A Russian Bias?

In relation to Kosovo, it took the West almost a decade of diplomacy and negotiation to bring about the change from autonomy too widespread acknowledgement of independence. The intervention by NATO in 1999 to prevent further ethnic cleansing in Kosovo by Serbian forces, the likes of which occurred in Bosnia, has been historically vindicated. However the Russian claim of genocide and several thousand South Ossetians deaths failed under post-violence scrutiny. The death toll is put between one to several hundred. Though this be tragic in itself it is important to put this in the context of a build-up in tensions and ongoing military conflict between South Ossetian militia and the Georgian military. The culmination of this fighting led to Georgia’s failed attempt to take the South Ossetian capital by force.

It took Russia not more than a few weeks to declare South Ossetia’s independence. The grounds were given that the invasion by Georgia annulled its legal claim over the region. The Russian President Medvedev argued that this precedence did not occur in relation to Serbia and Kosovo. However it is clearly evident that ethnic cleansing and genocide can be attributed to Kosovo and the Balkans in general. The same cannot be said to be so in the South Ossetian situation.

The argument seems to have some authority that if an ethnically homogonous region within a sovereign state is targeted in a way that constitutes genocide, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity, than that state forgoes its sovereign claim over that region. It is an argument that follows from the United Nations platform of “responsibility to protect”. The argument here is that humanity as a whole as the right, and perhaps the obligation, to intervene in the case of atrocities. The invasion of Tibet happened and went unanswered by major powers. The genocide in Rwanda happened, but was more closely watched. The atrocities committed by the Serbs in Bosnia finally motivated some major powers to intervene in the case of Serbian atrocities in Kosovo.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it might be argued that the mutual crimes committed by the warring South Ossetians and Georgians is sufficient grounds to make the case for eventual independence – as is the case made by some major powers in relation to Kosovo. However Georgia did use major military force to try and bring South Ossetia back into its fold. This further gives grounds to South Ossetian independence, and does justify a military response – in this case from Russia. However especially considering the falsified claims of genocide and ethnic cleansing, Russia’s eventual response has the very clear character of being excessive. The destabilising effect on Georgia was to leave a power vacuum that enabled South Ossetian militia to commit atrocities.

It is within the collective of humanity to transcend all borders; however it is within the abuse of individual power to consume all borders. In order to transcend boundaries humanity must first learn to respect them.