Hypocrisy at it's worst: the future of South Ossetia

[RusskiSoldat]

South Ossetia holds independence referendum

S Ossetia votes on independence
By Matthew Collin
BBC News, Tskhinvali

South Ossetian polling station
South Ossetians are expected to vote for independence
The tiny former Soviet region of South Ossetia is holding an independence referendum which it hopes will help it break away from Georgia.

South Ossetia has been struggling for independence from Georgia since the war in the early 1990s but has failed to win international recognition.

Georgia terms the vote illegitimate and has vowed to win South Ossetia back.

The vote is further straining tensions between Georgia and Russia which has strong links to South Ossetia.

All the posters on the streets of Tskhinvali are campaigning for a "yes" vote, and the result seems a foregone conclusion.

But the result is unlikely to be recognised by any country in the world.

The South Ossetian President, Eduard Kokoity, has insisted the referendum is not a futile gesture.

"It's not a symbolic referendum, it's an answer to those who won't recognise the will of the people of South Ossetia," he said.

"It's an answer to those who apply double standards to us. South Ossetia has more of a legal basis to be recognised than Kosovo or Montenegro."

'Assassination plot'

This has been a strange and occasionally violent campaign.

Ethnic Georgians who live in South Ossetia have organised a parallel vote in what's seen as an attempt to undermine the referendum's claim to be representative.


SOUTH OSSETIA
Map of South Ossetia
Population: About 70,000
Capital: Tskhinvali
Major languages: Ossetian, Georgian, Russian
Major religion: Orthodox Christianity
Currency: Russian rouble, Georgian lari

Regions and territories: South Ossetia

South Ossetian forces have killed four men they said were planning terrorist attacks at the polls.

And the former South Ossetian minister has been shown on television allegedly confessing to a plot to kill the breakaway region's president.

In these unusual circumstances the result of the referendum is unlikely to lead to a resolution of the conflict.

Georgian accusation

The South Ossetian authorities see the vote as a step towards their ultimate goal - becoming part of Russia.

But Moscow has given them no indication it will ever accept them.

Georgia has accused Russia of backing South Ossetia's ambitions to undermine its pro-western government.

Georgia wants the Russian peacekeeping troops in South Ossetia to be replaced by an international force.

But the South Ossetians see them as protection against what they believe are Georgian plans to invade.

South Ossetia began its attempts to gain independence at the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, when hundreds died in fighting between Georgian and Ossetian forces.

Many in South Ossetia see Georgia's actions then as brutal and unforgivable.

Since then the region has effectively run its own affairs with economic and political support from Russia.

In this day when Yugoslavia was forcefully broken apart (both by referendum, western intervention and civil war) and self determination is considered nothing short of sacred in the west, why do they choose to ignore the Ossetian people?
I can tell you why: because they align themselves with Russia rather than Georgia, which is run by American lapdogs.
In this hypocritical spirit the west has welcomed the breakup of the USSR and Yugoslavia, but has responded with overwhelming fury in the case of Trandniestria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
The first one is understandable: the republic is a joke created solely to keep Moldova from joining Romania, but what excuse have you for not supporting the latter two?
Both are ethnic minorities protesting against what they see as tyrannical foreigners taking them over. Is their cause not noble?
Or is it simply that the western empires do not wish to lose their holdings in Georgia?
Another thing out of this is perfectly clear: Saakashvilli is not the savior of democracy in Georgia.
No, he's a popular center-right man who is intent on preserving the country's territorial integrity and is taking a hostile stance against anyone who attacks him. Also, he's vastly increasing the power of the executive branch at the cost the others and has no qualms about using force.
Sound familiar?
His resume is near identical to Putin's. The difference is that apparently he's a revolutionary hero while Putin is a reactionary/communist (don't ask me how this works, but that's what he is according to western media) remnant of a bygone era and a tyrant.
The media never ceases to amaze me in it's successes in advancing the agenda that black is actually white.
So what is your opinion on this?
Two countries with elected senates and a desire to break away get no attention in the west, and only through Russian support has their independence not been militarily crushed by the Georgians.

[Siblesz]

70,000 people? That is a small village.

[John I Tzimisces]

It is in the northern caucasus (cold and mountainous, woo!) and is a fairly neat chunk of land I think. North Ossetia is already in Russia...it is probably granted autonomy like most of such territories became.

I pretty much agree with Russki. It is hypocritical to not lend a hand to the Ossetians.

[Da Skinna]

Not hypocrisy at its worst, but close enough. Why nations governments ignore this particular case and not others is actually understandable, not good or anything, but understandable. Why media coverage and international organizations with a media outlet doesn't get to us commoners is puzzling, but not shocking.

I blame the media. If they had more coverage of these dubious actions and inactions of certain entities then there'd be a concern from the public that would press their government and international entities alike to take some kind of action to resolve this thing.

Oh, and where does Chechnya fit in this hypocrisy thing?

[Miraj]

LOL. A country of 70,000? But yeah thats totally hypocitical of the west. Where is Nato?

[RusskiSoldat]

Oh, and where does Chechnya fit in this hypocrisy thing?

Good point, also an example of western hypocrisy.
Although completely understandable (just like this).
What can the west really do?
Invade Russia?
As for Russia, it's not hypocritical at all.
All we committed ourselves to was keeping out territorial integrity, we don't claim to be a savior of the world, and as such have none of the responsibilities that go along with it.

[Da Skinna]

we don't claim to be a savior of the world, and as such have none of the responsibilities that go along with it.

Good point.

For me, I look up the definition of what makes a country a country, and I see ethnicity as one of the major factors, as is economic stability, yet I still see some kind of reluctance to let people live and let live on their own in their own country. The rest is just good relations, but that takes smart leaders, not ruthless pseudo-tyrants...

[Erik]

self determination is considered nothing short of sacred in the west

No it's not.
Does the west support "Kurdistan" for example??
Or what about Northern Ireland and Basque Country?
Northern Italy perhaps?

why do they choose to ignore the Ossetian people?

Because there are only 70.000 of them?
Or because Russia won't allow the west to get involved in "their affairs" anyways?

the west has welcomed the breakup of the USSR and Yugoslavia

The USSR was considered a "big threat to the west" (cold war, remember?) so they were just happy the "big threat" was gone.

And Yugoslavia was a war zone, the west was just happy that they stopped killing each other.
The split up was considered necessary for peace, but not by itself desired by the west.

, but has responded with overwhelming fury in the case of Trandniestria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Have they?
Of those thee only Ossetia rings a bell, there is very little reporting on those skirmishes.
More important things are happening on in the world, you know.

what excuse have you for not supporting the latter two?

We don't want to pick sides?

Both are ethnic minorities protesting against what they see as tyrannical foreigners taking them over. Is their cause not noble?

If there cause was that noble, why do they get resistance?
The way I see it: people are fighting, and that's sad.
I'm sure both sides have good arguments why they want to split up or stay united, it's not up to us to decide what should happen.
All we can hope for is that the conflict will be short and without (too many) casualties.
The final result is of no interest to the west.

Or is it simply that the western empires do not wish to lose their holdings in Georgia?

We have holdings in Georgia?

Another thing out of this is perfectly clear: Saakashvilli is not the savior of democracy in Georgia.
No, he's a popular center-right man who is intent on preserving the country's territorial integrity and is taking a hostile stance against anyone who attacks him. Also, he's vastly increasing the power of the executive branch at the cost the others and has no qualms about using force.

But he was elected democratically, wasn't he?
So apparently this is who the majority of Georgians want as their leader.

Sound familiar?
His resume is near identical to Putin's. The difference is that apparently he's a revolutionary hero while Putin is a reactionary/communist (don't ask me how this works, but that's what he is according to western media) remnant of a bygone era and a tyrant.

Putin is treated with a lot of respect in the west.
What the hell are you talking about?

There might be conflicts of interest between the EU and Russia sometimes, how can there not be between two such big powers that border each other?
Is there never any friction between Russia and China?

Putin is recognized as the rightful leader of Russia, and his popularity with his people is widely recognized.

So what is your opinion on this?

My opinion?
I think you got some twisted views on how the west sees your country.

[RusskiSoldat]

No it's not.
Does the west support "Kurdistan" for example??
Or what about Northern Ireland and Basque Country?
Northern Italy perhaps?

My point exactly.
Self determination is sacred when you want to tear a rival country to pieces.
Otherwise it's sort of forgotten about.

Because there are only 70.000 of them?
Or because Russia won't allow the west to get involved in "their affairs" anyways?

So much as support in the form of a single statement on them would be enough to keep Georgia at bay.

Have they?
Of those thee only Ossetia rings a bell, there is very little reporting on those skirmishes.
More important things are happening on in the world, you know.

Meaning you're free to ignore oppressed countries until it benefits you to help them.

We don't want to pick sides?

My entire point was that the west throws its principles around until they actually have to make principled decisions.

If there cause was that noble, why do they get resistance?

They get resistance from the tiny minority of ethnic Georgians living on that territory and the ethnic Georgians living outside it.

The way I see it: people are fighting, and that's sad.
I'm sure both sides have good arguments why they want to split up or stay united, it's not up to us to decide what should happen.
All we can hope for is that the conflict will be short and without (too many) casualties.
The final result is of no interest to the west.

Good.
Then stay out of eastern conflicts in general.

We have holdings in Georgia?

Yes, Georgia practically belongs to the US at the present.

But he was elected democratically, wasn't he?
So apparently this is who the majority of Georgians want as their leader.

I believe he was installed in a revolution.
Either way, if you're so calm about him, be that supportive of Putin.

Putin is treated with a lot of respect in the west.
What the hell are you talking about?

The fact that the only reason the west is holding back is because they need our resources.

There might be conflicts of interest between the EU and Russia sometimes, how can there not be between two such big powers that border each other?
Is there never any friction between Russia and China?

Not at the present, although there are worries about us selling so much military knowledge to China.

Putin is recognized as the rightful leader of Russia, and his popularity with his people is widely recognized.

The media portrays him as a dictator.

My opinion?
I think you got some twisted views on how the west sees your country.

Either the Dutch and American news are vastly different, or you're missing something.

[Bwaho]

If there cause was that noble, why do they get resistance?

Is that the way we determine how noble a cause is, from the amount of resistance?

[Keresztes]

As I understand it, Ossetia isn't even all Ossetian. It's more like a patchwork of Georgian and Ossetian towns that follow their respective ethnic governments. Independance would upset the balance and create an environment ripe for ethnic cleansing IMHO. Why mess with something that's working so far? Let it be, Georgia has enough problems already.

[Erik]

My entire point was that the west throws its principles around until they actually have to make principled decisions.

And my point is: we have no such principals to begin with, so we aren't hypocrites.
Show me where Europe has declared such principals, or just retract your "hypocrites" card.

Good.
Then stay out of eastern conflicts in general.

When haven't we?

Yes, Georgia practically belongs to the US at the present.

That's new to me.

I believe he was installed in a revolution.

After he won the elections.
The revolution was necessary because the previous government refused to step down after they lost the elections.

Either way, if you're so calm about him, be that supportive of Putin.

The EU is supportive of Putin.
Maybe America isn't, but America isn't supportive of anyone, not even Europe.

The media portrays him as a dictator.

Because he IS a dictator!
But just because he is a dictator doesn't mean he is a bad leader.

Either the Dutch and American news are vastly different, or you're missing something.

American news is very different, yes.
And so is American politics.

All our news reported was what the conflict was about, and what the views on both sides were (letting locals from both sides have their say).
They did not pick sides in any way, the report was completely neutral.

Maybe instead of "the west" you meant America?

[RusskiSoldat]

And my point is: we have no such principals to begin with, so we aren't hypocrites.
Show me where Europe has declared such principals, or just retract your "hypocrites" card.

Europe itself hasn't, but damn near every European on this forum did his best to highlight the importance of self determination in every thread I've read.
And I take it the elected governments of Europe are representative of their people.

When haven't we?

Ukraine 2004.

That's new to me.

Learn something every day.

After he won the elections.
The revolution was necessary because the previous government refused to step down after they lost the elections.

Fair enough.

The EU is supportive of Putin.
Maybe America isn't, but America isn't supportive of anyone, not even Europe.

Again, fair enough.
Although Merkel doesn't appear too friendly.

Because he IS a dictator!
But just because he is a dictator doesn't mean he is a bad leader.

He is a democratically elected leader who rules with the consent of the parliament and fully within the realm of the constitution and uses every possibly opportunity to say he will step down in 2008.
With the exception of the new national anthem, I don't think he even changed the constitution.
What exactly qualifies him as a dictator?

Maybe instead of "the west" you meant America?

Tough call.
Are Americans really that different from Europeans?

[Erik]

Ukraine 2004.

How did Europe get involved there?

Again, fair enough.
Although Merkel doesn't appear too friendly.

Merkel is a :wub:.
Gerhard Schröder was very friendly, though.

He is a democratically elected leader who rules with the consent of the parliament and fully within the realm of the constitution and uses every possibly opportunity to say he will step down in 2008.
With the exception of the new national anthem, I don't think he even changed the constitution.
What exactly qualifies him as a dictator?

Having nearly unlimited power.
Dictators can be elected for a limited term, just look at the Romans, so that's no argument.
Putin is considered a (friendly) dictator because there is no political body in Russia who can (realistically) hold him back, not even parliament.
Bush was nearly a dictator too, until the last elections at least.

Tough call.
Are Americans really that different from Europeans?

Are you kidding?
Of course they are.

Not counting Great Britain (the "51st state") I think the difference between Russia and Europe is not much bigger than the difference between Europe and America.

Putin is a lot more popular in my country than Bush is, for example.

[RusskiSoldat]

As far as I understand, South Ossetia is almost fully Ossetian.
What's more, there are 40,000 more Ossetians in other parts of Georgia.
I doubt there would be an ethnic cleansing of Georgians there, considering the minute South Ossetia would separate Russian peacekeepers would step up their efforts.
And even so, I have yet to see statistics that say the number of Georgians in South Ossetia exceeds 1000.
Also, Georgia has already crushed the autonomy of it's third breakaway republic-Adjaria, back in 2004.
No need to let it happen again with Abkhazia or Ossetia.

[Erik]

Mudd: I don't think they want to be an independent nation, but a part of the Russian Federation like the rest of Ossetia.

[Sétanta]

Mudd: I don't think they want to be an independent nation, but a part of the Russian Federation like the rest of Ossetia.

That is possible. It is also possible that they want real independence. Or at least a farce of independence, as if that "liberation" comes they will invariably fall under the control of Russia anyways.

[RusskiSoldat]

How did Europe get involved there?

Europe?
I thought we were talking of the west in general.

Merkel is a :wub:.
Gerhard Schröder was very friendly, though.

Agreed.

Having nearly unlimited power.
Dictators can be elected for a limited term, just look at the Romans, so that's no argument.
Putin is considered a (friendly) dictator because there is no political body in Russia who can (realistically) hold him back, not even parliament.
Bush was nearly a dictator too, until the last elections at least.

What?
The upper house of parliament could hold him back.
Not that it would since the majority is made up of his party.
Putin is not a dictator, he's just the only mainstream politician who isn't a communist, and as such would be high up in politics even if a non communist opposition did exist.
As it stands, no one can field a candidate of his magnitude.

There are 70,000 "citizens" of South Ossetia. That is the size of a small town, not a nation. Sure, there are many micronations with lower populations (Andorra and Monaco come to mind), but South Ossetia has an area of nearly 4,000 square kilometers and Andorra covers an are of less than 500. Andorra also has a population only about 3,000 less than South Ossetia. If every one of these tiny ethnic groups decide they want independence, the nations of the world would be ripped apart.

They need to realize that they would be a lot better off as part of Georgia and not on their own. Perhaps they don't realize that running a country requires more than a couple guys in suits guarded by a couple guys with beat up AKs and their own flag.

Russia only supports these guys because they want more oil.

I'm pretty sure South Ossetia doesn't even have oil.
And since Russia is the second largest oil producer in the world, I doubt we would really be that desperate for Ossetia for it's oil.

Mudd: I don't think they want to be an independent nation, but a part of the Russian Federation like the rest of Ossetia.

Makes sense.
Russia is doing far better than Georgia, and not to mention Georgia has a feud with practically every nationality in the Caucusus, while Russia openly welcomes everyone who is against Chechen fundamentalists, Azerbaijanis and Georgians.