When the EC Independent Commission on investigation into the circumstances of the war of August 2008 between Russia and Georgia divulgated its report late September, Moscow and Tbilisi have long ago drawn conclusions for themselves from these events. And it so happened that everyone has his own truth about the five-day war in the Caucasus and its consequences.
The President of Georgia Mikhail Saakashvili and his henchmen at all possible levels blamed Russia for the adventurous war and declared that any investigation would not prove that the war had been launched by Georgia. M.Saakashvili said in an interview with the British Broadcasting Company that the capital of South Ossetia, Tshinvali in August 2008 represented a “military camp” and its storm, the military conflict with Russia began with, was justified. M.Saakashvili gave to understand that he sees no reason in an international investigation into crimes that may have been committed by the Georgian army in South Ossetia, because all necessary examinations had been already made by Georgia itself.
“This mustn't look as if it was a little helpless city, as is described by Russians, and we came and all of a sudden cruelly attacked the sleeping city at night. No, the population of the city had been evacuated in advance, before the beginning of a full-scale invasion, because civilians would have become a barrier for troops advancing on the narrow road,” said the Georgian president. “The city was transformed into a military camp. There were already the invading Russian troops, and they were firing at our positions,” he added.
That is, according to Saakashvili, Tshinvali was nearly empty, and the Georgian army attacked only military targets, and it is not true that it used force disproportionately. “It's a pity that we could not use a disproportionate force against them, but we have neither a disproportionate force nor proportionate one, our forces were utterly insignificant,” M.Saakashvili complained. In a word, the small democratic Georgia fell victim to the terrible aggressive Russia, which totally contradicts findings of the international mission headed by the Swiss diplomat H.Tagliavini.
The USA, Saakashvili’s promoters, hastened to say that regardless of findings, the final report of the mission contains, the USA’s position supporting Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity will remain invariable. Then in August 2008 it was nobody else but the U.S. Secretary of State (at that time) Kondoliza Rais that set the tone in increasing animosity towards Russia and pounced upon our country with severe criticism and tried to convince the world public that Russia becomes “more and more authoritarian at home and paranoidly aggressive abroad.”
The USA called its European allies for “a single position and overall responsibility in view of Russia’s aggressive actions.” Consequently the warlike mood against Russia also appeared in many European countries. Minister of Foreign Affairs of France (the then holder of the EU presidency) Bernard Kouchner proclaimed Russia an outlaw and threatened with international sanctions.
But US policy and that of its staunch allies in Europe directed towars Russia’s isolation did not find a proper support on the part of the world community and completely failed. European unity broke against the Caucasian ridge. Many European politicians made a stand for the Russian position in the Caucasus. This position consisted foremost of accusation of the Georgian President personally of the unleashing of war. Unquestionable arguments on a charge of Georgia’s attacks on Russian peacemakers, mass murders and “Ossetian population genocide” were submitted by the Office of the Procurator General of the Russian Federation within the criminal investigation in connection with the August war.
It is noteworthy that Georgian opposition represented by the leader of Democratic Movement – United Georgia, Nino Burjanadze, member of the Labor Party Nestan Kirtadze, commenting the EC commission's report, accuses Saakashvili, his political and military leadership of commission of crime against the state of Georgia,…organization of bloody events in August 2008, when in spite of the Western leaders’ warning, Saakashvili single-handedly infracted the constitution and made a politico-military adventure ended by a national tragedy for Georgia. On their declaration, “Saakashvili is accused of the political, ideological, legal and military preparation of Georgia’s territorial split through armed activities” and must be convicted by The Hague Tribunal. Otherwise Saakashvili will create similar problems again, will expose the region to danger and bring the country to a new bloodshed, final split and absolute national degeneration.
In a word, the EC commission's report gave rise to different sides to once again voice their own already formed versions of appraisal of the events, refreshing them with the quotations grubbed up from the report. It is clear that neither Moscow nor Tbilisi agreed with at least a part of accusations against themselves, the report contained quite enough.
Moreover, the report’s content allowed different versions of the events to become firmly established and, thereby, confirm “their truth” by authority of the EC international independent commission. Particularly, the report notes that Georgia’s “unfounded” attack on South Ossetia became a reason for the beginning of a large-scale war with Russia. “This attack can not be justified from the viewpoint of international law,” experts believe. At the same time it was just a “highlight of the long period of increasing clashes, provocations and incidents.” The report’s authors indicate that after the Russian peacemakers in South Ossetia had been attacked by Georgian troops, Russia was at liberty to defense them, using military actions, proportional to scale of the attack. In this connection, Russia’s recourse to force during the first stage of the conflict can be acknowledged legal.
Alongside with that, the EC Commission came to a conclusion that “Russia’s military actions went much farther beyond reasonable limits of defense.” In other words it turns out that Russians had the right to defense only “within reasonable limits.” And this is after the aggressor had destroyed the base of Russian peacemakers.
Put this another way, Russian troops, according to the commission, should not have crossed the administrative border of South Ossetia and had not right to participate in military actions on the territory of Abkhazia that was not then attacked by Georgia. The report also says that before the military stage of the conflict Russia had roused tensions in the region.
It results from the report that before military actions were conducted on the territory of South Ossetia, Russia had the law on its side, because, they say, it had the right to defense its peacemakers. Whereas Georgia had not right to begin fire at Tshinvali on the night of the 8 August, wherewith it violated international law.
The status of the sides, according to the commission, changed after the Russian troops went out of South Ossetia they were defending and invaded adjoining regions of Georgia. It results from the report that the right of defense also guaranteed by Article 51 of the United Nations Charter at this point was already applying to Georgian soldiers. Whereas Russia, having attacked Georgian objects beyond South Ossetia and occupied a part of the Georgian territory, went “quite beyond” a reasonable response to Georgia’s actions. And in this connection, the Russian troops’ actions outside South Ossetia, as experts note, can not be considered even at a stretch as conformable to the threats the Russian peacemakers had received in the combatant area. And this is with the assumption that Georgian soldiers razed the Russian peacemakers’ base to the ground and killed over 70 Russian servicemen having the international inviolability mandate. The commission does not deny the right of South Ossetia’s troops to their country defense. At the same time it notes that operations of SouthOssetian units, not connected with repulsing Georgian attacks, go beyond the international law.
Georgia’s position has not obtained a definite support in the report, which means that in South Ossetia ethnic Georgians among locals went through “ethnic cleansing". At the same time the commission did not confirm accusations of the Ossetians of “genocide”, Russia and South Ossetia had addressed Georgia. As a result it turned out that at first it is Georgia that is to blame for the conflict, and then Russia. And Russia is more to blame at that. As Mikhail Saakashvili declared with optimism and cynicism peculiar to him, “findings of the EC independent commission on investigation into the conflict in August of last year in Georgia confirm that the Russian party committed a war crime and give ground for institution of criminal proceeding against the government of the Russian Federation." “The commission told more truth I could ever imagine. This is a big victory of Georgia’s diplomacy,” said Saakashvili . “For the first time in the history of international relations an authoritative international commission drew a conclusion that UN Security Council and Group of Eight member state and the biggest country in the world committed a war crime and ethnic cleansing,” the President of Georgia underlined. “They (the EC commission) have created a document that in one or five or 30 years will be sufficient to initiate a criminal case against the government that had committed a war crime and make it go to historical trial,” said Saakashvili .
This is how the commission’s findings were interpreted by the initiator and organizer of the aggression. He also cynically stressed that the commission’s report refutes the argumentation of Russian party, which is trying to ground and justify its actions in August of last year in Georgia. And this is with the assumption that the EC commission's report clearly says that “the beginning of the large-scale armed conflict was marked by Tshinvali’s bombardment on the night of August 7-8 by Georgia’s armed forces.”
So, whatever Saakashvili’s lawyers say, the pivot of the commission’s report is the conclusion that aggression against South Ossetia was unleashed by the actual leadership of Georgia. If there was not such an aggression, there would have not been the Russian army’s actions on the territory of Georgia. It is obvious.
For the whole world it is also obvious that the goal of the Georgian army's aggression to South Ossetia was Tbilisi’s striving to get back by force of arms the control over “the region aiming for separatism.” Exactly with this end in view the Georgian armed forces began Tshinvali’s firing and invade the Republic of South Ossetia before a large scale armed conflict between Georgia and Russia began, with Russia coming to help their peacemakers and dying Ossetians.
Georgia's leadership may have counted on impunity of its bloody actions. But the leadership was out in its reckoning – the aggressor got its just deserts, which is charged against Russia by the commission and called "going beyond reasonable limits of defense,” “violation of international law.” But how could it be otherwise? What is to be done with Ossetians’ right to life, which they were deprived of by the “young Georgian democracy?”
It was ignored both by Georgia and the EC commission. For either of them the main thing is ensuring “Georgia’s territorial integrity”, and by fair means or foul at that. It is legal. All the rest is illegal, including Russia’s recognition of independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, guarantee for their security against new Georgia’s aggression.
Thus, nine months of work of the EC commission in the Caucasus has changed nothing – the parties to the conflict reserved their own opinions (everyone has his own truth), tensions in relations between Russia and Georgia remains at a high level.
And in this context the EC commission's report does not have legal effect, nor yet is of any constructive value as a political document. And the USA, NATO, European Community, and, certainly, Georgia will have to accept de facto the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. There is nothing to be done with it, because right to life is donated to each of us not by Mikhail Saakashvili in Tbilisi, but somewhat higher. Today it is Russia that is defending the Abkhazian and Ossetian right to life.
By the way, in this context one of the EC commission members, working in the Caucasus, German civil rights advocate Otto Luchterhandt expressed his opinion: “The European states’ recognition of Abkhazia's independence, unlike today’s politics, would not accelerate the process of its integration with Russia, but would contribute to reducing tensions.” The civil rights advocate does not rule out that in foreseeable future the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia would be recognized by other states.
