EUMM: Unarmed but effective. The EU Monitoring Mission in Georgia has helped stabilise the situation after the bloody August 2008 War. However the situation on the frontline is often tense, and the future far from certain.

As Georgia and Russia prepared to mark the 5th anniversary of the August 2008 war commonspace.eu special correspondent Joseph d'Urso joined a patrol of the European Union Monitoring Mission (EUMM), and watched the Russians construct a new fence that is fast becoming a symbol of suffering and separation in the heart of the Caucasus. He also talked to local people directly affected by the conflict.

The village of Ditsi lies just on the Georgian side of the administrative boundary line (ABL) between Tbilisi administered territory (TAT) and the autonomous region of South Ossetia. The area was devastated by the brutal war of August 2008, which left many dead, wounded or displaced.

Our Swedish patrol leader holds a bulky GPS unit as his weapon - EUMM is a completely unarmed civilian mission - and we are suddenly told to stop. 'The ABL is here. You can see the Russian surveillance cameras in the distance. If you go further, it is at your own risk.' The Georgian police do not mark or patrol the ABL; to do so would be to acknowledge its legitimacy.

Most of the eccentrically zigzagging 350km ABL is not marked in any way. It takes an intricate cross-referencing of Russian surveillance positions, Ossetian and Georgian settlements as well as modern and Soviet-era maps to determine where Tbilisi-controlled Georgia ends and South Ossetia begins.

In the second phase of the short war in August 2008 Russian forces moved deep into Georgia but Russia swiftly withdrew, after the Sarkozy-brokered cease fire agreement, to the old Soviet administrative borders of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, territories that it now recognises as independent states.

This stalemate manifests itself on the ground. As we patrol a different segment of the boundary line later in the day, we come across three Ossetian villagers constructing a brand new fence along the ABL. They stand around ten metres away. Between us lie only a stony path and some patchy grass, yet as we stand there they are in the process of making this tiny gap physically impassable.

The villagers hammer thick metal poles into the sunbaked turf, fastening thick wire fencing sheets between them. Not once do they look up or acknowledge our presence in the twenty minutes or so we spend watching them. After a while a call is made, and a shiny SUV arrives on the path some fifty metres behind them, sixty metres from us. Russians, one assumes.

When we finally drag ourselves away from this surreal scenario, the fence is a bit longer. So too perhaps is the prospect of South Ossetia returning under Tbilisi's control. As we leave, villagers on the Georgian side of the line stop our vehicle to give us some fresh peaches. Perhaps this group and the Ossetian fence builders were friends, co-workers or neighbours before 2008. Perhaps back then the Ossetians would have walked ten metres towards us and given us peaches too.

The South Ossetian front differs from the Abkhazian one in that there is no obvious physical demarcation. While the Inguri River neatly divides Georgia from its autonomous northwestern neighbour, the border with South Ossetia is far less clear. An estimated 30km of the border is now fenced off, an amount that has been increasing steadily during 2013. There are now thought to be nineteen Russian military bases within South Ossetia, and surveillance cameras on giant poles observe movements along the ABL 24 hours a day.

Later on at the largest internally displaced persons (IDP) camp at Tserovani just north of Tbilisi, I meet Emzari, a man of around fifty years old. He last saw his home in 2008. 'In my district, nine villages, including my own, were completely burned down - I don't know when I will be able to return. If I could go back tomorrow, I would.' His message to EU observers is not to forget about the fate of IDPs in Georgia. Although EUMM continues its daily operations on the boundary line, EU emergency humanitarian aid to IDPs in Georgia has largely ended. Another group of men in Tserovani complain that the $12 a month they receive from the Georgian government is not even enough to enable them to travel to Tbilisi and look for work.

Hostages are still regularly taken along the ABL. Georgian villagers alleged to have strayed on the wrong side of the line have been detained by Ossetian authorities and fined 5,000 roubles, an astronomical sum in this impoverished corner of the Caucasus. The ABL cuts through communities, dividing people from their farms and orchards, even from family and friends. A small Georgian graveyard near Ditsi is especially politically sensitive. Located right on a disputed section of the ABL, the right of villagers to tend to the graves of their loved ones - an important and symbolically powerful tradition in the Caucasus - is in jeopardy. According to EUMM staff, near here each Sunday afternoon a mother climbs a hill to greet her daughter on the other side.

An 81 year-old man, happy to speak anonymously once Georgian police have left the vicinity, complains that life is now worse than under Soviet times when there was freedom of movement and free medical treatment.

The Russian positions in South Ossetia and Abkhazia are more entrenched than ever, making the EU's stated goal of restoring Georgia's 'territorial integrity' seem remote. One could be cynical about the EUMM's lack of muscle in such a militarised region, or about the challenging position that lacking access to the disputed territories puts them in. However unlike in Nagorno-Karabakh or Gaza, both sides, so far, have respected the ceasefire, and there have been very few casualties since it came into force. EUMM also helps facilitate limited communication between parties where no other international organisation is able to do so. EUMM has clearly played a role in securing this uneasy peace.

As an unarmed civilian operation it has managed to build relationships with all parties, though it has at times had difficulty persuading the South Ossetian and Abkhazian authorities that it is genuinely impartial. As EUMM still has no access to either, it relies largely on analysis and anecdotal evidence to comprehend the situation inside the territories.

One source of communication is at regular IPRM (Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism) meetings, where EUMM findings are communicated to Georgian, Russian and Ossetian authorities. Unfortunately the Abkhazians have not participated since an April 2012 when they accused the EUMM's Head of Mission of the time with lack of impartiality. There is also an EUMM facilitated 'hotline', which has helped to negotiate the release of detainees and to defuse tensions when clashes have occurred.

It is impossible to know what the long term solution will be regarding the future status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Georgians are divided and fickle about their country's long-term strategic interests, while the diplomatic process, based in Geneva, has yielded no answers.

The conflict is in part a story of posturing elites in Tbilisi and Moscow (and to some extent also in Sukhumi and Tskhinvali), and the subsequent reactions from Brussels and Washington. Yet one must never forget the scale of human tragedy that has been caused by this conflict. Virtually every family in South Ossetia and the surrounding area, be they Georgian or Osset, have witnessed first-hand the horrors of death and deportation, rape and dispossession. The paroxysms of 2008 have been followed by the more mundane tragedies of poverty and unemployment. The contorted and arbitrary boundary line compounds this misery, as does the wearisome passage of time with no solution.

Commonspace.eu correspondent Joseph d'Urso travelled with a patrol of the European Union Monitoring Mission near the Administrative Boundary Line seperating Georgia from the self-declared Republic of South Ossetia on 31 July 2013. He also met Georgian displaced persons in the IDP settlement of Tserovani.

 

See also: "The pen is our weapon. We do not need arms." Interview with the Interim Head of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, Gerard E. Fischer.

source: commonspace.eu

photo: Members of the EUMM Mission in Georgia inspecting a new fence being constructed by Russian forces on the Ossetian side of the Administrative Boundary Line.



 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

António Costa, President of the European Council, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, represented the EU at the 21st EU-Canada summit, which took place in Montreal on 29 and 30 October 2026. Prime Minister Mark Carney represented Canada. The summit marked a major milestone in EU-Canada relations, paving the way for an even broader and deeper political partnership. Leaders took stock of progress made since the previous EU-Canada summit and issued a joint statement launching an Alliance for the Future. Building on their longstanding strategic partnership, the alliance aims to deepen cooperation and create a common prosperity and economic security space. This is a moment to act with clarity and ambition. By aligning more closely – economically, technologically and strategically – Canada and the EU are building an Alliance for the Future based on trust and shared values that meets the scale of today's challenges and opportunities and will reinforce the freedom, prosperity and safety our citizens expect and deserve. We are stronger together. Building on their existing Strategic Partnership Agreement, the EU and Canada will deepen political engagement and coordination on shared priorities. Leaders welcomed the increasingly frequent exchanges with Canadian ministers at relevant Council and ministerial meetings. The EU and Canada will build on these exchanges through regular summits, joint ministerial meetings and cooperation committees. The partners will work to define the concept of an ever-closer association of Canada to the EU, short of full membership, by the 2027 EU-Canada summit. (click image to read more)

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)