Posted by Damozel | At The New York Times,
Andrew E. Kramer discusses the peace plan brokered by the French (as
the country holding the rotating presidency of the EU). According to
him, it provided the Russians with a rationale for pushing further into Georgia
as part of a “peacekeeping” role they demanded under the agreement. Mr.
Sarkozy also “failed to persuade the Russians to agree to any time
limit on their military action.” (NYT)
The Russians demanded that their troops be allowed “in a peacekeeping role” outside the separatist enclaves and “to implement security measures” while “awaiting an international monitoring mechanism.” (NYT) Rationale or no rationale, they seemed to have been determined to do this anyway.
Russian troops have the right to take any actions necessary to prevent hostilities, said a Kremlin spokesman, Alexei Pavlov, including inside Georgia.
A senior American official "familiar with the talks" commented on the Russian insistence on the "security measures":
“I think it was presented as, ‘You need to sign on to this,’ ” the official said of Mr. Sarkozy’s appeal to the Georgians. “My guess is it was presented as, ‘This is the best I can get.’ ” French and Russian officials were unavailable to comment on the Georgian official’s account of how the negotiations unfolded. (NYT)
At any rate, there could still be trouble ahead, some say.
The points agreed by Moscow and Tbilisi proscribe the use of force, pledge a ceasefire, and guarantee access for humanitarian aid. But the political and military aspects of the agreement are problematic and it could yet unravel. At Russian insistence, Georgian forces must return to base while Russian "peacekeepers" in South Ossetia are allowed to stage security patrols until an "international mechanism" is agreed. "That gives the Russians undefined security rights in undefined territory in Georgia. That's an invitation to further problems," the Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt, told the Guardian. (Guardian 2)
However Mikhail Saakashvili called American relief efforts "a turning point" in the conflict. (NYT2) Bush has sent American troops to Georgia on a "vigorous and ongoing" humanitarian effort. Bush said:
“We expect Russia to ensure that all lines of communication and transport, including seaports, airports, roads and airspace, remain open for the delivery of humanitarian assistance and for civilian transit.... We expect Russia to meet its commitment to cease all military activities in Georgia, and we expect all Russian forces that entered Georgia in recent days to withdraw from that country.” (NYT2)
President Saakashvili, disappointed beforehand in the West's dithering, expressed satisfaction with this move.
“We were unhappy with the initial actions of the American officials, because they were perceived by the Russians as green lines, basically, but this one was very strong,” he said in a telephone interview after Mr. Bush’s statement in Washington. (NYT2)
His praise might have been premature. He apparently assumed that American troops would help to defend Georgian seaports and airports. The Bush administration and Pentagon officials quickly disabused him of this notion. "A senior administration official said, “We won’t be protecting the airport or seaport, but we’ll certainly protect our assets if we need to.”(NYT2) World Affairs correspondent at BBC News discusses the implications.
As well as providing aid to many thousands of displaced Georgians, it also sends a range of political messages. It goes some way to responding to the concerns of many Georgians who believe Uncle Sam was not there for them when they needed him, and it tells the Russians that Washington is not backing away from the country it has described as a "beacon of democracy". There is something of a military subtext too. The US is to use its navy and air force for this mission and warned the Russians that they must keep all transport infrastructure open. There is no hint whatsoever that the US would be prepared to use military force against the Russians - far from it. But bringing American forces into the equation on the ground is an implicit warning to the Russians to back off. No one wants an accidental confrontation which could turn into something worse. (BBC News)
Meanwhile, the ordinary Russian-in-the-street is apparently feeling vindicated, according to this article by BBC News Correspondent Caroline Wyatt.
Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor of the magazine Russia in Global Affairs, firmly believes that Washington must shoulder much of the blame for the current crisis in Georgia.
"Russia did not plan this action - it was taken by surprise and had no option but to intervene in South Ossetia," he says. "America's behaviour in Georgia over the past years and especially the past month is seen in Moscow as very provocative. The US encouraged Georgia to act, maybe not directly, but that was how Mr Saakashvili interpreted it. And Washington has now supported the Georgian leadership on all points." So Georgia has become a proxy war between Moscow and Washington, allowing Russia to express its long-simmering anger over the US wish to bring Georgia into Nato, and expand Nato right up to Russia's own borders. (BBC News2)
And of course, there are other factors on the Russian side:
Gleaming new skyscrapers pierce the Moscow skyline - proud evidence of Russia's vast profits from oil and gas. Those pipelines are Russia's new source of power on the world stage, with Moscow using the West's reliance on it for energy to help rebuild the influence it lost during the collapse of communism. After the humiliation of the Yeltsin years, it should perhaps come as no surprise that the Kremlin is confidently asserting itself, in the knowledge that the West needs Russia rather more than it likes to admit, and will tread warily. And Moscow calculates, perhaps correctly, that with its forces and energies tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US has little else to offer Georgia but words of support, and will ultimately shy away from any confrontation with Russia beyond the current war of words. (BBC News2)
During the discussions yesterday the US and Georgia "demanded any settlement of the conflict in Georgia be based on recognition of the smaller country's territorial integrity." (Guardian2) But Russian said no to this.
Russia declined to acknowledge Georgian sovereignty over all of its recognised territory, and refused to have any reference to it in the six-point plan. Russia agreed to "international discussions" with Georgia on South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but kept its options open on the two pro-Russian breakaway provinces. (Guardian2)
That's going to be a tricky one to negotiate, I imagine. Will the EU, the US, and interested others in the international community stand behind Saakashvili's attempt to enforce reunification? Both the breakaway enclaves have had de facto independence since the nineties. (BBC News4) It's clear right now that the US/EU and Russians aren't even close on this.
An EU statement said any peace settlement had to be based on Georgia's recognised territorial integrity. Bush said: "The United States stands with the democratically elected government of Georgia. We insist the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia be respected." Sergei Ivanov, Russia's deputy prime minister, repeatedly refused to recognise Georgian control over its territory. "We recognise the sovereignty of Georgia ... but territorial integrity, it's another matter," he told the BBC. "South Ossetia and Abkhazia never were part of Georgia as an independent country." (Guardian2)
At any rate, the handover from Russia to Georgia is beginning, or beginning to begin, in and around Gori. The Russians are still present in their "peace"-keeping capacity and will remain so for several days, it seems. (BBC News 3)
A Russian general in the area said Moscow's troops would remain nearby for several days, apparently to remove weaponry and unexploded ordnance.... The BBC's Gabriel Gatehouse, inside Gori, says Moscow insists that the purpose of its continuing presence in Georgia proper is to hand over security to the Georgian police and to remove abandoned weapons and ammunition. (BBC News 3)
According to this report, the Russian troops have succeeded in creating a measure of security in and around Gori---after spending yesterday destroying its military infrastructure, The Guardian.
Local residents reported feeling safe and secure on Wednesday night, our correspondent says, as the presence of Russian troops in Gori kept looters off the streets. The Russian general co-ordinating the return of Georgian police and security forces to Gori urged residents - many of whom left town as the Georgian army retreated on Monday - to return to their homes and re-open their shops, our correspondent adds. (BBC News 3)
Hmmm. As I noted yesterday, things were looking very different to fleeing Georgia villagers.
Yesterday morning, as the Russian tanks advanced from their base in South Ossetia they passed through Georgian controlled-villages, telling residents to hang out white flags or be shot.Behind them, according to people fleeing those villages, came a militia army of Chechen and Ossetian volunteers who had joined up with the regular Russian army. The volunteers embarked on an orgy of looting, burning, murdering and rape, witnesses claimed, adding that the irregulars had carried off young girls and men. "They killed my neighbour's 15-year-old son. Everyone was fleeing in panic," Larisa Lazarashvili, 45, said. "The Russian tanks arrived at our village at 11.20am. We ran away. We left everything - our cattle, our house, and our possessions." Achiko Khitarishvili, 39, from Berbuki, added: "They were killing, burning and stealing. My village isn't in a conflict zone. It's pure Georgia." These claims of Russian atrocities were impossible to verify. But the mood of panic was real enough - with villagers fleeing towards Tbilisi by all means possible. One family of eight piled into a tiny white Lada; others fled on tractors. (The Guardian)
The BBC News has compiled its own summary of Winners and Losers in the conflict. Here's one loser, according to the BBC:
This has been a difficult conflict in which to sort out the facts. Russia failed to back up its claims of Georgian atrocities and did not allow reporters and international observers in to check them. Georgia made all kinds of claims that Russia was invading, including a statement that Russian troops had taken over the town of Gori which proved not to be so. The US and UK at least have chosen to represent this as Russian aggression. Yet it was Georgia that attacked with a rocket barrage which by its nature was indiscriminate.
And whatever their respective countries may have decided, the female beach volleyball players of Russia and Georgia aren't prepared for a truce. (Times of London) "Hours after the guns fell silent in the disputed border region a few thousand miles away, insults were flying between the two countries as they extended their hostilities to a sandpit in central Beijing."
RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTINGS
Do our Media Understand the Russia-Georgia Conflict?
More on the Russo-Georgian Conflict (Opinion Round-Up)
Georgia Declares Itself to be in a State of War Against Russia; Conflict Expands
Comments