Georgia, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia: the issue is self-determination

Submitted by cathy n on 25 August, 2008 - 7:36

To date Russian troops remain in Georgia very close to the capital Tbilisi. As western diplomatic pressure on Russia gets stronger, Russia appears to want a semi-permanent presence in the de facto mini-states within Georgia’s borders — South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

The Russian war aims went far beyond any “defence” of, or “justice” for, the South Ossetian people. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili claimed Russia wanted to overthrow his government and annex South Ossetia; despite the hypocrisy of someone who vowed to re-establish Georgian control in the de facto states, this statement has the ring of truth.

Russia says it wants a referendum for the people of South Ossetia on their future. This from the government of Vladimir Putin, which has gutted the (weak) bourgeois democratic institutions Russia gained after the fall of the Stalinist system. Putin is an autocratic cynical thug. Contrast his lying rhetoric over “self-determination” for South Ossetia with his extraordinary brutality towards the Chechen peoples’ drive for independence. What kind of result would the Russians accept in a referendum? One which called for complete independence for South Ossetia, united with North Ossetia? Russia might allow that, but only if it enjoyed complete informal control over the a new Ossetia.

The Russian invasion shows us a resurgent imperialist Russia which still regards the Caucasus as its own backyard. Whatever happens, the newly independent states of Georgia and others in the region — long held captive in the Tsarist Empire and then the Stalinist USSR, both a “prison house of nations”— will continue to come under threat.

The Georgian government’s 7-8 August attempt to reclaim territorial sovereignty in South Ossetia was a bloody and politically reckless adventure. It was also, whatever the Georgians feared about Russian control in the disputed territories, wrong.

The South Ossetians are a people with a distinct history who have the right to self-determination. While Georgian action may have been about justifiable fear for the many Georgians who live within the territory, it was also the action of a nationalistic government resolved to “reintegrate” Ossetia into Georgia. If the people of South Ossetia want independence that is their right. On the other hand, the democratic aspirations of the people are not synonymous with the ambitions of their proto-government, run as it is by a former Soviet official in the pay of the Russians.

The build up of force and the militarization of territories inside NATO; the future plan to bring Georgia into NATO, has all helped to exacerbate the hostility between Russian imperialism and the smaller state. Russian action has been a proxy for its larger rivalry with the USA that is the basic framework here. The US wants to prise away the countries on Russia’s western borders. And Russia wants to reverse losses in prestige and influence that have occurred since the end of the Cold War.

But, much as the big western powers want strategically important Georgia tied into their military network, they were not prepared to go out on a limb for little Georgia, and risk a wider war with Russia. Support from the US was very minimal.

Where do socialists stand? We stand for the self-determination of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. We oppose the Russian threat to Georgian self-determination.

We don’t defer to the existing borders of Georgia or Russia. We don’t care about the big powers’ territorial claims. We care about the rights of distinct peoples where they are the majority to decide their own future. We are consistent democrats; where there is a local minority — as in South Ossetia, which has a large percentage of ethnic Georgians — their democratic rights also should be upheld. Ultimately, we stand for the unity of different peoples, in the first place of the working classes. We stand for a socialist federation in the Caucasus.

The prospects for the self-determination of the oppressed peoples of Georgia being achieved in a consistently democratic way, that is, taking into account the wishes of the minorities within the disputed territories, looks gloomy. There is a terrible chance of long-term ethnic conflict and ethnic cleansing in both South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This short war has already caused a huge displacement of people.

The responsibility for that lies with the various bourgeois forces currently occupying the political, as well as the territorial, space in the region.

UK socialists should make contact and where we can solidarise with the different socialist, left and labour movement organisations in the region.


The pro-Russian left

Seamus Milne writing in the Guardian (Thursday 14 August) under the headline, “This is a tale of US expansion not Russian aggression,” began: “The outcome of six grim days of bloodshed in the Caucasus has triggered an outpouring of the most nauseating hypocrisy from western politicians and their captive media.” While it is not quite clear what he means by western “captive media” — we would have to travel to Putin’s Russia to find real “captive media” — the hypocrisy of western politicians is not in dispute. Milne mentions Iraq. Yes, Washington does have double standards.

Therefore? Therefore Russia is off the hook: “By any sensible reckoning, this is not a story of Russian aggression, but of US imperial expansion.”

We can’t have two factors, both Russian aggression and US imperial expansion? Apparently not, we must choose from one or the other.

No mention then of Chechen democracy, drowned in blood by the Kremlin. No mention of Putin’s “nauseating hypocrisy” in claiming to defend smaller, oppressed peoples after having destroyed Grozney and having political responsibility for the deaths of thousands of Chechen civilians.

Milne goes on, “The long-running dispute over South Ossetia … is the inevitable consequence of the breakup of the Soviet Union. As in the case of Yugoslavia, minorities who were happy enough to live on either side of an internal boundary that made little difference to their lives feel quite differently when they find themselves on the wrong side of an international state border.”

Milne is an old Stalinist, and too embarassed to state his conclusion clearly (better that the old USSR and Yugoslavia still exist). But we are brave enough to state our position, contrasting ourselves to Milne by rewording his text: The long-running dispute over South Ossetia is the inevitable consequence of the unwillingness of the big powers and the Georgian governement to accept the right to self determination of nations and respect the rights of national minorities.

But Milne cares passionately about Georgia (under certain conditions): “Georgia proper’s independence [should be] respected — best protected by opting for neutrality.” In other words Georgia can be independent by doing the minimum its powerful northern neighbour demands of it. It can have independence... if it chooses to reject its independence!

Milne repeats a Russian threat here which would be more candidly worded: “Georgia’s independence will not be respected by the Russian government unless it breaks with the US.” Or more honestly still, “Georgia must tow Moscow’s line or there will be trouble.”

And Milne rejoices in the rise of a new Russian imperialism, “Unipolar domination of the world has squeezed the space for genuine self-determination and the return of some counterweight has to be welcome.” The answer to American imperialism, it seems, is not the abolition of imperialism but support for a “balancing” imperialism!

But when the Soviet Union last stood head-to-head with the US, wasn’t the Soviet bloc a prison for oppressed nationalities? Wasn’t the USSR itself an imperialist monstrosity?

Having passed on Putin’s threat to Georgia, Milne ends by passing on his threat against the Baltic states and Ukraine to the rest of us, “If Georgia had been a member of Nato, this week's conflict would have risked a far sharper escalation. That would be even more obvious in the case of Ukraine.”

Of course we should oppose Georgia’s entry into NATO. But we should be clear why. Not because we want to help Putin’s imperialism, but in the name of international socialism, in opposition to all the contending ruling classes and the wars they wage.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.