Women in South Ossetia reach out to each other across ethnic divides.

Irina Yanovskaya is an Ossetian journalist and activist who since the 1990s has been involved in peace-building and human rights work in Tskhinvali. In this article for Commonspace.eu she talks about how women in South Ossetia are trying to bridge the ethnic divide.

I took this photograph on August 16, 2008. That day my camera caught a multitude of images of the war's aftermath: wrecked houses, burnt cars, city streets strewn with glass shards and cracked tree branches. I can still remember the stench of food thrown out of shops and rotting away under the hot August sun.

The central water supply system was damaged during the war, and many people had to get drinking water from a spring on the city outskirts. It was there that I met this woman.

I was particularly struck by the look in her eyes, a look of anguish intermingled with despair, fear and uncertainty in the future. It made me wonder how many hardships women had to endure - after all, women along with children and the elderly are always hit the hardest during times of war. Some say that eyes are the window to the soul, and I for one agree with this phrase entirely. I am not just trying to brag about my photograph: those eyes really made a strong impact on me, and I couldn't stop thinking about them for a long time.

Two years later I ran into that same woman again, only this time in the city centre. I could see that her weary eyes had brightened up since I had first seen her, although there still was a hint of fear in them. I got to talk to her for a while. She told me that she was selling goods at the local market for a living and that she earned enough to make ends meet, but that is it. She said "but that is it" with such desperation in her voice that anyone who was aware of the current situation in South Ossetia would empathise with her.

That meeting once again immersed me in deep thought and I realized that it is vital to put more efforts into improving the position of women irrespective of their ethnic origin. All the women of South Ossetia have common problems, they all experienced the same loss and sorrow during the war, and they are the ones who need to continue giving birth and raising children in the future.

Bearing in mind these thoughts, I initiated a project under the title "Developing the peace-making potential of Georgian and Ossetian women in South Ossetia", which was generously funded by the Confidence Building and Early Response Mechanism (administered by UNDP). The goal of the project was to contribute to building peace and trust within South Ossetian society - through direct contacts between ethnic Georgian and Ossetian women.

We had to overcome significant barriers of fear and resentment in identifying women ready to participate in ethnically mixed discussion groups. But we soon realised that by the end of each meeting, the women tended to increasingly open up and share their feelings. In general, ethnic Georgian women seemed to encounter the most serious challenges. They told us how hard it was for them to find work, and how they could not use their native language in South Ossetia. Their stories conveyed a sense that there was little place for Georgian women in South Ossetian society.

They suffered from not being able to see their relatives across the border. Moreover, even though no one mentioned it during the meetings, we are aware that most Georgians who had stayed in South Ossetia during the first Georgian-Ossetian conflict feel that "we are not wanted in Georgia, we are regarded as traitors" and "in Ossetia we are seen as the enemy". The latter belief is further consolidated by their perception of war reports in the local media.

We also couldn't help but notice how unhappy the women's private lives seemed in general. Since most men were traumatized by the war experiences, a heavy burden is now imposed solely on women. The discussions revealed a number of fears and problems shared among the women of South Ossetia. Namely, most women were overly pessimistic and concentrated only on the future well-being of their children with no regard for themselves, let alone personal social convictions, hopes for positive changes in society, female leadership etc.

After the discussion phase we conducted a training session with a composite group of women of Georgian, Ossetian and mixed origin at a picturesque highland resort in Tsei, North Ossetia. Most of the women took an active part in the training and were enthusiastic in expressing their thoughts and opinions, although the Georgian women did seem more restrained at first. The main topics included the social roles of men and women in the multinational South Ossetian society, typical gender models and expectations, gender constructs of the society, conflict and violence, conflict analysis, needs and fears assessment, and the role of women in the peacemaking process. The behaviour of the women during the session suggested that they are confronted with these issues in their everyday life. Consequently, with the help of the coach they quite successfully assessed their needs and fears in detail, drawing from their personal experiences.

Nevertheless, when participants were asked at the end of the training to identify the problems specific to ethnic Georgian women in South Ossetia, active intervention by the project coordinator was required to stimulate an open discussion. This led to the conclusion among participants that even though everyone lived within the same society in South Ossetia, they had a very vague idea of each others' problems. However, following our initiative it is clear that women of Ossetian, Georgian, and mixed ethnic origin share some common grounds and experience a lot of common problems irrespective of their nationality and political viewpoints. We believe that an organised platform would greatly facilitate their further cooperation but we currently lack funds to extend our initiative.

I recently spoke to one of the Georgian women who took part in our project, and she told me that she ran into another participant, a woman of Ossetian origin, in the city. She said that their meeting was very warm, like a reunion of two close friends who had known each other for years. This story proved to me that mutual trust and peaceful relations are possible, no matter however painful the wounds of recent conflict still are.

Irina Yanovskaya is a journalist and director of the NGO "Journalists for Human Rights" in Tskhinval. She has been involved in civil society peace-building and human-rights work since the 1990s. She contributed this article to Commonspaceextra, the quarterly publication of commonspace.eu

photo: A woman in Tskhinval fetching water shortly after the end of hostilities in the August 2008 War

(c) commonspace.eu

Related articles on Commonspace.eu:

EUMM: Unarmed but effective (published on 9 August 2013)

Interview with Dimitri Medoev, South Ossetia's Envoy in Moscow (published on 7 August 2013)

Russia builds artificial border in the heart of the Caucasus (published on 5 August 2013)


 

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).

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)