IWPR Home institute for war & peace reporting
   
 Advanced Search
building peace and democracy through free and fair media

Home
Programmes
Afghanistan
Afghan Recovery Report
Africa
Zimbabwe Crisis Reports
Caucasus
Caucasus Reporting Service
Cross Caucasus Network
Central Asia
Reporting Central Asia
News Briefing Central Asia
Human Rights Reporting
Central Asia Radio
International Justice
ICC - Africa Update
ICTY - Tribunal Update
Face à la Justice - RD Congo
Facing Justice - Uganda
On the Scale - Darfur
Iran
Mianeh Reports
Iraq
Iraqi Crisis Report
Pakistan
Open Minds
Philippines
Human Rights Reporting
Syria
Syria News Briefing
Multimedia
Resources
Books
Training
IWPR Comment
Kurt Schork Awards
Photo Galleries
Sahar Fund
Past Programmes
Past Publications
CIJ Trial Reports Archive
Links
RSS Feeds
Other IWPR sites
Academy
Mianeh
Open Minds Pakistan
Regional Media Network
Rights Reporting
IWPR on acebook
witter
 



Caucasus Reporting Service
Caucasus home

South Ossetia: Moral Battle Lines Drawn

Russia tries to claim moral high ground as both sides allege war crimes.

By Thomas de Waal in London (CRS No. 453, 13-Aug-08)

Following the agreement of a fragile ceasefire, Moscow and Tbilisi are now engaged in an angry quarrel over alleged human rights abuses, with the Russians making this their central argument justifying an assault on Georgian territory.

The Russians are also accusing the West of “double standards” in its attitude to the conflict.

Russia is presenting its military operation as a “peace enforcement operation” in a deliberately implied comparison with Kosovo. “The Russians are setting up markers each time with reference to Kosovo,” said Sabine Freizer, director of the International Crisis Group’s Europe programme. “As others have said regarding Serbia and Kosovo, they are now making the argument that Georgia has lost the moral authority to govern South Ossetia.”

In other words, Moscow is suggesting it was justified to attack targets on a sovereign country to protect a threatened minority, just as NATO did in 1999.

Russian officials are adopting a tone of moral outrage. Talking to the BBC on August 11, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov countered criticism from US vice-president Dick Cheney, saying, “We deeply regret that Mr Cheney never reacted in such a harsh way when the Georgian military was killing women and children in South Ossetia.”

Few believe this is the actual motivation for Russia’s actions. Attacking the port of Poti on the Black Sea or the town of Senaki, 230 kilometres from South Ossetia, can hardly be justified as actions performed to protect Ossetian civilians.

A struggle for regional strategic control seems to be the real reason behind the Russian assault. For months, Moscow has been saying that Georgia’s aspiration to join NATO has been “unacceptable”. At the Bucharest summit in April, Putin called the prospect of Ukraine and Georgia joining the alliance a “direct threat” to Russian security.

And there will be many who turn the Russian argument around and accuse the Russians of double standards, remembering the war in Chechnya. Those who recall the brutal assault launched by Putin on the city of Grozny in 1999 and his disregard for the civilian cost at the time will have watched the pictures of the Russian prime minister talking to distressed refugees from South Ossetia and asked why he did not treat his own citizens in the same way.

Yet, however cynically the argument is put, there is no denying the suffering of South Ossetians and ethnic Georgians over the past week.

Over the past 24 hours, attention has now turned to the plight of ethnic Georgians in South Ossetia.

Human Rights Watch researchers in South Ossetia on August 12 said they saw ethnic Georgian villages still burning from fires set by South Ossetian militias, witnessed looting by the militias and learned firsthand of the plight of ethnic Ossetian villagers who had fled Georgian soldiers.

In South Ossetia, Human Rights Watch researchers traveling on the evening of August 12 on the road from the town of Java to Tskhinvali said they witnessed terrifying scenes of destruction in four villages that used to be populated exclusively by ethnic Georgians.

According to the few remaining local residents, South Ossetian militias that were moving along the road looted the Georgian villages and set them on fire.

The villages were said to be virtually deserted, with the exception of a few elderly and incapacitated people who stayed behind either because they were unable to flee or because they were trying to save their belongings and cattle.

“The remaining residents of these destroyed ethnic Georgian villages are facing desperate conditions, with no means of survival, no help, no protection, and nowhere to go,” said Tanya Lokshina of Human Rights Watch.

The Russians, meanwhile, are emphasising the importance of the Georgian attack on Tskhinvali on August 7-8.

A true picture of what happens that night needs to be reconstructed. We know that President Mikheil Saakashvili announced a unilateral ceasefire in South Ossetia, after days of small skirmishes between Georgian and Ossetian villagers. He blamed the Ossetians for firing on Georgian villages but said, “I want to say with full responsibility and admit that a few hours ago I took a very difficult decision – not to reply with fire.”

Yet only a few hours later, the Georgian army launched a mass artillery assault on the city, following it up with ground troops the next morning.

Saakashvili now says that he had no option to attack because the Ossetians were firing on Georgian villages and
Russia was sending hundreds of tanks through the Roki Tunnel, between North and South Ossetia.

However, Ossetians on the ground say that Russian military aid arrived only many hours after the beginning of the assault and there is so far no verified record of Russian armour reaching Tskhinvali during that night.

It is hard to assess the level of civilian casualties that resulted from the attack on Tskhinvali. The Russian authorities’ claim of 2,000 dead has not been independently verified. Human Rights Watch is urging caution, saying it has seen only dozens of wounded in hospitals in North Ossetia.

But we do know that many civilians died – and if more did not, it was thanks to the thick cellars of Tskhinvali, not Georgian restraint. Ossetians talk of a continuous bombardment for 14 hours of both the city and the road north to the mountains.

They also allege atrocities, such as the Georgians throwing grenades into cellars where civilians were sheltering.

The Russians also say 15 of their peacekeepers were killed.

The Russians will now be pressing two arguments on South Ossetia. The first is that the Georgians unilaterally violated the peacekeeping framework for the conflict under the aegis of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and can no longer be allowed a presence in the disputed region. The second is that there must be some kind of tribunal for war crimes committed in South Ossetia.

For their part, the Georgian government is now saying that their citizens in South Ossetia are suffering “ethnic cleansing” at the hands of Russian troops and being killed or taken hostage.

The government also said it is filing a law suit against Russia at the International Court of Justice, ICJ, accusing Moscow of ethnic cleansing in Georgia from 1993 to 2008.

Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court’s prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo told Reuters that he had been contacted about the conflict and might begin a preliminary investigation.

Georgia is a party to the ICC’s Rome Statute which means that a prosecutor from the court can unilaterally investigate alleged abuses committed on Georgian territory – both by Georgians and Russians. The Russians are not party to the statute but have said that they may file complaints. Potentially, the court could prove an arena where the facts of this bitter conflict are properly investigated – but only if both sides cooperate with an enquiry that could potentially uncover terrible evidence of human rights abuses.

Thomas de Waal is IWPR’s Caucasus Editor. A shorter version of this article appeared in the Financial Times on August 13.




Subscribe
Past Reports
MonthIssue No.
Feb530-530
Jan526-529
MonthIssue No.
Dec522-525
Nov518-521
Oct513-517
Sep509-512
Aug505-508
Jul501-504
Archive 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 99
Highlights
Facing Justice - UgandaFacing Justice - Uganda
On the Scale - DarfurOn the Scale - Darfur
Vacancies Available
Project Review Oct/Nov 2009
Kurt Schork Awards Videos
Kurt Schork Award Winners
Learning About Risk
Media Bias Claims in Georgia Exposed
Georgia War Anniversary
Karabakh Focus
Karabakh Refugees
Photo Essays
Learning About Risk
IWPR Georgia in Action
View more >>
Past Highlights
Regional Media Network
Handbook for Local Journalists
War and Peace in the Caucasus
In the News
Winnipeg Free Press"Now [the Taleban] appear to be able to launch their attacks even in the most heavily protected sections of [Kabul], "said IWPR Afghan project editor/trainer Jean MacKenzie.
McClatchy"The simple fact is that the condition of the economy has never played a major role in the minds of Iranian leaders or in Iran's national security equation," said IWPR contributor Omid Memarian on the prospect of tougher western sanctions.
BBC“I would like to imagine that at least a few senior politicians woke up this week to seriously wonder what kind of monsters they and their system have created over the years," said IWPR's Head of Asia Alan Davis, referring to Maguindanao massacre.
The New York TimesRecent double bombing in Baghdad has cast doubt on the government's ability to guarantee security and prompted fears such violence may affect voter turnout in anticipated January elections, writes iWPR reporter Ali Karim.
Support
To support IWPR's work in Caucasus, contact Ria Burghardt, or make an ONLINE DONATION >>
IWPR thanks the following for their generous support:
Community Fund (UK)Community Fund (UK)
European Commission This project is co-funded by the European Union
Dutch Ministry for Development CooperationDutch Ministry for Development Cooperation
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of DenmarkMinistry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark



© Institute for War & Peace Reporting
48 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8LT, UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 7831 1030    Fax: +44 (0)20 7831 1050

The opinions expressed in IWPR Online are those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent those of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting.

Registered as a charity in the United Kingdom (charity reg. no: 1027201, company reg. no: 2744185)