Monday Commentary: In South Ossetia high global politics and local feuds blend together

Dennis Sammut discusses the recent death of a Georgian whilst in detention in South Ossetia and says the incident has taken international ramifications and needs to be defused as soon as possible

Ten years after a short war between Georgia and Russia brought it to the forefront of world attention South Ossetia is once more in the news for the wrong reasons. A small territory that seceded from Georgia as the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991, South Ossetia is today the quintessential place where high global politics and local village squabbles blend together, often very badly.

The death, on 23 February. of a local Georgian whilst in the custody of the de facto authorities that run South Ossetia, unfortunate as it is, could in other circumstances have been explained, managed and dealt with. Instead it quickly turned into an international incident, yet unresolved.

Archil Tatunashvili was a small local trader who originally hailed from Akhalgori, a small town with a mainly Georgian population, but which in the 2008 war was occupied by Russian troops and later handed over to the South Ossetian authorities. Many of the Georgian population subsequently crossed over to the Georgian side, adding to the hundreds of thousands of displaced persons in the South Caucasus. Tatunashvili and his family were among them.

The Georgian narrative is that Tatunashvili crossed over the boundary line that these days separates South Ossetia from Georgia in order to go back to check on his home, and to sell some goods. The Ossetian narrative is that Tatunashvili was involved in illegal trading, and was likely spying for the Georgian authorities. Neither narrative explains or justifies his death, and not unexpectedly Tatunashvili's family and friends were incensed. The Georgian government cried foul, and their claims appeared justified when South Ossetia refused to hand over the body. The international community (minus Russia) weighed in on behalf of the Georgians. An incident in Akhalgori whose roots probably lays in decades of local squabbles is now the stuff of high diplomacy. So why, and who is to blame?

Whilst the Russians cannot be blamed for all the problems of the Caucasus, their shadow is everywhere. On this occasion their responsibility is more direct. Not only are they the patrons of their protectorate in South Ossetia, which they recognised as an independent state in 2008, but they have also tried to take a perverse legal approach to this act of illegality. In 2008, in blatant violation of the cease fire agreement brokered by the European Union, they refused to return the situation to a status quo ante, and instead stretched out Tskhinvali's control to every centimetre of territory that was nominally part of what in Soviet times was the South Ossetia Autonomous Oblast - including Akhalgori which until then was firmly under Georgian control. Thousands of Russian troops busily protect this new border" which is also being demarcated for the first time in history.

Having said that, the Russians are probably furious with the South Ossetians for causing the death of Tatunashvili. The Kremlin continuous to be incensed how this tiny territory on which they have spent so much money, continues to be a source of headaches. Over the last decade there were scandals with corruption and misuse of Russian aid, turmoil over election fraud, and constant clan bickering. Now, what was likely a local feud, has spiralled into an international incident. A case of the tail waging the dog, some may say.

Unlike in 2008, the European Union this time round finds itself on the front line of the dispute. Today Georgia is an EU associated state, and hundreds of EU officials monitor the situation with the secessionist territories as members of a monitoring mission. The EU also leads as co-chair of the Geneva discussions that try to bring the sides together and manage the situation. Very soon after Tatunashvili's death was announced the EU expressed its "grave concern" - Brussels equivalent of raising the threat perception to Defcon 3. The US, UK and other countries followed suit.

It is highly unlikely that the situation will develop beyond harsh rhetoric, but it needs to be defused just the same.

Instead of stonewalling, the Ossetians now need to hand over Tatunashvili's body to his family immediately, issue a public apology, and privately re-assure the Georgians that they have taken measures for such an incident not to be repeated.

The Georgians on their part need to lower their rhetoric. The Foreign Ministry particularly, has yet to master the art of subtlety. Some of their actions over the last year in handling issues related to the secessionist territories were disappointing.

The international community needs to react firmly to the death of Tatunashvili, using it to remind the Russians of their failure to implement the Sarkozy - Medvedev agreements, and pushing them to move the Geneva negotiations from conflict management to conflict resolution. But they must also caution restrain to the Georgians. The current government in Tbilisi is very different to the one in 2008, but the odd hot head still appears every now and then.

And as for the Russians? The Kremlin has enough on its plate at the moment, and does not need another little incident in the Caucasus, however it may not be ready yet for a shift in position. But clear heads in the Kremlin understand that in South Ossetia they have a situation that is never going to lead to anything any good. How they handle the Tatunashvili case may be a good indicator of how the wind is blowing.

source: Dennis Sammut is the Director of LINKS (Dialogue, Analysis and Research). His Monday Commentary is published weekly on commonspace.eu.

photo: Russian troops parade in Tskhinvali, the administrative capital of South Ossetia to mark Independence Day.  

 

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
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

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)