DOCSLIB.ORG

Small Arms Proliferation and Conflict in the Republic of Georgia (1989–2001)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Small Arms Proliferation and Conflict in the Republic of Georgia (1989–2001) SMALL ARMS SURVEY 6 Occasional Paper No. 6 Politics From The Barrel of a Gun: Small Arms Proliferation and Conflict in the Republic of Georgia (1989–2001) Spyros Demetriou November 2002 A publication of the Small Arms Survey Politics from the Barrel of a Gun: Small Arms Proliferation and Conflict in the Republic of Georgia (1989–2001) Spyros Demetriou November 2002 A publication of the Small Arms Survey Spyros Demetriou The Small Arms Survey The Small Arms Survey is an independent research project located at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, Switzerland. It is also linked to the Graduate Institute’s Programme for Strategic and International Security Studies. Established in 1999, the project is supported by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, and by contributions from the Governments of Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. It collaborates with research institutes and non-governmental organizations in many countries including Brazil, Canada, Georgia, Germany, India, Israel, Norway, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The Small Arms Survey occasional paper series presents new and substantial research findings by proj- ect staff and commissioned researchers on data, methodological, and conceptual issues related to small arms, or detailed country and regional case studies. The series is published periodically and is available in hard copy and on the project’s web site. Small Arms Survey Phone: + 41 22 908 5777 Graduate Institute of International Studies Fax: + 41 22 732 2738 1st Floor, 12 Avenue de Sécheron Email: [email protected] 1202 Geneva Web site: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org Switzerland Page ii Occasional Papers No. 1 Re-Armament in Sierra Leone: One Year After the Lomé Peace Agreement, by Eric Berman, December 2000 No. 2 Removing Small Arms from Society: A Review of Weapons Collection and Destruction Programmes, by Sami Faltas, Glenn McDonald, and Camilla Waszink, July 2001 No. 3 Legal Controls on Small Arms and Light Weapons in Southeast Asia, by Katherine Kramer (with Nonviolence International Southeast Asia), July 2001 No. 4 Shining a Light on Small Arms Exports: The Record of State Transparency, by Maria Haug, Martin Langvandslien, Lora Lumpe, and Nic Marsh (with NISAT), January 2002 No. 5 Stray Bullets: The Impact of Small Arms Misuse in Central America, by William Godnick, with Robert Muggah and Camilla Waszink, November 2002 No. 6 Politics from the Barrel of a Gun: Small Arms Proliferation and Conflict in the Republic of Georgia, by Spyros Demetriou, November 2002 Occasional Paper No. 6 Small Arms Survey Small Arms Proliferation and Conflict in the Republic of Georgia Contents Acronyms iv About the author v Acknowledgements vi Map of the Republic of Georgia viii Introduction 1 I. The tragedy of Georgian independence 3 The roots of the conflict 3 The conflicts of independence, 1989–1993 4 II. Evolution in availability of SALW 8 Sources of small arms and light weapons, 1989–1993 8 The magnitude of small arms proliferation, 1989–1993 15 III. Opening Pandora’s box: Small arms and the transformation of conflict, 1989–1993 22 Introduction 22 The progressive militarization of politics in Georgia 22 From social violence to full-scale war: Conflict dynamics in Georgia, 1989–1993 25 Page iii Facilitating Russian intervention 28 The human cost of SALW proliferation 29 IV. Consequences of SALW availability and use in the post-conflict period, 1994–2001 29 Introduction 29 Restoring order under Shevardnadze 30 The ineffectiveness of weapons collection and the new regulations 33 Where do the weapons go? 36 Continued weapons proliferation and institutional incapacity 38 Small arms and insecurity in Abkhazia 39 V. Conclusion 50 Endnotes 52 Bibliography 56 Small Arms Survey Occasional Paper No. 6 Spyros Demetriou Acronyms AK Generic designation for Kalashnikov assault rifles AO Autonomous Oblast (region) APC Armoured personnel carrier AR Autonomous Region ASSR Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic BSEC Black Sea Economic Cooperation CIS Commonwealth of Independent States CISPKF CIS Peace-keeping Forces DOSAAF Society for Support of the Army, Air Force and Navy EAPC Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council EU European Union FSU Former Soviet Union GCP Georgian Communist Party GDF Georgian Defence Foundation GRVZ Group of Russian Forces in the Transcaucasus GUUAM Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Armenia, and Moldova (regional alliance) ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross IDP Internally displaced person JPKF Joint Peace-keeping Force iv KGB State Committee for Security KOMSOMOL All-Union Leninist League of Youth KGNK Confederation of Mountain Peoples of the Caucasus KNK Confederation of Peoples of the Caucasus MFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs MIA Ministry of Internal Affairs MOD Ministry of Defence MSF Médecins Sans Frontières MVD Ministry of Internal Affairs NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NKAO Nagorno Karabach Autonomous Oblast OMON Special Purpose Military Detachment OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Occasional Paper No. 6 Small Arms Survey Small Arms Proliferation and Conflict in the Republic of Georgia PfP Partnership for Peace PMG Paramilitary group RPG Rocket-propelled grenade (launcher) SALW Small arms and light weapons SAS Small Arms Survey SPETSNAZ Soviet Special Purposes Forces SSR Soviet Socialist Republic TRACECA Transport Corridor Europe-Caucasus-Asia UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNOMIG United Nations Observation Mission in Georgia UNSG United Nations Secretary-General UNSO Ukrainian Self-Defence Organization USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics WWII Second World War ZakVO Transcaucasian Military District v Small Arms Survey Occasional Paper No. 6 Spyros Demetriou About the author Spyros Demetriou is a graduate of the Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, Switzerland. He worked as a researcher at the Small Arms Survey between 1999 and 2001, after which he was appointed as a small arms regional liaison specialist at the United Nations Development Programme. Acknowledgements The author would like to express his gratitude to numerous individuals and organizations who provided essential support, advice and information, and without whom this work would not have been possible. Their courage in speaking on the issue of small arms brings hope that this problem can one day be addressed in Georgia. For reasons of security, they cannot be named. Special thanks to the staff at the Centre for Civil-Military Relations and Security Studies in Tbilisi, Georgia for their hospitality and support. Additional thanks go to the Small Arms Survey: Peter Batchelor, Nicolas Florquin, Aaron Karp, Anna Khakee, Estelle Jobson and Robert Muggah for their content knowledge, editing and input. Thanks too are due to our copyeditor, Michael James. Page vi Occasional Paper No. 6 Small Arms Survey Small Arms Proliferation and Conflict in the Republic of Georgia Page vii © Irakli Aladashvili Small Arms Survey Occasional Paper No. 6 Spyros Demetriou Republic of Georgia RUSSIAN FEDERATION Gudauta Sokhumi Tsalenjikha viii Tskhinvali Kutaisi BLACK SEA GEORGIA Lagodekhi Akhmeta Tbilisi AZER. Akhalsikke Batumi Rustavi Akhalkalaki TURKEY ARMENIA AZERBAIJAN Occasional Paper No. 6 Small Arms Survey Small Arms Proliferation and Conflict in the Republic of Georgia Introduction Over ten years have elapsed since the Soviet Union collapsed in late 1991. Radical transitions from one political system to another are by definition conflict-prone, involving fierce competition between differing visions, fluid political affiliations, social activism, power vacuums, and severe economic crises—if not collapse. In such contexts of instability and uncertainty, the recourse to armed vio- lence—as a form of expression and an instrument of power—is an attractive option. The collapse of the USSR engendered a radical transition culminating in the creation of 15 internationally recognized states. Although for the most part surprisingly peaceful, the transition to independence in four states— Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Moldova, and Georgia—was marked by widespread violence. This study focuses on one of these states, Georgia, and on one particular part of the violent transition to independence in Georgia, namely, the role played by small arms and light weapons. It attempts to shed light on how small arms proliferation and use framed the several conflicts that characterized Georgia’s transition to independence, continue to perpetuate widespread insecurity and instability, and hinder development and reconstruction. In so doing, this study hopes to shed light on the human costs of Soviet collapse, and in particular the devastating impacts of armed violence as a means to achieve post-Soviet political objectives. Georgia is a particularly interesting case to study in that, in the course of the conflict, weapons avail- Page 1 ability went from low to high. At the outset of the conflict, small arms were a scarce commodity, but, with the collapse of the Soviet Union in late 1991, arms from the Soviet military bases located in Georgia became widely available. This makes it possible to study the consequences of weapons transfers on conflict dynamics. Far more than simply being instruments of violence, small arms have served to catalyse conflict, increasing its scope and lethality, and led to the progressive militariza- tion
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Role of the United Nations in the Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict
    The Role of the United Nations in the Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict SUSAN STEWART The Mannheim Centre for European Social Research, University of Mannheim, Germany Issue 2/2003 EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR MINORITY ISSUES (ECMI) Schiffbrücke 12 (Kompagnietor Building) D-24939 Flensburg Germany ( +49-(0)461-14 14 9-0 fax +49-(0)461-14 14 9-19 e-mail: [email protected] internet: http://www.ecmi.de The Role of the United Nations in the Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict* SUSAN STEWART The Mannheim Centre for European Social Research, University of Mannheim, Germany This article analyses UNOMIG efforts at stabilization and mediation in the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict, arguing that while progress in both realms has been slight, there is reason to conclude that stabilization attempts have been more successful than those of mediation. The author contends that difficulties in the mediation sphere can largely be attributed to UN insistence on Georgian territorial integrity and on a comprehensive settlement including continued substantial progress on the question of Abkhazia’s political status. While coordination between the CIS peacekeepers and the UN has proceeded smoothly, the multidimensional involvement of the Russian Federation has complicated the constellation of actors surrounding the conflict. Owing to these external as well as other internal factors, the author concludes that the outlook for Georgian-Abkhazian negotiations in the short to medium term appears bleak, but that the conclusions drawn from the role of the UN in the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict can be useful for understanding difficulties the UN is likely to encounter in similar interventions. I. Introduction The recent war in Iraq has again called into question the potential role of the United Nations in world affairs.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Hybrid Tactics in Georgia
    Russian Hybrid Tactics in Georgia Niklas Nilsson SILK ROAD PAPER January 2018 Russian Hybrid Tactics in Georgia Niklas Nilsson © Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program – A Joint Transatlantic Research and Policy Center American Foreign Policy Council, 509 C St NE, Washington D.C. Institute for Security and Development Policy, V. Finnbodavägen 2, Stockholm-Nacka, Sweden www.silkroadstudies.org “Russian Hybrid Tactics in Georgia” is a Silk Road Paper published by the Central Asia- Caucasus Institute and Silk Road Studies Program, Joint Center. The Silk Road Papers Series is the Occasional Paper series of the Joint Center, and addresses topical and timely subjects. The Joint Center is a transatlantic independent and non-profit research and policy center. It has offices in Washington and Stockholm and is affiliated with the American Foreign Policy Council and the Institute for Security and Development Policy. It is the first institution of its kind in Europe and North America, and is firmly established as a leading research and policy center, serving a large and diverse community of analysts, scholars, policy-watchers, business leaders, and journalists. The Joint Center is at the forefront of research on issues of conflict, security, and development in the region. Through its applied research, publications, research cooperation, public lectures, and seminars, it functions as a focal point for academic, policy, and public discussion regarding the region. The opinions and conclusions expressed in this study are those of
    [Show full text]
  • Military Guide to Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century
    US Army TRADOC TRADOC G2 Handbook No. 1 AA MilitaryMilitary GuideGuide toto TerrorismTerrorism in the Twenty-First Century US Army Training and Doctrine Command TRADOC G2 TRADOC Intelligence Support Activity - Threats Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 15 August 2007 DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. 1 Summary of Change U.S. Army TRADOC G2 Handbook No. 1 (Version 5.0) A Military Guide to Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century Specifically, this handbook dated 15 August 2007 • Provides an information update since the DCSINT Handbook No. 1, A Military Guide to Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, publication dated 10 August 2006 (Version 4.0). • References the U.S. Department of State, Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Country Reports on Terrorism 2006 dated April 2007. • References the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), Reports on Terrorist Incidents - 2006, dated 30 April 2007. • Deletes Appendix A, Terrorist Threat to Combatant Commands. By country assessments are available in U.S. Department of State, Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Country Reports on Terrorism 2006 dated April 2007. • Deletes Appendix C, Terrorist Operations and Tactics. These topics are covered in chapter 4 of the 2007 handbook. Emerging patterns and trends are addressed in chapter 5 of the 2007 handbook. • Deletes Appendix F, Weapons of Mass Destruction. See TRADOC G2 Handbook No.1.04. • Refers to updated 2007 Supplemental TRADOC G2 Handbook No.1.01, Terror Operations: Case Studies in Terror, dated 25 July 2007. • Refers to Supplemental DCSINT Handbook No. 1.02, Critical Infrastructure Threats and Terrorism, dated 10 August 2006. • Refers to Supplemental DCSINT Handbook No.
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia Case Study Part II: Internally Displaced Persons Viewed Externally
    Georgia Case Study Part II: Internally Displaced Persons Viewed Externally Brian Frydenborg Experiential Applications – MNPS 703 Allison Frendak-Blume, Ph.D. The problem of internally displaced persons (referred to commonly as IDPs) and international refugees is as old as the problem of war itself. As a special report of The Jerusalem Post notes, “Wars produce refugees” (Radler n.d., par. 1). The post-Cold-War conflicts in Georgia between Georgia, Russian, and Georgia‟s South Ossetia and Abkhazia regions displaced roughly 223,000 people, mostly from the Abkhazia part of the conflict, and the recent fighting between Georgia and Russia/South Ossetia/Abkhazia of August 2008 created 127,000 such IDPs and refugees (UNHCR 2009a, par. 1). A United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) mission even before the 2008 fighting “described the needs of Georgia's displaced as „overwhelming‟” (Ibid., par. 2). This paper will discuss the problem of IDPs in Georgia, particularly as related to the Abkhazian part of the conflicts of the last few decades. It will highlight the efforts of one international organization (IO), the UNHCR, and one non-governmental organization (NGO), the Danish Refugee Council. i. Focus of Paper and Definitions The UN divides people as uprooted by conflict into two categories: refugees and internally displaced persons; the first group refers to people who are “forcibly uprooted” and flee from their nation to another, the second to people who are “forcibly uprooted” and flee to another location within their nation (UNHCR 2009b, par 1). Although there are also IDPs and refugees resulting from the fighting in South Ossetia, this paper will focus on the IDPs from the fighting in and around Abkhazia; refugees from or in Georgia will not be dealt with specifically because the overwhelming majority of people uprooted from their homes in relation to Georgia‟s ethnic conflicts ended up being IDPs (close to 400,000 total current and returned) and less than 13,000 people were classified as refugees from these conflicts (UNHCR 2009a, par.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Elites in the Years of Independence (The Example of Gurjaani District, Georgia)
    DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTS IN TBILISI, SAME PEOPLE IN REGIONS: LOCAL ELITES IN THE YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE (THE EXAMPLE OF GURJAANI DISTRICT, GEORGIA) Giorgi Gotua he ruling political regime in Georgia has changed three times since 1990. Twice the government was replaced through non-constitutional means. None of these regimes were able to consolidate and reach consensus with different groups vying for power regarding basic insti- Ttutions and rules of game. Researchers studying the transition from autocracy to democracy point out various structural factors (culture, socio-economic factors) which they say deter- mine the successful consolidation of new democratic regimes. In recent years, more and more attention has been paid to political elites as essential actors able to decisively influence the direction of state development. Choices made by elites at certain stages of state development, the level of power and authority they ex- ercise in society and the character of relations among various factions determine the success of the process of forming and consolidating a new regime. Studies by G. Field, M. Burton and D. Higley demonstrate that the stability of a regime is directly linked to the degree of consensus among its various fac- tions regarding existing institutions and rules of game (another way to guaran- tee relative stability of the regime, dominance of one group over another, is not discussed as an option within the framework of this research).1 Georgia’s case can serve as a good example demonstrating the correctness of this thesis. During the period of independence three political regimes have changed in Georgia. The regime of President Zviad Gamsakhurdia – which followed the 1 This thesis is presented in: Field G., Hihley J., Burton M., National Elite Configurations and Transitions to De- mocracy // Classes and Elites in Democracy and Democratization: A Collection of Readings / ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Security Council Distr.: General 18 July 2007
    United Nations S/2007/439 Security Council Distr.: General 18 July 2007 Original: English Report of the Secretary-General on the situation in Abkhazia, Georgia I. Introduction 1. The present report is submitted pursuant to Security Council resolution 1752 (2007) of 13 April 2007, by which the Security Council decided to extend the mandate of the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) until 15 October 2007. It provides an update of the situation in Abkhazia, Georgia since my report of 3 April 2007 (S/2007/182). 2. My Special Representative, Jean Arnault, continued to lead the Mission. He was assisted by the Chief Military Observer, Major General Niaz Muhammad Khan Khattak (Pakistan). The strength of UNOMIG on 1 July 2007 stood at 135 military observers and 16 police officers (see annex). II. Political process 3. During the reporting period, UNOMIG continued efforts to maintain peace and stability in the zone of conflict. It also sought to remove obstacles to the resumption of dialogue between the Georgian and Abkhaz sides in the expectation that cooperation on security, the return of internally displaced persons and refugees, economic rehabilitation and humanitarian issues would facilitate meaningful negotiations on a comprehensive political settlement of the conflict, taking into account the principles contained in the document entitled “Basic Principles for the Distribution of Competences between Tbilisi and Sukhumi”, its transmittal letter (see S/2002/88, para. 3) and additional ideas by the sides. 4. Throughout the reporting period, my Special Representative maintained regular contact with both sides, as well as with the Group of Friends of the Secretary-General both in Tbilisi and in their capitals.
    [Show full text]
  • Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2001 Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor March 4, 2002
    Georgia Page 1 of 19 Georgia Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2001 Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor March 4, 2002 The 1995 Constitution provides for an executive branch that reports to the President and a legislature. The President appoints ministers with the consent of Parliament. In April 2000, Eduard Shevardnadze was reelected to a second 5-year term as President in an election marred by numerous serious irregularities. International observers strongly criticized the election, citing interference by state authorities in the electoral process, deficient election legislation, insufficient representative election administration, and unreliable voter registers. The country's second parliamentary elections under the 1995 Constitution were held in 1999 and were characterized by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) as a step toward Georgia's compliance with OSCE commitments. The civil war and separatist wars that followed the 1992 coup ended central government authority in Abkhazia and Ossetia, and weakened central authority in the autonomous region of Ajara and elsewhere in the country. The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, the judiciary is subject to executive pressure. Internal conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia remained unresolved. Ceasefires were in effect in both areas, although sporadic incidents of violence occurred in Abkhazia. These conflicts and the problems associated with roughly 270,000 internally displaced persons (IDP's) from Abkhazia, 60,000 from South Ossetia, and another 4,000-5,000 refugees from Chechnya, posed a continued threat to national stability. In 1993 Abkhaz separatists won control of Abkhazia, and most ethnic Georgians were expelled from or fled the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights and Democratization in the Republic of Georgia
    HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIZATION IN THE REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MARCH 28, 1995 Printed for the use of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe [CSCE 104-1-3] Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.csce.gov HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIZATION IN THE REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 1995 COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE, WASHINGTON, DC. The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m., in room 106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC., Hon. Christopher Smith, Chairman, presiding. Commissioners Present: Hon. Christopher Smith, Chairman; Hon. Alfonse D'Amato, Co-chairman; and Hon. Frank R. Wolf, Commissioner. Witnesses: Hon. Tedo Japaridze, Dr. Eduard Gudava, Ms. Erika Dailey, and Dr. Stephen F. Jones. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SMITH Chairman Smith. I want to thank all of you for coming to this hear- ing, which to my knowledge is the first hearing in the history of the U.S. Congress focused exclusively on Georgia. This is the latest in a series of Helsinki Commission hearings that examine the state of de- mocratization and human rights in individual countries and regions of the former Soviet Union. In the late 1980's, Georgians began to organize politically to undo communism and to gain independence. They lived through a very excit- ing period, although a key element in the chronicle of the liberation movement was tragic, the April 1989 killings of peaceful protesters in Tbilisi by Soviet forces. Since then, however, Georgia has endured very difficult times.
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia/Abkhazia
    HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH ARMS PROJECT HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH/HELSINKI March 1995 Vol. 7, No. 7 GEORGIA/ABKHAZIA: VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF WAR AND RUSSIA'S ROLE IN THE CONFLICT CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................5 EVOLUTION OF THE WAR.......................................................................................................................................6 The Role of the Russian Federation in the Conflict.........................................................................................7 RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................................................................8 To the Government of the Republic of Georgia ..............................................................................................8 To the Commanders of the Abkhaz Forces .....................................................................................................8 To the Government of the Russian Federation................................................................................................8 To the Confederation of Mountain Peoples of the Caucasus...........................................................................9 To the United Nations .....................................................................................................................................9 To the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe..........................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Russia, Georgia and the Eu in Abkhazia and South Ossetia
    PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION: RUSSIA, GEORGIA AND THE EU IN ABKHAZIA AND SOUTH OSSETIA Iskra Kirova August 2012 Figueroa Press Los Angeles The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author and cannot be interpreted to reflect the positions of organizations that the author is affiliated with. PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION: RUSSIA, GEORGIA AND THE EU IN ABKHAZIA AND SOUTH OSSETIA Iskra Kirova Published by FIGUEROA PRESS 840 Childs Way, 3rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90089 Phone: (213) 743-4800 Fax: (213) 743-4804 www.figueroapress.com Figueroa Press is a division of the USC Bookstore Copyright © 2012 all rights reserved Notice of Rights All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmit- ted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the author, care of Figueroa Press. Notice of Liability The information in this book is distributed on an “As is” basis, without warranty. While every precaution has been taken in the preparation of this book, neither the author nor Figueroa nor the USC Bookstore shall have any liability to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused or alleged to be caused directly or indirectly by any text contained in this book. Figueroa Press and the USC Bookstore are trademarks of the University of Southern California ISBN 13: 978-0-18-214016-9 ISBN 10: 0-18-214016-4 For general inquiries or to request additional copies of this paper please contact: USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School University of Southern California 3502 Watt Way, G4 Los Angeles, CA 90089-0281 Tel: (213) 821-2078; Fax: (213) 821-0774 [email protected] www.uscpublicdiplomacy.org CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy CPD Perspectives is a periodic publication by the USC Center on Public Diplomacy, and highlights scholarship intended to stimulate critical thinking about the study and practice of public diplomacy.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing the Russian Way of War Evidence from the 2008 Conflict with Georgia
    Analyzing the Russian Way of War Evidence from the 2008 Conflict with Georgia Lionel Beehner A Contemporary Battlefield Assessment Liam Collins by the Modern War Institute Steve Ferenzi Robert Person Aaron Brantly March 20, 2018 Analyzing the Russian Way of War: Evidence from the 2008 Conflict with Georgia Contents Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 9 Chapter I – History of Bad Blood ................................................................................................................ 13 Rose-Colored Glasses .............................................................................................................................. 16 Chapter II – Russian Grand Strategy in Context of the 2008 Russia-Georgia War ................................... 21 Russia’s Ends ........................................................................................................................................... 22 Russia’s Means ........................................................................................................................................ 23 Russia’s Ways .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The View from Abkhazia of South Ossetia Ablaze
    Central Asian Survey Vol. 28, No. 2, June 2009, 235–246 The view from Abkhazia of South Ossetia ablaze Paula Garbà Department of Anthropology, University of California, Irvine, USA The Abkhazian and South Ossetian perspectives on the fighting between Georgians and South Ossetians in August 2008 could not be heard above the noise generated around the geopolitical implications of the larger Russian–Georgian clash. The population of Abkhazia experienced the violence in South Ossetia as though it was occurring on their own territory. This confirmed their complete lack of trust in the Georgian government’s commitment to peaceful resolution of the conflicts. In addition, they were disappointed with what they regarded as the international community’s absence of criticism of Georgia’s actions and lack of concern for the safety and well-being of the South Ossetians. Russia’s recognition of South Ossetia’s and Abkhazia’s independence has taken the question of Georgia’s territorial integrity off the negotiation table indefinitely. It also has set back the formal peace process with both South Ossetia and Abkhazia. An essential way forward, toward establishing trust as a necessary foundation for progress in the political negotiations, would be for the US and other interested countries to engage with the people of Abkhazia and South Ossetia at all levels, demonstrating credible and consistent concern for the safety and well being of all the people affected by the conflict. Keywords: conflict; culture; Abkhazia; South Ossetia Introduction Georgian–Abkhazian official relations since the end of the 1992–1993 war have offered little common ground for a mutually acceptable resolution.
    [Show full text]