Old Games, New Names

Every so often, I encounter something, either printed or said, that is incorrect or false and I am slightly contented that I know otherwise. If I'm given a chance to refute the falsehood, I usually take it. This past week's events in South Ossetia have elicited a similar mood from me but I've been appalled at the overtly bias reporting that has followed this supposed war.

My main qualm here is with history and people's lack of understanding of it. I've been doubly disappointed by the American media's wholehearted support of the U.S. government's anti-Russian synopses of the situation in South Ossetia and Georgia. Even the reports of the Iraq war have or had inklings of dissension; I've seen none concerning South Ossetia thus far.

To be clear, I'd like to preface what I'm going to write with the following: this is not to be an examination of Russia's geopolitical interests. I recognize that its actions might be - and very likely are - a purposeful strategic move to demonstrate its military prowess and continuing influence in the region; I have no doubt that their entrance into Georgia was more inspired by self-interest than any sort of benevolence. Nonetheless, what Russia did must be examined within the context of Georgia's actions and that is what I will attempt to do here.

History

The leftover animosity of the Cold War is clearly pervading media and mindsets to this day. Back then, everything the USSR (or the "Russians") did was bad and everything the U.S.A. did was good. Of course, it was the same, only reversed, in the USSR itself. Nobody bothered really delving further into the veracity of anything. Unfortunately, even though the USSR has dissipated, this attitude has remained. For those who are defending Georgia's territorial integrity, I wonder if they're familiar with the history of the Caucasus.

Foremost, one needs to be familiar with the ethnic crock pot that is the Caucasus. There are so many different groups of people that the region could easily be fragmented into 20 (albeit, tiny) countries. Some peoples have been there longer than others (Armenians and Georgians compared to the Azeris) and the existence of some is not due to any ethnic differences but rather a difference of religion (certain Ajarians).

Recognizing the prime opportunity this presented, both Lenin and Stalin took these groups and bunched them all together within artificial borders not begotten of any true reflection of the inhabitants' wishes. Therefore, South Ossetians (an Iranian people, non-Georgian), Abkhazians (a Caucasian people, non-Georgian), Javakhetsis (an Armenian people, non-Georgian) comprised the Georgian SSR. Whereas, Nakhichevan and Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabagh) were allocated to Azerbaijan and parts of what was to be Western Armenia under the Treaty of Sevres were allocated to Turkey. The idea behind this was that these people would have to live in Soviet republics (except Western Armenia, which had not yet been repopulated after the Armenian Genocide) where, by reason of historical animosity, life would be difficult for ethnic minorities. Thus, the people would be distracted with their petty fighting while the USSR continued on its farcical odyssey without hindrance. I wouldn't say that this objective was completely reached while the Soviet Union still stood but, perhaps unintentionally, it has done wonders for Russia's geopolitical strategy since Soviet states gained independence and almost immediately had to confront these underlying ethnic differences (Abkhazia, Ajara, Chechnya, Artsakh [Karabagh]).

Georgia has been exemplary in fulfilling the intended (or not) expectations of blind amalgamation. They have one of the worst records concerning the treatment of their ethnic minorities. In fact, all the peoples (Abkhazians, Ossetians, Ajarans) who have either tried to secede or have requested autonomy have often done so while referring to the Georgian government's and the Georgian people's treatment of the ethnic minorities that live within the country. This is not even including the Javakhetsis (ethnically Armenian) in the south who live in more squalid conditions than any other ethnic minority but who have yet to try to resolve their problems with force.

Despite how Georgia or Georgians might treat their minorities (although that is good enough reason), when the West was prodding the peoples of the Soviet Union with talk of self-determination and liberty, everyone seemed to agree that people should be in charge of their own destiny and that that would be best achieved through self-governance. I wonder what has happened to talk of self-determination now that the USSR is gone. By being complicit in accepting the borders of former Soviet states, the United States and the West are, in essence, submitting to the decisions of Lenin and Stalin. Shouldn't South Ossetians be free to secede if they see fit? Especially since they had no choice in being a part of Georgia!

Territorial integrity has become a catchphrase for maintaining unsustainable situations around the world. It's the reason governments in Africa use to burn villages in their fights against secessionist rebels. It's the reason given by Spain and France to refuse the Catalan and Basque minorities of their countries, respectively, to allow to secede - although - if their actions of the past decades are any indication - they clearly want to. The example of Africa can be expounded upon to clearly illustrate the absurd nature of "territorial integrity". As diverse as the Caucasus are, Africa is an almost immeasurable amount so. Regardless, based on the way the English, French and Dutch carved up most of the continent when they colonized it, they assigned meaningless and artificial borders before they left. So, people like the Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda were put in the same country and, eventually, 800,000 people were massacred in an unbelievable display of savagery. There was a similar story in Yugoslavia and that one country was broken up into seven parts! One final example is Iraq: three warring groups of people, one country, one border, formerly under British mandate. It's no coincidence.

This game isn't new to world powers.

Lately

Nobody knew the first thing about Georgia in the West. Under Edvard Shevernadze, it was a crumbling former Soviet Republic that nobody cared about. It was more war-torn than most because of the numerous concurrent ethnic conflicts and it made no overtures to the West so it was mostly neglected.

When Mikhail Saakashvili came to power in the "Rose Revolution", everyone had high hopes for change. He was American-educated, at Columbia Law School and he vowed to reverse the fortunes of the country. He gutted the security services, he promised transparency and he even changed the flag to better reflect Georgia's history. It was, however, too good to be true as he himself had to deal with the discontent of the population who had come to expect so much from him in promoting a democratic Georgia.

His failures notwithstanding, he has had one great success and that is becoming a stooge of the West. Mr. Saakashvili ceaselessly pandered to the the wishes of the United States and Europe in the hopes that they will be at his side when he decided to do something really stupid. Last week he did just that. Against the warnings of Russia, Georgian forces entered the breakaway region of South Ossetia and tried to reclaim it as their own. In this case, Russia called their bluff and sent in their own armed forces to battle against the Georgians. There is a high probability that the Georgians expected them to do that but they likely also expected the United States to come to their aid - the latter turned out to be a serious overestimation of their expectations. Consequently, the Georgians were terribly embarrassed as they had to retreat after attacking a region of their own country.

The Ossetians naturally do not mind Russia coming to their aid. For one, their countrymen are located in the Russian Federation and are, comparatively, in an envious governing structure as a sovereign republic with its own leader. Secondly, being ignored by the Georgian government, that Russia is willing to support its wishes to secede or, at least, become autonomous, Ossetians feel that if they have to submit to a larger country's government, their lot would be better within Russia.

Media

Not wholly unexpectedly, none of this is mentioned in most American media. No history, no sufficient background, rarely any interviews with South Ossetians themselves. What we hear is that poor Georgia tried getting back "its" land (which I addressed) and big, bad Russia came in and ruined everything - unprovoked, of course. Interestingly, nobody is saying (in the same sentence), "Russia went into a neighboring country to help a people who have made it clear they want to secede...almost like the U.S. went into a country on the other side of the world, overthrew its government and created more violence that Iraq had seen in the past 50 years because...oh ya, there was no because".

The news has become - assuming it was ever any different - sensationalist garbage catering to the idiocies of the population. No American gives a damn about South Ossetia or Georgia or their people but toss in a few lines about Russian aggression and you have a new battle of the superpowers, or the attempted reemergence of one.

Even this post you're reading (if you got this far) is too long for 98% of the population and this is the most cursory of summaries if one is interested in understanding anything about the region in question.

I suppose this is how history has transpired. Governments feed the mob, the propaganda aids and abets, the outsiders criticize. Except, every so often, the critics win - and when they do, that's what we call revolution.