DOCSLIB.ORG

The Consequences of Russo-Georgian War

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Consequences of Russo-Georgian War Mise au Point A Russian convoy outside the village of Dzhaba in South Ossetia Photo : Dmitry Kostyukov/AFP- Getty Images Much Ado about Nothing? The Consequences of Russo-Georgian War Par Elena Mizrokhi, Auxiliaire de recherche pour la Chaire de recherche du Canada sur les conflits identitaires et le terrorisme et pour le Programme Paix et sécurité internationales The confrontation between Russia and six-point plan, proved to be a failure when Russia Georgia that took place from the 7th to the 13th of announced that its troops in the two enclaves August 2008 was Moscow‟s first act of military would "be considered foreign troops stationed in aggression against a neighbouring state since the independent states under bilateral agreements" invasion of Afghanistan in 1978 (Cornell et al., one month after the cease fire. It remains unclear, 2008). The 5 day conflict was rich in rhetoric as who if anyone, benefited from the August well as action. Its consequences, however, were confrontation. In a way, Russia succeeded in significant mostly on a regional level and did not hampering any possible resolution of the two result in an upheaval of the new multipolar world conflicts that would inevitably limit its role in the as some experts argued they would. Russia‟s region. However, Moscow‟s more likely recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia on the objective to use the two republics as pawns to 26th of August 2008 has changed the political punish Georgia for its pro-Western policy landscape of the South Caucasus. Despite the ambitions, has not received even a minimal show reinforced economic and political links with of support among Russia‟s allies let alone the Russia the two republics today find themselves other members of the world stage. This bellicose more isolated than before the war. The behaviour did stir up old feelings among international initiatives to mediate the situation prominent Eastern European intellectuals and and resolve the frozen conflicts, notably the EU political figures who called out against the Page 1 Mise au Point international community‟s meek acceptance of et al., 2008). The Mission established that all another de facto annexation of foreign territories sides to the conflict - Georgian forces, Russian by a larger power (Havel et al., 2009). forces and South Ossetian forces, irregular armed groups, volunteers - committed violations of A look back on the conflict International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law. Overall, the 1000 page long account One year after the end of the of the five day war did not produce any new confrontation, the very basic facts of the conflict insights or draw significant conclusions with still represent a point of contention. The long- respect to the conflict. awaited report sponsored by the Council of European Union and headed by the Swiss Certain analysts criticised the report for what diplomat Heidi Tagliavini was expected to shed seemed to be a reiteration of EU‟s stance on the some much needed light on the matter. The report issue in place as early as September 2008, when concluded that both sides violated international in an emergency summit the economic bloc law: Georgia, when it attacked the separatist expressed the opinion that Georgia‟s military region of South Ossetia on August 8, 2008 (being action was "not acceptable" and that Russia's responsible for the outbreak of hostilities); response was "disproportionate" (Georgian Daily, Russia, when it invaded Georgia (Tagliavini, September 30, 2009). Not surprisingly, both 2009). Russia and Georgia seemed to interpret the Commission‟s findings in their own favour. The former expressed particular satisfaction with reports conclusion that Georgia started the war (Kiernan, 2009). The Georgian government in the meantime reported that its interpretation of events was confirmed by the Commission (Kiernan, 2009). On the other hand, a report by the Central Asia Caucasus Institute was much more critical of Russia‟s actions in the conflict arguing that the invasion of Georgia was premeditated. And while, academics will continue to debate whether Russian tanks were “already advancing inside Georgian territory when Georgian forces Streets in Gori, Georgia. launched their attack on Tskhinvali; there seems Photo: Dimitar Dilkoff/AFP-Getty Images little doubt that they were at least on the move toward the border” (Cornell et al., 2008). The Mission also asserted that Russia has been pursuing increasingly aggressive and While the facts of the „5 day war‟ will continue to interventionist policies in the region for some be disputed, experts on both side of the spectrum time (Cornell et al., 2008). Indeed, the August agree that the conflict was a humanitarian disaster showdown was merely the climax of hostilities. and that Georgia suffered immense material The notable events leading up to August 2008 losses. Georgia's economy and infrastructure include Russia‟s ban of imports of Georgian wine were greatly damaged by the war. Russia's forces and mineral water (2006); creation of a Russian destroyed a substantial amount of Georgia's military base in the district of Java, north of military equipment and physical capital Tskhinvali with substantial refuelling capabilities (including bridges, buildings, and roads) for armoured vehicles; a presidential decree (Rayfield, 2009). Georgia has lost its entire air- instructing the Russian regional and federal defence system. Reportedly, Russian forces government to open political, social, and captured and destroyed a significant portion of economic relations with Abkhazia and South the Georgian army's arsenals. They also seized up Ossetia (2008); an increase of Russia‟s to 150 units of Georgian heavy weaponry peacekeeping contingent in Abkhazia; (Barabanov, 2009). Nonetheless, the tangible Abkhazia‟s requests for permanent Russian damage ensued during the conflict cannot be military presence on its territory (2008) (Cornell Page 2 Mise au Point compared to the human casualties. Human Rights It should be noted that the two territories exhibit Watch has reported that the number of victims of quite different relationships with their protector. the August war totalled at least 850, with more They have also taken dramatically different than 100 000 civilians fleeing their homes of approaches to their independence (Whitmore, which around 35 000 still have not been able to 2009). Abkhazia seems to be set on preserving return (Human Rights Watch, 2009). The and institutionalising its independence from organisation also concluded that both sides were Georgia as well as Russia, while South Ossetia guilty of serious human rights violations envisions an eventual union with its Russian particularly, but not exclusively, due to the use of fraternal republic – North Ossetia. The inevitable cluster bombs. cooperation between the Abkhaz and the Russian authorities has begun to change the landscape of Abkhazia and South Ossetia: the Abkhazia. For the mean time Russia buys all of idiosyncrasies Abkhazia's exports, particularly tangerines and construction materials (Smoltczyk, 2009). In the eyes of the administrations of Kremlin‟s relations with South Ossetia on the Abkhazia and South Ossetia all the losses were other hand, seem more complicated. The justified since they gained what they longed for – symbolic visit of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin independence. However, having gained only the and Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov to participate recognition of Russia, Nicaragua and most in the anniversary celebration of South Ossetia‟s recently Venezuela, thanks to a hefty loan and independence did not take place (RFE/RL, 2009). arms deal (Felgenhauer, 2009), the two republics The most obvious source of friction between have not become full fledged members of the Eduard Kokoity, South Ossetia‟s de facto international community. In fact, they are president, and the Russian leadership is the arguably more ostracised following the August ongoing harassment of Stroyprogress, a confrontation. International isolation comes with subsidiary company of Russia's Gazprom that has obvious drawbacks. just completed construction of a gas pipeline that will supply Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital, with Russian gas. The owner of Stroyprogress, businessman Albert Djussoyev, is one of Kokoity's main political rivals (RFE/RL, 2009). Another reason for possible frustration with Kokoity is insistence on the „unresolved territorial issues with Georgia of the Truso Valley,‟ currently within the boundaries of Georgia that he claimed to be historic Ossetian land (Kvelashvili, 2009) a position not presently echoed by the Kremlin. Despite the tensions between Moscow and its client regions the political isolation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia Source : The New York Times is pushing both further into Russia‟s embrace and Moscow has no choice but to offer them some The two republics have no currency, and cannot sort of assistance. borrow money in the financial markets, because, under international law, they don‟t exist. For the One year on, the conflicts are still frozen rest of the world, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are merely Georgian provinces with delusions of Ultimately, the issue at hand is the lack of grandeur, with as many inhabitants as a mid-sized resolution of the frozen conflicts in the two European city (Smotlczyk, 2009). The republics republics. The war of August 2008 did nothing to have thus their hands tied – and must inevitably improve the disputes; on the contrary it has led to turn to Russia, whether like it or not, as it is the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Russia-Georgia Conflict in August 2008
    = :88.&8*47,.&=43+1.(9=.3=:,:89=,**2a= 439*=9=&3)=251.(&9.438=+47=_ _=39*7*898= .2=.(-41= 5*(.&1.89=.3= :88.&3=&3)=:7&8.&3=++&.78= &7(-=-`=,**3= 43,7*88.43&1= *8*&7(-=*7;.(*= 18/1**= <<<_(78_,4;= -.0+2= =*5479=+47=43,7*88 Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress :88.&8*47,.&= 43+1.(9=.3=:,:89=,**2a=439*=9=&3)= 251.(&9.438=+47=__= 39*7*898= = :22&7>= In the early 1990s, Georgia and its breakaway South Ossetia region had agreed to a Russian- mediated ceasefire that provided for Russian “peacekeepers” to be stationed in the region. Moscow extended citizenship and passports to most ethnic Ossetians. Simmering long-time tensions escalated on the evening of August 7, 2008, when South Ossetia and Georgia accused each other of launching intense artillery barrages against each other. Georgia claims that South Ossetian forces did not respond to a ceasefire appeal but intensified their shelling, “forcing” Georgia to send in troops. On August 8, Russia launched air attacks throughout Georgia and Russian troops engaged Georgian forces in South Ossetia. By the morning of August 10, Russian troops had occupied the bulk of South Ossetia, reached its border with the rest of Georgia, and were shelling areas across the border. Russian troops occupied several Georgian cities. Russian warships landed troops in Georgia’s breakaway Abkhazia region and took up positions off Georgia’s Black Sea coast. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, serving as the president of the European Union (EU), was instrumental in getting Georgia and Russia to agree to a peace plan on August 15-16.
    [Show full text]
  • Annex E.4.17 Public
    ICC-01/15-4-AnxE.4.17 13-10-2015 1/27 EK PT Annex E.4.17 Public ICC-01/15-4-AnxE.4.17 13-10-2015 2/27 EK PT ICC-01/15-4-AnxE.4.17 13-10-2015 3/27 EK PT The Norwegian Helsinki Committee (NHC) has worked closely with many Georgian and international human rights groups in documenting and reporting about crimes committed during and after the 2008 war. Three Georgian human rights groups have contributed with research for this report, namely Article 42, Georgian Young Lawyers' Association (GYLA) and Georgia's Human Rights Center (HRC). However, responsibility for analyses and conclusions rests with the NHC. Data for this report was collected in November and December 2010 by the following researchers: Nino Doliashvili, Dato Gioshvili, Neli Kareli, Nino Qurasbediani, Qeri Saraji (all from Article 42); Nino Jomaridze (from GYLA); Shorena Latatia, Nika Legashvili, Giorgi Margiani, Saba Tsitsikashvili (all from HRC); Aage Borchgrevink and Simon Papuashvili (both from the NHC). The report was written by Aage Borchgrevink and Simon Papuashvili, and edited by Aage Borchgrevink and Gunnar M. Ekeleve-Slydal (from NHC). \ GEO-OTP-0005-0739 111111111111111 m11 m111111 ICC-01/15-4-AnxE.4.17 13-10-2015 4/27 EK PT Summary and conctuslons Almost three years have passed since the armed conflict between Georgia and Russia in August 2008. Evidence from a wide range of sources indicates that grave crimes occurred during the conflict, including war crimes and crimes againsl humanity. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has decided that these crimes fall under its mandate and is currently monitoring domestic investigations of crimes in Georgia and Russia1• If the Court finds that the parties arc unable or unwilling to effectively investigate, the Court may assume jurisdiction and open an investigation.
    [Show full text]
  • The War in Georgia and the Western Response
    This article was downloaded by: [National Chengchi University] On: 14 September 2012, At: 01:42 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Central Asian Survey Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccas20 The war in Georgia and the Western response Mike Bowker a a School of Political, Social and International Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK Version of record first published: 24 May 2011. To cite this article: Mike Bowker (2011): The war in Georgia and the Western response, Central Asian Survey, 30:2, 197-211 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2011.570121 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and- conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Central Asian Survey Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • YEAR in REVIEW 2004 United Nations Peace Operations
    YEAR IN REVIEW 2004 United Nations Peace Operations asdf United Nations TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Surge in peacekeeping 2004: Year of the surge in peacekeeping ...................................................................................... 1 II. Deploying new missions: elements of the surge ONUB: UN peacekeeping comes to Burundi ............................................................................... 3 UNOCI: Working to uphold the peace agreement in Côte d’Ivoire ...................................... 4 MINUSTAH: Overcoming growing pains ...................................................................................... 5 UNAMIS: Sudan - A new mission on the horizon ....................................................................... 7 III. Missions coming down to a close UNAMSIL: A success story in UN peacekeeping ......................................................................... 9 MINUGUA: Leaving Guatemala with mission accomplished ................................................... 9 UNMISET: Winding up six years of peacekeeping in Timor-Leste .......................................... 10 IV. Overcoming crises: missions with special challenges in 2004 MONUC: Facing mounting challenges .......................................................................................... 11 UNMEE: Marginal progress in the peace process ....................................................................... 12 UNMIK: Holding Kosovo to high standards ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Activities of a Personal Representative of the OSCE Chair
    In: IFSH (ed.), OSCE Yearbook 2001, Baden-Baden 2002, pp. 201-210. Heidi Tagliavini Conflict Prevention and Conflict Management in Georgia - The Activities of a Personal Representative of the OSCE Chair On 29 December 1999, the then Austrian Foreign Minister Wolfgang Schüssel appointed me Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in- Office for Missions in the Caucasus. It was my task to give support and ad- vice to the Chair on all issues involving the conflicts in Chechnya/the Rus- sian Federation as well as in South Ossetia/Georgia and Abkhazia/Georgia. My mandate included the following: - promoting the efforts of all parties involved and the international com- munity in finding a solution in conformity with OSCE principles; - developing strategies for comprehensive initiatives to promote respect- ing OSCE norms and principles in the region; 1 - advising and supporting the Chairperson-in-Office to advance these efforts being made in the region; - fostering close contacts with international organizations (the Council of Europe, the European Union, the United Nations etc.) in the name of the Chairperson-in-Office. The Caucasus was one of the priorities of the Austrian Chair, which led to the decision to appoint a Personal Representative for this region. My mandate ended on 31 December 2000. On the Instrument of the Personal Representative of the Chairman-in-Office The "Personal Representative" is one of the OSCE instruments available to the Chair during its year in office. It is designed to provide support to the Chair for a specific task. The appointment of Personal Representatives is a prerogative of the Chair.
    [Show full text]
  • History in the Context of the Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict*
    BRILL Iran and the Caucasus 18 (2074) 289-374 History in the Context of the Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict* George Hewitt School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London Abstract The 2014 disturbances in the Ukraine occasioned renewed discussion of the 2008 Russo- Georgian War. As the situation continued to worsen in eastern Ukraine, US President Obama announced on a visit to Poland at the start of June that the US and NATO would strengthen ties even with the non-NATO-member-states of the Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. This last has aspirations of membership, even though it does not control the re­ publics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which most of the world nevertheless regards as in­ tegral parts of Georgia. As long as the Georgian-Abkhazian dispute remains unresolved, there will be problems regarding inter-state relations with/for western Transcaucasia. And there can be no resolution of the Abkhazian issue without a proper understanding of Ab­ khazia’s history (both ancient and more recent); it was to try to ensure that the debate is not based on misconceptions, unsubstantiated assertions or even plain errors that this ar­ ticle was written, it is grounded on a consideration of a range of materials (from Agathias' Greek text through relevant discussions in Georgian, Russian and English). The toppling of Abkhazia’s democratically elected president (Aleksandr Ankvab) at the end of May 2014 makes the question of Abkhazia even more topical. Keywords Abkhazia, Georgia, Georgian-Abkhazian Dispute, Caucasian History Events during the spring of 2014 in the Ukraine (in particular Russia’s reacquisition of the Crimea) reawakened Western memories of the short Russo-Georgian war of August 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Georgian Lessons Georgian Georgian Lessons Conflicting Russian and Western Interests
    Georgian Lessons Georgian Lessons Conflicting Russian and Western Interests in the Wider Europe A Report of the CSIS New European Democracies Project and the Lavrentis Lavrentiadis Chair in Southeast European Studies 1800 K Street, NW | Washington, DC 20006 author Tel: (202) 887-0200 | Fax: (202) 775-3199 Janusz Bugajski E-mail: [email protected] | Web: www.csis.org Bugajski November 2010 ISBN 978-0-89206-606-3 CSIS CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & Ë|xHSKITCy066063zv*:+:!:+:! CSIS INTERNATIONAL STUDIES Georgian Lessons Conflicting Russian and Western Interests in the Wider Europe A Report of the CSIS New European Democracies Project and the Lavrentis Lavrentiadis Chair in Southeast European Studies author Janusz Bugajski November 2010 About CSIS In an era of ever-changing global opportunities and challenges, the Center for Strategic and Inter- national Studies (CSIS) provides strategic insights and practical policy solutions to decisionmak- ers. CSIS conducts research and analysis and develops policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change. Founded by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke at the height of the Cold War, CSIS was dedicated to the simple but urgent goal of finding ways for America to survive as a nation and prosper as a people. Since 1962, CSIS has grown to become one of the world’s preeminent public policy institutions. Today, CSIS is a bipartisan, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. More than 220 full-time staff and a large network of affiliated scholars focus their expertise on defense and security; on the world’s regions and the unique challenges inherent to them; and on the issues that know no boundary in an increasingly connected world.
    [Show full text]
  • Ukraine Crisis and Mediation Not Business As Usual
    security and human rights 27 (2016) 327-341 brill.com/shrs Ukraine Crisis and Mediation Not Business as Usual Christian Schläpfer (former) Political Advisor to the Special Representative of the osce Chairperson-in-Office in Ukraine (until February 2016); Currently employed by the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland Abstract This contribution examines mediation efforts undertaken by the Organization for Se- curity and Cooperation in Europe (osce) in the context of the current crisis in and around Ukraine. It describes the establishment and evolution of the Trilateral Contact Group (tcg) and the mediated peace talks on the conflict in eastern Ukraine – the Minsk Process. Drawing from the author’s insider perspective, it sheds light on the unique aspects of the framework compared to classical mediation processes. It argues that, due to its connectivity with high-level diplomacy as well as its ability to adapt to a constantly evolving conflict, the Minsk Process represents a valuable, flexible, at times untypical, mediation framework. Keywords Ukraine crisis – mediation – osce – Trilateral Contact Group – Minsk Process – Minsk agreements *** * Christian Schläpfer received a Bachelor’s degree in Humanities from the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, in 2008 and a Master’s degree and PhD in History from the University of Cambridge in 2009 and 2013 respectively. His doctoral research focused on counter-subversion in early Cold War Britain. ** The author is expressing a personal point of view in this contribution. The opinions stat- ed in this text should not be regarded as the official position of Switzerland, of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs or of the osce.
    [Show full text]
  • Minsk Agreements
    Briefing 12 February 2015 Minsk peace agreement: still to be consolidated on the ground SUMMARY On 12 February, after more than 16 hours of negotiations in Minsk, the leaders of Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine signed an agreement to end fighting in eastern Ukraine. The pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine also signed the deal, which includes a ceasefire in eastern Ukraine, to begin on 15 February, followed by the withdrawal of heavy weapons. In a joint declaration, Angela Merkel, François Hollande, Vladimir Putin and Petro Poroshenko stated their commitment to respecting Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The document states that regular meetings will be held to ensure the fulfilment of the Minsk agreements. The tenor of most official international reactions was cautiously optimistic. International leaders said the deal gave 'hope', but at the same time emphasised that the agreement must now be implemented on the ground. Intense fighting continued during the talks, with the strategic transit hub of Debaltseve still contested. Moscow denies Ukraine's accusations that Russia is supplying troops and weapons to separatists fighting for the territory which Putin calls 'New Russia'. The on-going crisis in Ukraine erupted after former President Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign an Association Agreement (AA) with the EU in November 2013 and sought closer ties to Russia. Following radical protests from pro-Western groups, Yanukovych stepped down and fled to Russia. Moscow responded by annexing the Crimea in March 2014, sparking wide-ranging EU sanctions. In this briefing: Merkel–Hollande peace initiative and the Minsk Summit Initial reactions Background: the Ukraine crisis Uncertainty over number of casualties as both sides boost troops Increasing hostility towards the EU in Russian media and public opinion Support for Ukraine from the EU and the international community President Petro Poroshenko meets European Council President Donald Tusk following the Minsk agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • Not Just a Numbers Game: Increasing Women's Participation in UN
    JULY 2013 Not Just a Numbers Game: Increasing Women’s Participation in UN Peacekeeping PROVIDING FOR PEACEKEEPING NO. 4 SAHANA DHARMAPURI Cover Image: Captain Claire Leroux, ABOUT THE AUTHOR Platoon Commander, UNIFIL, Lebanon, November, 9, 2012. UN Photo/J.C. Mc- SAHANA DHARMAPURI is a Non-Resident Fellow at the Ilwaine. Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Disclaimer: The views expressed in this paper represent those of the author and not necessarily those of IPI. IPI welcomes consideration of a wide ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS range of perspectives in the pursuit of a well-informed debate on critical Many thanks go to the over forty interviewees for their policies and issues in international generous contributions of time and insight. Among those affairs. that deserve a special note of gratitude for their contin - IPI Publications uous engagement with the study are Adam Smith, Paul D. Adam Lupel, Editor and Senior Fellow Williams, and Alex Bellamy. In addition, Samuli Harju, Marie O’Reilly, Associate Editor Brenda Oppermann, and Jolynn Shoemaker also provided Thong Nguyen, Editorial Assistant input and comments on previous drafts of this paper. And Suggested Citation: last, but not least, I would like to thank the Providing for Sahana Dharmapuri, “Not Just a Peacekeeping project for taking an interest in this topic. Numbers Game: Increasing Women’s Without the project’s support, this report would not have Participation in UN Peacekeeping,” Providing for Peacekeeping No. 4, New been possible. York: International Peace Institute, July Providing for Peacekeeping is an independent research 2013. project established to broaden the understanding of the © by International Peace Institute, 2013 factors and motivations that encourage or discourage All Rights Reserved states from contributing to UN peacekeeping operations.
    [Show full text]
  • SWP-Studie Stiftung Wissenschaft Und Politik Deutsches Institut Für Internationale Politik Und Sicherheit
    SWP-Studie Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik Deutsches Institut für Internationale Politik und Sicherheit Uwe Halbach Ungelöste Regionalkonflikte im Südkaukasus S 8 März 2010 Berlin Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Abdruck oder vergleichbare Verwendung von Arbeiten der Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik ist auch in Aus- zügen nur mit vorheriger schriftlicher Genehmigung gestattet. Die Studie gibt ausschließ- lich die persönliche Auf- fassung des Autors wieder © Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, 2010 SWP Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik Deutsches Institut für Internationale Politik und Sicherheit Ludwigkirchplatz 3−4 10719 Berlin Telefon +49 30 880 07-0 Fax +49 30 880 07-100 www.swp-berlin.org [email protected] ISSN 1611-6372 Inhalt 5 Problemstellung und Empfehlungen 8 Der regionale Kontext: Die südkaukasische Konfliktlandschaft 10 Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede ungelöster Sezessionskonflikte 11 Die Sezessionskonflikte Georgiens 12 Südossetien – Rückfall in Krieg im kleinsten De-facto- Staat 15 Abchasien – gescheiterte Konfliktprävention 18 Berg-Karabach – der älteste Regionalkonflikt im postsowjetischen Raum 22 Externe Akteure und regionale Umfeldbedingungen 23 Militarisierung 25 Die Rolle Russlands 27 Die Türkei als regional- und friedenspolitischer Akteur 30 Herausforderungen für europäische Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik 33 Hindernisse für »harte« und »weiche« Konfliktbearbeitung 33 Psychologische Fallen und Barrieren für Konflikttransformation 35 Ausblick 36 Abkürzungen Dr. Uwe Halbach ist wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter der Forschungsgruppe
    [Show full text]
  • Uncorrected Transcript
    WOMEN-2012/05/2 1 THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION MAKING THE DIFFERENCE: THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN CONFLICT SITUATIONS Washington, D.C. Wednesday, May 2, 2012 PARTICIPANTS: Introduction and Moderator: ELIZABETH FERRIS Senior Fellow and Co-Director, Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement The Brookings Institution Panelists: HEIDI TAGLIAVINI Ambassador Former Special Representative of the Secretary General and Head of the International Fact- Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia CHALOKA BEYANI UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of IDPs Co-Director, Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement CLAUDE WILD Ambassador Head of Human Security Division, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs Government of Switzerland CARLA KOPPELL Senior Coordinator for Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment USAID * * * * * ANDERSON COURT REPORTING 706 Duke Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone (703) 519-7180 Fax (703) 519-7190 WOMEN-2012/05/2 2 P R O C E E D I N G S MS. FERRIS: Okay, everybody, why don’t we go ahead and get started? I’d like to welcome you to this event on the role of women in conflict situations. My name is Beth Ferris; I’m a senior fellow here at Brookings and co-director of the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement. And, unusually, my co-chair is also here, and that is Chaloka Beyani, and I will introduce him in just a few minutes. We’ve put together a great panel to talk about this issue from very different perspectives and personal experiences, but I thought I might just make a few personal comments before we begin.
    [Show full text]