and who were executed, cleansed and tortured by the Russian military in Chechnya,” says Ekaterina Sokiryanskaya of Memorial, a human-rights group.

La Dolce Vita the latter is relevant in terms of you comments.

 

Russia and West Swop Positions

 

Now the West and the Russians seem to have exchanged arguments. With their patrons apparently flip-flopping like this, it is no wonder the authorities in Belgrade and Pristina feel embarrassed—and that both have been largely mute over Georgia.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV - to some extent I sympathise with your view in earlier post - it may seem as if nations states shouldn't matter, let alone whether or not somewhere had been independent before and was looking at regaining independence. But it does - the Kosovo precedent has dangerously widened the rules of when there can be a lawful secession.

 

Unlike the old rules, such as regaining former independence from unlawful occupation or annexation, the post-Kosovo rules do not respect 'territorial integrity' (non-interference in domestic affairs). Worse still is these are subjective, flexible and fluid. Agitators can bring about situations where they can then claim these apply. As you say its a worrying trend - and it's already started.

 

I think there does need to be some way to deal with a state that oppresses a minority - as in Kosovo. But there need to be clear rules which are not subjective and open to abuse - and should be carried out by a proper authority.

 

To my mind, it is a bit like a law which says if someone thinks a parent is abusing their child, they can step in an take the child into care. There is no court order, legal process or public authority involved. So manipulate things so the child misbehaves, the parent smacks it, and the child wails. Then they can grab the kid under this rule. When it comes to their own children, they can rely on force - you can only take the child if you are strong enough to seize it from the parent. Inevitably there will be squabbles and fights, and people arming themselves heavily.

 

The old rule applied to situations where the child had been abuducted by the person it is taken from - i.e. the child doesn't belong to them in the first place - reasonable enough and non-subjective.

 

I think we are crossing lines a bit here. But in respect of your first paragraph the point is that SHOULD NOT matter, however, I do recognise that it does. You seem to focus and talk about the legalities involved in secession and the bearing of historical precedent on international law, but this is my point. When it comes to affording a value as to whether it is right or wrong for a people to chose how they are governed and the manner of that government it is wrong that international law is involved in how such decisions are made. However, I say from the point of view of that self-determination driven by nationalism is desirable, which I do not believe it to be. And I am ignoring the realities of the international arena and international law, but they are the problem. If we are talking about an oppressed population who wish to secede and allows a less oppressive substituted government to rule them then that is a better solution that maintaining territorial integrity.

 

However, you are right in what you say about international law. I just think it is a shame that the issue is driven by nationalism. The only good outcome would be a less oppressed people if S.O. were to become independent. I also recognise that nation states' governments require legitimisation in the international arena, which involves international law. And my issue is more with the nationalism behind the existence of nation states and the governments that run them.

[manshimajin]

The only good outcome would be a less oppressed people if S.O. were to become independent.

I suspect that this should read

 

'The only good outcome would be a less oppressed people if S.O. were to become independent now that South Ossetia has been ethnically cleansed of its traditional Georgian population'.

 

As The Economist put it:

South Ossetia was a chessboard of villages (Georgian and Ossetian) which suffered under a Moscow-sponsored, thuggish and corrupt regime

No wonder the Serbians are wondering what the Russian position is on 'oppressed minorities' - oppose their independence in Kosovo and support them in South Ossetia. And the same in reverse applies to the EU and USA.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The only good outcome would be a less oppressed people if S.O. were to become independent.

I suspect that this should read

 

'The only good outcome would be a less oppressed people if S.O. were to become independent now that South Ossetia has been ethnically cleansed of its traditional Georgian population'.

 

Yes you're right. Though I think also it matters little whether South Ossetia is a TRADITIONAL homeland of the Georgian people or not, if people live somewhere they shouldn't be forced out of their homes or made to feel that they should flee to protect themselves.