The Russian decision to recognize South
Ossetian and Abkhazian claims to independence has begun to backfire
politically -- in terms of Russia's own global and domestic interests.
Not only has Moscow been criticized by the US and European Union for its
actions, but also by China and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which, on
principle, have generally opposed the right of national independence and
secessionism.
Moreover, Russian support for South Ossetia
and Abkhazia could exacerbate nationalist claims for independence within Russia itself (or states allied to Russia), particularly given Russia's
repression of the Chechen claims to independence, while simultaneously opposing
Kosova's independence. In short, Russian actions in Georgia have tended to
alienate Russia's own friends and allies while providing ideological
justification for those national and ethnic groups that have historically
opposed Russian imperialism and that might ultimately seek
"independence" from Russia itself. Russia consequently risks further
isolating itself from the world community and alienating a number of its own
indigenous communities.
Here, however, the question of what exactly
is meant by "independence" may possibly provide a key to a diplomatic
settlement. In other words, while Russia has recognized South Ossetia's and
Abkhazia's "independence," there may still be room to compromise on what is
meant by "independence"-- by redefining the term. On the one hand,
Russia may not want to support and subsidize these impoverished regions
indefinitely; on the other hand, these regions could still reach for important
security and political accords and trading arrangements with both Russia and
Georgia that permit close cooperation, thus resulting in a new definition of
"independence" and resulting in a form of "autonomy" or "confederation". Georgia can then, in turn,
claim that its territorial integrity remains intact, although not in the
traditional sense of the concept.
In other words, by redefining the concept
of "independence," it may be possible for Russia to find a face
saving way out of the crisis that will ultimately permit the deployment of
international peacekeepers either along side Russian forces or in replacing
those forces. Such an agreement -- involving mutual and overlapping security
accords, possibly backed by the UN Security Council--- may also make it possible for Russia,
Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia to live side by side in peace and mutual
prosperity, while protecting the rights of minority communities.
Hall Gardner is Professor in the International and Comparative Politics Department at the American University of Paris. He is the author of Averting Global War (New York: Palgrave, 2007); American Global Strategy and the ‘War on Terrorism' (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005; 2007); and Dangerous Crossroads (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1997), among many other edited books and articles.
Related materials from the Atlantic Community:
- Colette Grace Mazzucelli: The Georgian Flaw in Transatlantic Security
- Stefan Fröhlich: The EU and the US: Peace Brokers for a Secure Georgia
- Leonie Holthaus: EU Should Balance Criticism Toward Russia and Georgia
Buy at Amazon.com or Amazon.de
Buy at Amazon.com or Amazon.de
- 12
September 17, 2008
Marek Swierczynski, journalist at TVP, Platinum Contributor (807)