Chapter 11 Case Study of the Conflict in South Ossetia Ketevan Tsikhelashvili and Natasha Ubilava*

I Introduction

Following nearly three years of irregular armed confrontation, the breakaway region of South Ossetia has been enjoying relative peace brought about by a cease- fire in 1992. Unfortunately, formal peacemaking has ceased there. The conflict has remained politically ‘frozen’ as negotiations have failed to yield any genuine settlement for more than a decade. In the absence of a formal settlement, however, a rather peculiar informal peace arrangement emerged out of local and international initiatives and needs-driven transactions. Initially, segmented functional interactions were maintained by previously op- posed groups. Over time, internationally-sponsored bilateral contacts and joint activities of all conflicting sides have gradually forged multifaceted interactions that are based upon an informal/semi-formal power-sharing principle. This ‘bot-

* The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable comments from Emmanuel An- quetil (Project Manager, European Commission Delegation in Georgia), Jonathon Cohen (Caucasus Programme Manager, Conciliation Resources, London), Bruno Coppieters, (Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Political Science, Vrije Universiteit Brussel [Free University of Brussels]), S. Neil MacFarlane, (Lester B. Pearson Professor of International Relations, University of Oxford), Klaus Ras- mussen (Political Officer, OSCE Mission to Georgia), and Ermina Van Hoye (Special Assistant to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Georgia UN- OMIG). South Ossetia is a breakaway region of the territory of Georgia. It is also referred to as “Tskhinvali Region,” “Samachablo” or “Shida Kartli” in different sources, each evoking tense debates between Ossetians and Georgians. Ossetians argue for “South Ossetia,” which emphasizes the desired territorial and ethnocultural political affinity with North Ossetia. Georgians prefer “Samachablo” or “Tskhinvali region,” which is used in official documentation. As “South Ossetia” is most frequently used in com- mon and diplomatic parlance, it will be used hereafter without political or any other connotation. Tskhinvali itself is the regional capital.

Marc Weller and Barbara Metzger (eds.), Settling Self-Determination Disputes: Complex Power-Sharing in Theory and Practice © Koninklijke Brill NV. Printed in The Netherlands. isbn 978 9004 16482 6. pp. 345-381 346 Ketevan Tsikhelashvili and Natasha Ubilava

tom-up’ development of power-sharing, from incremental cooperation at the ‘grassroots’ level towards more formalized arrangements, may ultimately pave the way for a congruous settlement, possibly embracing ‘vertical’ components of conflict resolution. Currently, however, the existing network of field-specific arrangements exclusively targets ‘horizontal’ aspects of self-regulation. Provision- ally, such a pattern could be described as ‘grassroots’, ‘horizontal’, or ‘informal/ semi-formal’ power-sharing. The South Ossetian experience suggests that a formal agreement may not be a necessary prerequisite for meaningful movement towards dispute settlement. It demonstrates that genuine and practical grassroots cooperation can function without an overarching political settlement spelling out the terms of engagement. In South Ossetia, these terms of engagement tend to be dictated by the needs of daily life that transcend ethnic barriers and cannot wait for a long-overdue political resolution. Mostly unwritten and largely assumed, these rules govern an intri- cate and delicate pattern of needs-based and project-specific interactions at informal or semi-formal levels. What remains puzzling and compelling about this case is the exceptional combination of internal and external factors that has prompted significant low-level cooperation without a comprehensive settlement. South Ossetia can be viewed as unique in comparison to the other case stud- ies in the Resolving Self-determination Disputes using Complex Power-sharing project, where officially recognized complex power-sharing arrangements have been implemented or are being implemented. This case thus may challenge the conventional understanding of resolving self-determination conflicts. It goes be- yond the existing framework that complex power-sharing theory has offered for dispute settlement. Perhaps, it may even offer a novel way of addressing self-determination issues, at least in the short term.

II Approach

Because of its unique qualities, South Ossetia does not readily fit into the tradi- tional analysis of complex power-sharing arrangements. To date, there has been no systemic exploration of conflict settlement with a focus on practical achieve- ments at the horizontal level such as in South Ossetia. Research thus far has mainly concentrated on the ebb and flow of political developments with regard to a long- awaited but still uncompleted formal solution. The lack of systematic data on informal power-sharing practices in South Ossetia further complicates the analysis. A tailored approach was developed for the exploration of the South Ossetian case. During field research in Georgia in the summer of 2001, information was collected from various primary sources such as official documentation and in- terviews with officials, independent experts and representatives of international as well as local governmental and nongovernmental organizations. The objective was twofold: firstly, to identify case-specific factors, whether internal or external, that have enabled and continue to facilitate bilateral or multilateral cooperation; and, secondly, to examine the areas, channels, and patterns of the existing power- sharing practices.