|
|
Conflict in the Caucasus
The dramatic conflict between Georgia and Russia
that erupted in early August will have profound consequences, in the
Caucasus and internationally. ROB JONES writes from Moscow.
THE WORLD’S PRESS had their attention diverted from
the glitter of China’s Olympic games as the dispute between Russia and
the Caucasian republic of Georgia over the small breakaway region of
South Ossetia suddenly escalated into a nightmarish military conflict.
After weeks of growing tension in South Ossetia’s
capital, Tskhinvali, Georgia’s president, Mikhail Saakashvili, sent
troops to seize the region. Over the night of 6-7 August, Georgian
troops attacked Tskhinvali and five other towns with automatic weapons
and artillery. Claims vary on the number killed in the initial stages of
the fighting.
One Russian journalist reported on the damage the
South Ossetian capital had suffered: "The town is destroyed. There are
many casualties, many wounded", Zaid Tsarnayev told Reuters from
Tskhinvali. "I was in the hospital yesterday where I saw many civilian
wounded. The hospital was later destroyed by a Georgian jet. I don’t
know whether the wounded were still there". Both South Ossetia’s
president, Eduard Kokoiti, and the Russian foreign minister, Sergei
Lavrov, have claimed that over 1,500 people, mainly peaceful residents,
were killed during the attacks (although Human Rights Watch reported a
much lower figure). At least 15 Russian ‘peacekeeping troops’ based in
Tskhinvali were killed.
With the Georgian troops having initially seized the
town, Russian troops, headed by a huge column of heavy tanks, crossed
the mountain passes from Russia into South Ossetia, ostensibly to defend
the people of the area. Fighting again broke out in Tskhinvali and for
days both Russian and Georgian military spokesmen claimed control of the
city. Both sides used their air forces.
Russian troops then moved out of South Ossetia,
occupying the city of Gori and attacking military and economic targets
throughout the rest of Georgia. Gori ended up in the same state of
destruction as Tskhinvali. Many were killed or wounded in these attacks.
The Georgians also claim that Russian aircraft bombed ships in Georgia’s
Black Sea ports and that the oil and gas pipelines crossing the country
were also attacked.
Saakashvili declared that Georgia was in a state of
war, announcing the call up of reservists and the immediate withdrawal
of the country’s contingent from Iraq. Georgia had 2,000 troops there,
the third biggest contingent after the US and Britain. Huge diplomatic
pressure was put on both sides to tone down the conflict. The US came
out openly hostile to Russia, with George Bush’s secretary of state,
Condoleezza Rice, in effect holding Saakashvili’s hand throughout the
conflict. The EU tried to be more bipartisan, with the German
chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy,
shuttling between the two capitals trying to find a compromise. Iran,
which borders on the Caucasian region, offered to arbitrate in the
dispute, while China called for a ceasefire, ‘which is the traditional
response during the Olympic games’!
Now, although many Russian troops remain in Georgia,
the fighting war appears to be over. But the world has dramatically
changed.
Regional tensions escalated
LONG-RUNNING TENSIONS in the region around Georgia
escalated considerably after the end of 2006 in parallel with the
increase in tensions between the US and Russia internationally. What the
Russian government called the ‘frozen conflict’ heated up because of a
number of factors. Military exercises near Tbilisi in July of this year,
involving over a thousand US marines, Georgia’s continued attempts to
join NATO (although the latest attempt was pushed back at its Bucharest
summit in April), and Georgia’s open support for the US missile defence
system based in Eastern Europe, have all played a role in bringing the
conflict closer.
Not coincidentally, a nasty racist campaign had been
launched by the Russian authorities against Georgians living in Russia
towards the end of 2006, supposedly after the Georgians arrested four
Russian spies. The government imposed an economic boycott of Georgian
goods, mainly wine and brandy. At the same time, harassment of Georgians
living in Moscow was dramatically stepped up – passports and work
permits constantly checked. Russian TV showed hundreds of Georgians, who
were supposedly ‘illegal’, being loaded onto ‘ministry of emergencies’
aircraft for deportation. Many hundreds more were sent by train.
The question of NATO has acted to polarise opinions
on both sides. Saakashvili had made the entry of Georgia into NATO a key
policy of his administration. He was therefore bitterly disappointed
that the application was pushed back (together with Ukraine’s
application) at the Bucharest conference. Some analysts have suggested
that he therefore decided to attack South Ossetia to attempt to push
NATO into action on Georgia’s side. But this is an unlikely explanation.
Certainly, Saakashvili’s government was an unstable
one, which has been meeting increasing economic difficulties. For the
majority of the population, the promises and hopes of the ‘rose
revolution’ that brought Saakashvili to power in January 2004 – that
somehow Georgia would join the west with its high living standards and
freedoms – have been dashed.
As opposition to his rule grew and protesters began
to come out on to the streets, Saakashvili, in early November 2007, used
police and troops to attack demonstrators in Tbilisi and declared a
state of emergency. Then, in an attempt to cut across this growing
opposition, Saakashvili announced an early presidential election – and a
referendum on when to hold parliamentary elections – for January this
year. While he was re-elected with a claimed 53% of the vote, the
opposition accused Saakashvili of ‘subtly rigging’ January’s poll. These
events led at least some European powers to begin to try and distance
themselves from Saakashvili. It is therefore more likely that
Saakashvili, rather than following a well thought out strategic plan,
was actually desperately trying to find a way out of the corner into
which he had been forced.
The Kosovo precedent
A KEY TURNING point for the Russian government was
the recognition of Kosovan independence in February of this year. This
was a blow to Russian interests in the Balkans as it saw an openly
pro-US Kosovan government granted recognition against the wishes of
Russia’s historical ally, Serbia. Russia’s ruling elite reacted with
venom spitting through clenched teeth. The then Russian president,
Vladimir Putin, stated: "The precedent of Kosovo is a terrible
precedent, which will de facto blow apart the whole system of
international relations, developed not over decades, but over centuries.
They have not thought through the results of what they are doing. At the
end of the day, it is a two-ended stick and the second end will come
back and hit them in the face".
Russia’s envoy to NATO, nationalist politician and
long-time Kremlin insider, Dmitri Rogozin, was even more explicit. This
decision, he stated, means: "We too would then have to proceed from the
view that in order to be respected we must use brute force, in other
words, armed force". This comment follows on from his earlier comments
concerning NATO expansion: "As soon as Georgia gets the promise to join
NATO from Washington, on the next day the real process to separate these
two territories [South Ossetia and Abkhazia] from Georgia will begin".
Following the recognition of Kosovo, Russia lifted
the economic restrictions it still had in place against Abkhazia and
South Ossetia and activated its attempts to strengthen its support in
the republics. The six months from February to August saw a steady
increase in incidents provoked by both sides, including flights into the
no-fly zone and shooting incidents. In the weeks before Saakashvili’s
attack on Tskhinvali, Russia sent scores of ‘railway troops’ into South
Ossetia, ostensibly to restore the rail link with Moscow. This was
interpreted by Tbilisi as a hostile act on sovereign territory, and it
helps to explain how the Russian army could get tanks and troops into
Tskhinvali so quickly.
As the Russian leadership points out, the US is
unbelievably hypocritical when it attacks Russia for going in to
Georgia. After all, the war in Iraq is illegal and just as brutal. But
the outbreak of open warfare in August saw even more incredible
hypocrisy and propaganda on both sides.
Suddenly, the US is against self-determination,
although it supports Kosovan independence. Russia supports
self-determination, although it has waged two brutal wars to prevent
Chechen independence. The western pro-Georgian press put out the pro-Saakashvili
position. Almost no attention was paid to the initial attack by Georgian
troops on Tskhinvali. After the Russians sent tanks into Georgia, the
press was dominated by the Russian occupation. Only after the initial
five days war was over did articles start appearing, for example in The
Guardian, a British-based newspaper, suggesting, in a one-sided way,
that the US was responsible for the conflict.
The Russian press toed the Kremlin line to a man.
Columns reported on the suffering of the population in Tskhinvali but
not a word was said about Russian troops moving into Georgia, or the
vicious attacks on Gori. Exaggerations and rumours were reported with no
independent checking. The claims of Kokoiti and Lavrov that between
1,600 and 2,000 civilians were killed in Georgia’s initial attack are
taken as read. However, Human Rights Watch, after surveying hospitals,
talks of less than a hundred being killed.
But this was enough for Russia to send the troops
in. During the five days, Russian tank columns were spotted throughout
Georgia. At the same time, pro-Russian witnesses swore blindly they had
seen columns of NATO troops moving through Georgia. Reporters on both
sides who tried to be ‘objective’ were victimised. A reporter for
Russia’s world service, Russia Today, tried to send news from Tbilisi
reporting on Russian attacks but was forced to resign. Reporters from
western papers who attempted to go to South Ossetia through Russia were
threatened with the sack. Varying terminology on both sides such as the
‘fascist’ Saakashvili, the ‘genocide’ of the Ossetian people,
‘aggressors’, or the ‘Stalinist’ Kremlin, are thrown around to play on
emotions and hide the real issues, and to distract from the grave human
catastrophe taking place.
So what do socialists say?
SOCIALISTS BASE THEMSELVES on what is beneficial or
detrimental to the working class and poor people. We reject attempts to
analyse the situation in an empirical way, that is, ‘Who fired the first
shot?’ Nor do we base our standpoint on questions that can be used to
disguise national interests. Thus we see some asking simply, ‘Who is
pro- or anti-US imperialism?’ Others ask, ‘Who is pro- or anti-Russian?’
But these questions miss the point that the real reason for this clash
is the competing imperialist interests of the ruling classes in both
Washington and Moscow. This is why the workers’ movement must maintain
its independence from both.
Many lefts, especially from a Stalinist tradition,
have chosen to give critical support to Russian capitalism, on the basis
that Russia and its allies are the best defence there is in the world
today against unbridled US imperialism. This is based on the pessimistic
assessment that the international working class is incapable of uniting
and struggling to overthrow capitalism. They still imagine they are
backing a ‘lesser evil’.
Others speak of the need for a ‘neutral’ force to
oversee peace-keeping in the disputed regions. Calls are made for troops
from the United Nations (UN) or the Organisation for Security and
Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to be used. However, as the experience of
the former Yugoslavia shows, these contingents also defend the policies
of their own governments and are not capable of maintaining peace.
Indeed, the worst massacre of the conflicts in the Balkans, at
Srebrenica, took place while UN peacekeepers looked the other way.
In particular, the position facing revolutionary
Marxists in Russia is hard. There is incredible pressure in society to
support the Russian actions. All sorts of questions are thrown at us:
How else are we supposed to defend the rights of the Russian passport
holders? Why shouldn’t Russia stand up to US imperialism and its
Georgian puppet Saakashvili? Surely if the people of South Ossetia want
to unite with North Ossetia, they should have the right? Aren’t Russian
troops in Georgia just to ensure that the Georgian army is disarmed and
can no longer attack us? Socialism is abstract, something has to be done
now.
These questions have to be answered, but socialists
must also adopt the longer view and take a firm position in the
interests of the working class. The whole tragedy of the collapse of the
Soviet Union and the restoration of capitalism is that there was no
independent working-class organisation capable of offering a programme
to end the horrors of Stalinism and capitalism. As a consequence, the
working class has become divided; social degradation and ethnic division
have become the norm. This is no surprise. This is in the nature of
capitalism. Even ‘modern, civilised’ states such as Belgium, Britain and
Spain have not succeeded in solving the national question. But in the
former Soviet Union, the newly developed capitalist elites have not
baulked at consciously using ethnic conflict to further their aims.
Socialists need to speak out, not only in favour of
the ethnic group under attack, but also in defence of the rights of the
working class of all ethnic groups against their oppressors. This means,
notwithstanding the aggressive policies of the Saakashvili government,
we should give no support to the Kokoiki government in South Ossetia,
based on KGB and army representatives and financing itself through
smuggling and the black market, with the support of its Russian
paymasters. Just as Saakashvili is a pro-American stooge, the Kokoiti
government is a mafia government, defending mafia interests with the
backing of Russian imperialism. We therefore call for the unity of the
Ossetian, Russian and Georgian working class in defence of their common
interests.
As seen in the events around South Ossetia (and
Kosovo), the question of self-determination is used hypocritically by
both sides. So-called leaders do not mean self-determination for the
working class and poor, just for those who have armies and powerful
friends. As genuine socialists, we defend the right of
self-determination and fight against all forms of national
discrimination and oppression through organising working-class and
international solidarity. As Kosovo and South Ossetia demonstrate, under
capitalism there is no possibility of a nation being genuinely
independent. Seeking the support of one or another imperialist power is
no solution. Developing an independent working class force capable of
challenging and overthrowing capitalism – nationally and internationally
– is the only way to guarantee the right of self-determination. On the
other hand, socialists do not always advocate separation and, even when
we do, work to build the solidarity between and unity in action of the
working class of all nationalities.
In South Ossetia, we have to ask which South Ossetia
has the right to self-determination? Should South Ossetia join with
North Ossetia, within the Russian Federation or as an independent
entity? Should part of South Ossetia break away from another part (along
ethnic lines) leaving the Georgian part in Georgia and the Ossetian part
in Russia? Or should the people who live in South Ossetia be forced to
return to the ‘status quo’? In each of these variations, we can say
clearly that the fundamental problems of the region – economic and
social, national and ethnic – will not be solved unless capitalism is
overthrown. So long as capitalism remains, the region will still be
subject to the permanent conflict of the world’s imperialist powers for
control of the oil and gas pipelines, and repressive and nationalist
governments will attempt to divide people along ethnic lines in the
interests of the rich and powerful.
We support a genuine right to self-determination
based on the rights of the working class and poor in society to decide
where they wish to live. This can only be determined when the working
class and poor have established their own organisations capable of
defending their interests. At the same time, self-determination of one
group should not be at the expense of another. We therefore support the
right to autonomy or independence of any groups within a federal or
confederal structure if they so desire. While the maximum unity of the
working class in the struggle for socialism is our aim, we are sensitive
to national feelings. If, for example, South Ossetia decided to become
independent, the Georgian population within it should have the right to
be autonomous or independent, if they so wish.
Who can defend the rights of workers?
MANY ARGUE THAT at least the Russian army will
defend the rights of South Ossetians now. But during the course of the
last 20 years, the army (either in its regular form or through irregular
units) has shown that it intervenes in the region in the interests of
one section or another of the Russian ruling elite, at the cost of
ordinary people of all nationalities. In the Abkhazia context, it
participated in the massacre of Georgians, for no other reason than that
they lived in the wrong place. No attempt has been made to counter the
recent statements of Kokoiti that Georgians living in Ossetia should not
be allowed to return. In no way can the Russian army be said to have
defended the rights of Chechens through two brutal wars, nor has it been
able to ensure peace in Ingushetia or North Ossetia. Indeed, it was the
bungling of the army chiefs that worsened the Beslan school siege
catastrophe in September 2004. During the present conflict, by occupying
Gori and attacking ships in Georgian ports, the Russian army has shown
it is defending the oil and gas interests of Russia’s capitalist
oligarchs.
It may be possible that for a short period, to
create an image of stability, the army will be seen to defend the local
population (at least those who have not been prevented from returning)
but it will soon return to its normal role of defending the interests of
the Russian ruling class.
In other such conflicts, we have raised the need to
establish workers’ defence forces. But in these conditions they should
not be simply ‘narodnii opolchentsi’ (people’s defenders), formed to
defend residents of a particular area. As such, they would just become
ethnically-based militias. We need to argue that workers’ defence forces
should be multi-ethnic, formed to defend workers and the poor from
attack, whatever their nationality, and under the democratic control of
the working class.
It is too crude to say that the national and ethnic
conflicts in the Caucasus are entirely the result of capitalism. The
legacy of Stalinism and its bureaucratic approach to the question of
nationalities has clearly left its mark in the region. However, it has
been the restoration of capitalism that has left the region so
desperately poor, under the control of warring factions struggling to
control oil and gas routes, and subject to the never-ending conflict
between imperialist powers. If proper homes and jobs, a decent health
service, education and pensions are to be provided for all, irrespective
of nationality, then the struggle for self-determination has to be
linked to the struggle against capitalism. If workers were to be
sufficiently organised to take political power in any of the republics
in the region, then the nationalities map would be dramatically redrawn,
as the improvement in living standards and the possibility of genuine
self-determination would mean that ethnic groups would be able to
co-operate and not be in conflict with each other.
Some will say, ‘Yes, that’s nice but we need to do
something now!’ The problem is that there is no realistic solution as
long as the region is dominated by the likes of Saakashvili, Kokoiti or
Ramzan Kadyrov (the gangster president of Chechnya) and their
imperialist backers in Washington and Moscow. Of course, we would
welcome any short-term easing of the problems but we have to warn that,
to reach a genuine solution, capitalism has to be driven out of the
region.
To achieve this the socialists’ programme is based
around:
· A call on all worker and left activists in
Russia, Georgia and South Ossetia, and of course in other countries, to
demand that military activities are immediately halted. Workers cannot
rely on the uncontrolled actions of their governments, diplomats or
intervention by outside forces to solve the conflict, they can only rely
on their own forces.
· The withdrawal of all Russian and Georgian
troops from South Ossetia and opposition to troops supplied by other
capitalist states. We call for the formation of trans-ethnic workers’
defence forces to defend workers and poor people from attack, whatever
their nationality, and under the democratic control of the working class
rather than so-called peacekeeping forces.
· For the right of South Ossetia and the
other unrecognised republics to self-determination without military
intervention.
· For united action by the working masses of
Georgia, Russia and South Ossetia to overthrow those governments who
wage war against ordinary people and to drive imperialism out of the
region.
· The nationalisation under democratic
workers’ control and management of the oil, gas and other natural
resources in the region, and the pipelines through which they are
transported, and for the use of the income from these for overcoming
poverty in the region.
· An emergency construction and job creation
programme to provide homes and incomes for all refugees of all
nationalities in the region, under the control of democratically elected
committees.
· The establishment of governments which will
defend workers’ interests, overcome poverty, and ensure peace.
· For a democratic socialist federation of
the Caucasus – without this there can be no long-term solution to the
conflict over land and resources.
Profound repercussions
WHATEVER THE FINAL outcome of the current military
manoeuvrings, nothing has been resolved. Georgia continues to be ruled
by a clique set on forcing Abkhazia and South Ossetia against their will
back into Georgia. Saakashvili has made a serious error in attacking
South Ossetia in the way he did. Now, many western leaders are realising
that he is an unreliable ally. The Bush administration could not get
NATO to agree to fully back him and, if Barak Obama wins the US
presidential election in November, US foreign policy tactics may change.
Saakashvili could well find himself with declining support at home and
held at arm’s length by the world powers. Some opposition leaders in
Georgia have issued the call for elections to replace Saakashvili, but
these will have no purpose if he is just replaced by another set of
neo-liberal politicians. There is an urgent need in Georgia to build a
genuine left-wing alternative to Saakashvili.
In Russia, the ‘Medvedev-Putin’ tandem has won a
Pyrrhic victory. This will not be a repeat of the success of Putin’s
presidency after he waged the second Chechen war. On the one hand, the
whole Caucasus region will be more unstable as a result of these events,
demanding even greater resources to ‘control’ the area. But also the
conditions no longer exist for a further ten years of economic growth.
The US, EU and Japan are now experiencing a slowdown or recession. A
further major fall in oil prices would hit the Russian economy hard.
There was already a sharp decline in foreign investment into Russia even
before these events.
Finance minister, Alexei Kudrin, says that as a
result of the war $16 billion of foreign investment has fled the
country. Although for a period there may be a temporary strengthening of
the regime, this will not be permanent. If economic conditions worsen,
in a couple of years people could well look back and say that the South
Ossetia war was a turning point. The only question is whether a serious
left-wing alternative capable of building mass support can develop in
time.
In the Caucasus as a whole, the situation is dire.
The struggle by imperialist powers for control will be even more bitter.
The building of the gas pipeline is now under question as the investors
are unhappy about the instability. The apparent success of Russia in
bringing Saakashvili to book may encourage the Azeri regime to try and
wrest Nagorno Karabakh back under its control. The conditions now exist
throughout the Caucasus for the explosion of Balkan-type wars, involving
not only the regional powers but the major imperialist ones as well.
Internationally, the older imperialist powers find
themselves in a much more difficult position. For two decades they have
been trying to gradually develop relations with Russia while maintaining
their own superiority. Now they find that they have created a monster
that is difficult to control.
NATO is divided on how to react. On the one hand,
Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic States rushed to Georgia’s defence. The
US anti-missile defence system will now go ahead. In reply, Belarus and
Russia have announced they will build their own system in opposition.
Calls have been made within the G8 to exclude Russia from this forum.
The US is finding itself in opposition to some of the European
capitalist powers over how to deal with Russia. And in the UN, the US
will find it much harder to carry its position, as Russia will be more
willing to use its veto. While the international organisations such as
the UN and OSCE are reluctant for their peacekeeping troops to be pulled
into the Caucasus, refusal will leave Russia in control. The imperialist
powers are being dragged into the Caucasian powder keg.
But the conditions internationally are not the same
as those at the start of the 1990s, when the Balkan wars began. Then,
the Soviet Union had just collapsed, capitalism appeared to have won the
ideological war, the US appeared as an unchallengeable superpower, the
world economy was growing steadily, and the workers’ movement was
disorientated and leaderless. Now, people are beginning to question
capitalism more and more, the limits of US power have been revealed by
the Iraq debacle, the world economy is in a dire state, and the workers’
movement internationally is beginning to flex its muscles. The lessons
of the nightmare situation in the Caucasus must be learned and the way
opened for new generations to establish socialist co-operation on the
highest scale.
|