Politics
Europe-the biggest loser in the EU’s Russia-Georgia war report
Reading Time: 6 minutesAfter the Russo-Georgian War in August 2008, the European Union found itself in a difficult position. Moscow had not only invaded a neighbor for the first time since the Soviet assault on Afghanistan in 1979. In recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states, it had also broken the cardinal rule of post-cold war European security: that borders in Europe would never again be changed by force of arms. Yet Georgia, too, had clearly made mistakes, not the least in embroiling itself in a military conflict with Russia that Georgias own allies had repeatedly warned against. Passions were high as both sides accused each other of aggression, atrocities, and other violations of international law. What to do?
By Ronald D. Asmus
After the Russo-Georgian War in August 2008, the European Union found itself in a difficult position. Moscow had not only invaded a neighbor for the first time since the Soviet assault on Afghanistan in 1979. In recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states, it had also broken the cardinal rule of post-cold war European security: that borders in Europe would never again be changed by force of arms. Yet Georgia, too, had clearly made mistakes, not the least in embroiling itself in a military conflict with Russia that Georgia’s own allies had repeatedly warned against. Passions were high as both sides accused each other of aggression, atrocities, and other violations of international law. What to do?
In this bind, the E.U. opted for a classic political answer. It farmed out the task of assessing the war’s origins to an independent commission with an unwieldy name. The Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia (IIFFMCG)–headed by the soft-spoken but experienced Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini, who has real-world experience running the U.N. mission in Georgia’s breakaway province of Abkhazia–was allotted eight months to investigate. Last week, in Brussels, she and the commission issued their much anticipated report.
Reading the 43-page summary is a little bit like reading the medical file of someone suffering from a serious illness. The prose is dry, the language at times clinical. It might lull a reader to sleep if the topic itself was not so serious and potentially explosive.
The initial media coverage has focused on a single sentence in the report, which says that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili essentially started the war by shelling Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, on the evening of August 7. At the same time, the sentence emphasizes that the incident was the culmination of a chain of events and provocations going back months, if not years. Russia jumped on the first element of that conclusion, claiming proof that it had been right all along. Georgia countered by emphasizing the second part, which it called proof that it had been provoked into war. And, in presenting her findings, Tagliavini went one step further than the report itself by saying that, in her eyes, the explanations provided by the Georgian side did not provide a sufficient legal foundation for Tbilisi’s actions on that fateful day.
That certainly gave Georgia a black eye. The Kremlin’s spin machine immediately swung into action to exploit the statement. (Actually, it swung into action even before the report was issued, giving rise to rumors that Moscow had an advance copy.) However, Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev shouldn’t be too eager for people to read the report closely, since the more closely one reads it, the worse it looks for Moscow.
That’s because, in many ways, the commission’s findings explode Russia’s official narrative of the war as well. The report makes it clear that this was, first and foremost, a war fought between Georgia and Russia, rather than a conflict between Tbilisi and its unruly provinces. Moscow based its official casus belli on three arguments: that Georgian forces had tried to commit “genocide” against South Ossetians; that Georgians had attacked Russian “peacekeepers”; and that Russia had a right and obligation to come to the defense of Russian citizens in these breakaway regions. None of these arguments are confirmed in the report, and all of them are carefully dissected.
The report dismisses Russian allegations of genocide as “neither founded in law nor substantiated by factual evidence.” It rejects Moscow’s claim to have undertaken a humanitarian intervention. It concludes that the distribution of passports to Abkhaz and South Ossetians in the years prior to the war–thus creating the Russian citizens that Moscow claimed it was defending–was illegal. It does acknowledge Russia’s right to defend its so-called "peacekeepers" on the ground, but states that Russia’s military response “cannot be regarded as even remotely commensurate with the threat to Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia.” And, perhaps most devastatingly for Moscow, the report concludes that neither Abkhazia nor South Ossetia had the right to secede from Georgia and that Moscow’s recognition of their independence ran contrary to international law. So much for the idea that it proved Moscow right.
Tagliavini’s findings arguably do not go far enough in criticizing the West for its own mistakes, which contributed to the slide into war. The report notes that conflict prevention mechanisms on the ground were inadequate, but that is surely an understatement. Tagliavini knows this only too well, having been the U.N. representative in Abkhazia, where, to her credit, she was one of those calling for an expanded international presence to balance Russia’s. Unfortunately, the political will in the West was lacking. Likewise, the report mentions Kosovo’s independence and the decisions [1] made at NATO’s Bucharest summit, but it does not go into detail about how Western policies actually provided Moscow with a pretext for war. It also skates over the obvious flaws in the peace deal that was eventually negotiated by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. But perhaps that would have been a bit too much for the European Union to swallow.
The report leaves unanswered the lingering question, “Why did Georgian President Misha Saakashvili do it?” This is especially relevant, since Tagliavini stated that Tbilisi could not offer a legal justification for its actions. Having researched the issue for my own book and discussed the danger of war with Saakashvili, both before and after August 2008, I believe the answer is straightforward. His actions came after a long series of Russian threats, including those voiced by Putin himself, warning that Georgia would face consequences for proceeding on its pro-Western course. Moscow had rejected secret peace proposals floated by Saakashvili, and Kosovo’s independence on top of the NATO decisions at the Bucharest summit had given Moscow a pretext to escalate its pressure on Georgia. Saakashvili then engaged in a desperate response to what he believed was the imminent threat of ethnic cleansing against tens of thousands of Georgian citizens, plus the possible loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia once and for all, and even a Russian assault on Tbilisi itself.
The intelligence picture presented to Saakashvili on that day suggested that Georgia was being invaded in slow motion. Simply doing nothing was, in his eyes, not an option. And he was convinced that he would never survive politically if he just stood by.
Of course, one can still conclude that it was the wrong choice. After all, Saakashvili began a war his allies had warned him not to start–a war that they would not support and that he could not win. Georgia’s armed forces were neither trained nor equipped to confront the Russian army. And it is easier to start a war than to successfully end one, as Georgia found out when it was subsequently forced to acquiesce to an unjust peace to survive. But why Saakashvili acted should not be considered a great mystery. The Georgian president was cornered. He believed he faced the choice of going down peacefully or fighting, and he chose to fight.
The larger reason the report matters is that the Russo-Georgian War represents a failure of the European security system we have labored to build since the fall of the Iron Curtain. That system was supposed to ban spheres of influence, prevent the predatory behavior of large countries, and guarantee the security of small ones–in addition to providing warning against growing tensions and giving us mechanisms to prevent war.
In August 2008, the system faltered. The war represented a clash between the core principle embodied in the Helsinki process, which granted countries the right to choose their own domestic and foreign policy courses–including alliances–and Moscow’s growing determination to create a sphere of privileged interest on its borders. As Foreign Minister Lavrov told Condi Rice at the height of the conflict, Russia’s goal was regime change and the removal of Saakashvili.
So we should have no illusions. The underlying conflict between Georgia and Russia has not been resolved. Tbilisi still wants to go West, and Moscow still wants to stop it. Having just returned from Georgia, I suspect some in the Kremlin wish they had finished off Saakashvili when they had the chance a year ago, since he seems as firmly in the sad dle as ever. The conflict is not over; it has only been postponed. And while the "peacekeeping" mechanisms on the ground today may be different–over 200 unarmed E.U. observers–they remain inadequate.
Ultimately, the most important questions left unanswered by the E.U. commission are these: Have we drawn the right lessons from the war? Are we any smarter or better positioned today, if we wish to prevent another conflict in Georgia? What about in nearby Ukraine, where trouble also seems to be brewing? These questions are essential, because if we do not learn from our mistakes, we have a recipe for another war–and perhaps another commission to determine why it happened.
—
Ronald D. Asmus is the executive director of the Brussels-based Transatlantic Center of the German Marshall Fund of the United States and the author of A Little War That Shook the World: Georgia, Russia, and the Future of the West,to be published by Palgrave Macmillan.
A new football club has earned a leading place in the UEFA Champions League groups and starred in the headlines of worldwide football news yesterday. The Football Club Sheriff Tiraspol claimed a win with the score 2-1 against Real Madrid on the Santiago Bernabeu Stadium in Madrid. That made Sheriff Tiraspol the leader in Group D of the Champions League, including the football club in the groups of the most important European interclub competition for the first time ever.
International media outlets called it a miracle, a shock and a historic event, while strongly emphasizing the origin of the team and the existing political conflict between the two banks of the Dniester. “Football club from a pro-Russian separatist enclave in Moldova pulls off one of the greatest upsets in Champions League history,” claimed the news portals. “Sheriff crushed Real!” they said.
Moldovans made a big fuss out of it on social media, splitting into two groups: those who praised the team and the Republic of Moldova for making history and those who declared that the football club and their merits belong to Transnistria – a problematic breakaway region that claims to be a separate country.
Both groups are right and not right at the same time, as there is a bunch of ethical, political, social and practical matters that need to be considered.
Is it Moldova?
First of all, every Moldovan either from the right or left bank of Dniester (Transnistria) is free to identify himself with this achievement or not to do so, said Vitalie Spranceana, a sociologist, blogger, journalist and urban activist. According to him, boycotting the football club for being a separatist team is wrong.
At the same time, “it’s an illusion to think that territory matters when it comes to football clubs,” Spranceana claimed. “Big teams, the ones included in the Champions League, have long lost their connection both with the countries in which they operate, and with the cities in which they appeared and to which they linked their history. […] In the age of globalized commercial football, teams, including the so-called local ones, are nothing more than global traveling commercial circuses, incidentally linked to cities, but more closely linked to all sorts of dirty, semi-dirty and cleaner cash flows.”
What is more important in this case is the consistency, not so much of citizens, as of politicians from the government who have “no right to celebrate the success of separatism,” as they represent “the national interests, not the personal or collective pleasures of certain segments of the population,” believes the political expert Dionis Cenusa. The victory of FC Sheriff encourages Transnistrian separatism, which receives validation now, he also stated.
“I don’t know how it happens that the “proud Moldovans who chose democracy”, in their enthusiasm for Sheriff Tiraspol’s victory over Real Madrid, forget the need for total and unconditional withdrawal of Russian troops from Transnistria!” declared the journalist Vitalie Ciobanu.
Nowadays, FC Sheriff Tiraspol has no other choice than to represent Moldova internationally. For many years, the team used the Moldovan Football Federation in order to be able to participate in championships, including international ones. That is because the region remains unrecognised by the international community. However, the club’s victory is presented as that of Transnistria within the region, without any reference to the Republic of Moldova, its separatist character being applied in this case especially.
Is it a victory?
In fact, FC Sheriff Tiraspol joining the Champions League is a huge image breakthrough for the Transnistrian region, as the journalist Madalin Necsutu claimed. It is the success of the Tiraspol Club oligarchic patrons. From the practical point of view, FC Sheriff Tiraspol is a sports entity that serves its own interests and the interests of its owners, being dependent on the money invested by Tiraspol (but not only) oligarchs.
Here comes the real dilemma: the Transnistrian team, which is generously funded by money received from corruption schemes and money laundering, is waging an unequal fight with the rest of the Moldovan football clubs, the journalist also declared. The Tiraspol team is about to raise 15.6 million euro for reaching the Champions League groups and the amounts increase depending on their future performance. According to Necsutu, these money will go directly on the account of the club, not to the Moldovan Football Federation, creating an even bigger gab between FC Sheriff and other football clubs from Moldova who have much more modest financial possibilities.
“I do not see anything useful for Moldovan football, not a single Moldovan player is part of FC Sheriff Tiraspol. I do not see anything beneficial for the Moldovan Football Federation or any national team.”
Is it only about football?
FC Sheriff Tiraspol, with a total estimated value of 12.8 million euros, is controlled by Victor Gusan and Ilya Kazmala, being part of Sheriff Holding – a company that controls the trade of wholesale, retail food, fuels and medicine by having monopolies on these markets in Transnistria. The holding carries out car trading activities, but also operates in the field of construction and real estate. Gusan’s people also hold all of the main leadership offices in the breakaway region, from Parliament to the Prime Minister’s seat or the Presidency.
The football club is supported by a holding alleged of smuggling, corruption, money laundering and organised crime. Moldovan media outlets published investigations about the signals regarding the Sheriff’s holding involvement in the vote mobilization and remuneration of citizens on the left bank of the Dniester who participated in the snap parliamentary elections this summer and who were eager to vote for the pro-Russian socialist-communist bloc.
Considering the above, there is a great probability that the Republic of Moldova will still be represented by a football club that is not identified as being Moldovan, being funded from obscure money, growing in power and promoting the Transnistrian conflict in the future as well.
Photo: unknown
Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova, Natalia Gavrilita, together with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nicu Popescu, pay an official visit to Brussels, between September 27-28, being invited by High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell Fontelles.
Today, Prime Minister had a meeting with Charles Michel, President of the European Council. The Moldovan PM thanked the senior European official for the support of the institution in strengthening democratic processes, reforming the judiciary and state institutions, economic recovery and job creation, as well as increasing citizens’ welfare. Natalia Gavrilita expressed her confidence that the current visit laid the foundations for boosting relations between the Republic of Moldova and the European Union, so that, in the next period, it would be possible to advance high-level dialogues on security, justice and energy. Officials also exchanged views on priorities for the Eastern Partnership Summit, to be held in December.
“The EU is open to continue to support the Republic of Moldova and the ambitious reform agenda it proposes. Moldova is an important and priority partner for us,” said Charles Michel.
Prime Minister Natalia Gavrilita also met with Paolo Gentiloni, European Commissioner for Economy, expressing her gratitude for the support received through the OMNIBUS macro-financial assistance program. The two officials discussed the need to advance the recovery of money from bank fraud, to strengthen sustainable mechanisms for supporting small and medium-sized enterprises in Moldova, and to standardize the customs and taxes as one of the main conditions for deepening cooperation with the EU in this field.
Additionally, Prime Minister spoke about the importance of the Eastern Partnership and the Deep Free Trade Agreement, noting that the Government’s policies are aimed at developing an economic model aligned with the European economic model, focused on digitalization, energy efficiency and the green economy.
A common press release of the Moldovan Prime Minister with High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission, Josep Borrell Fontelles, took place today, where the agenda of Moldova’s reforms and the main priorities to focus on in the coming months were presented: judiciary reform; fighting COVID-19 pandemic; promoting economic recovery and conditions for growth and job creation; strengthening state institutions and resilience of the country.
“I am here to relaunch the dialogue between my country and the European Union. Our partnership is strong, but I believe there is room for even deeper cooperation and stronger political, economic and sectoral ties. I am convinced that this partnership is the key to the prosperity of our country and I hope that we will continue to strengthen cooperation.”
The Moldovan delegation met Didier Reynders, European Commissioner for Justice. Tomorrow, there are scheduled common meetings with Oliver Varhelyi, European Commissioner for Neighborhood and Enlargement, Adina Valean, European Commissioner for Transport and Kadri Simson, European Commissioner for Energy.
Prime Minister will also attend a public event, along with Katarina Mathernova, Deputy Director-General for Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations.
Photo: gov.md
Politics
Promo-LEX about Maia Sandu’s UN speech: The president must insist on appointing a rapporteur to monitor the situation of human rights in Transnistria
The President of the Republic of Moldova, Maia Sandu, pays an official visit to New York, USA, between September 21-22. There, she participates in the work of the United Nations General Assembly. According to a press release of the President’s Office, the official will deliver a speech at the tribune of the United Nations.
In this context, the Promo-LEX Association suggested the president to request the appointment of a special rapporteur in order to monitor the situation of human rights in the Transnistrian region. According to Promo-LEX, the responsibility for human rights violations in the Transnistrian region arises as a result of the Russian Federation’s military, economic and political control over the Tiraspol regime.
“We consider it imperative to insist on the observance of the international commitments assumed by the Russian Federation regarding the withdrawal of the armed forces and ammunition from the territory of the country,” the representatives of Promo-LEX stated. They consider the speech before the UN an opportunity “to demand the observance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the Russian Federation with reference to this territory which is in its full control.”
“It is important to remember about the numerous cases of murder, torture, ill-treatment, forced enlistment in illegal military structures, the application of pseudo-justice in the Transnistrian region, all carried out under the tacit agreement of the Russian Federation. These findings stem from dozens of rulings and decisions issued by the European Court of Human Rights, which found that Russia is responsible for human rights violations in the region.”
The association representatives expressed their hope that the president of the country would give priority to issues related to the human rights situation in the Transnistrian region and would call on relevant international actors to contribute to guaranteeing fundamental human rights and freedoms throughout Moldova.
They asked Maia Sandu to insist on the observance of the obligation to evacuate the ammunition and the military units of the Russian Federation from the territory of the Republic of Moldova, to publicly support the need for the Russian Federation to implement the ECtHR rulings on human rights violations in the Transnistrian region, and to request the appointment of an UN Human Rights Council special rapporteur to monitor the human rights situation in the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova.
**
The Promo-LEX Association concluded that 14 out of 25 actions planned within the National Action Plan for the years 2018–2022 concerning respecting human rights in Transnistria were not carried out by the responsible authorities.
The association expressed its concern and mentioned that there are a large number of delays in the planned results. “There is a lack of communication and coordination between the designated institutions, which do not yet have a common vision of interaction for the implementation of the plan.”
Promo-LEX requested the Government of the Republic of Moldova to re-assess the reported activities and to take urgent measures, “which would exclude superficial implementation of future activities and increase the level of accountability of the authorities.”
Photo: peacekeeping.un.org
“They are not needy, but they need help”. How Moldovan volunteers try to create a safe environment for the Ukrainian refugees
Reading Time: 3 minutesAt the Government’s ground floor, the phones ring constantly, the laptop screens never reach standby. In one...
#WorldForUkraine – a map that shows the magnitude of the world’s actions against Russian aggression
Reading Time: 2 minutesThe international community and volunteers from all over te world have launched #WorldForUkraine as a platform that...
How is Moldova managing the big influx of Ukrainian refugees? The authorities’ plan, explained
Reading Time: 3 minutesFrom 24th to 28th of February, 71 359 Ukrainian citizens entered the territory of Republic of Moldova....
Russia And Ukraine At The Beginning of 2022
Reading Time: 4 minutesThis opinion piece was written by Dr. Nicholas Dima. Dr. Dima was formerly a Professor of Geography and...
The man raising children on Nistru river
Reading Time: 7 minutesOn the Nistru, near the village of Varnița, a few colored pens with blue dots in the...
The village of the first astronomer in the Republic of Moldova
Reading Time: 5 minutesFrom eight in the morning till noon, every Thursday and Sunday, people lay their merchandise on the...
The prodigal son returns and turns his grandparents’ home in a tourist attraction on Nistru river
Reading Time: 7 minutesOn the road towards the school, a well-maintained rural house catches your eye, yellow stags painted on...
FC Sheriff Tiraspol victory: can national pride go hand in hand with political separatism?
Reading Time: 4 minutesA new football club has earned a leading place in the UEFA Champions League groups and starred...
Study// What is the reaction of authorities to journalistic investigations?
Reading Time: 3 minutes“People expect logical consequences when they see cases of undeclared assets, conflicts of interest, protectionism or proof...
Secretary General of CoE called on Moldova’s state institutions to avoid constitutional crisis. Politicians took it the way they wanted.
Reading Time: 3 minutesAt the beginning of this month, Speaker of Parliament, Zinaida Greceanii, sent a letter to Secretary General...