Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Georgia Q&A: Legal position unclear as pipeline politics focus global concern

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 12 August 2008
Who is to blame for the conflict?
Georgia initiated the fighting. On Thursday, after several days of exchanges of fire with South Ossetian forces, Georgia's army crossed into the enclave and captured the regional capital, Tskhinvali. After a meeting of the UN Security Council failed
to secure a withdrawal pledge from Georgia, Russia sent tanks into the enclave.

Is the Russian intervention justified?

International law appears to say no. South Ossetia is part of Georgia's sovereign territory and, as such, neighbouring powers have no right to send in troops. Russia could plausibly argue that, as it already had an agreement with Georgia – dating from 1992 – to deploy peacekeepers in the enclave, it was entitled to reinforce those soldiers. But air strikes, naval action and attacks into Georgia itself fall outside such a mandate.

Why is South Ossetia demanding independence?

This dates to 1991 when the Soviet Union broke up and Georgia, a former Soviet republic, became an independent state. Leaders in South Ossetia and a second enclave, Abkhazia, demanded the right to join Russia, fighting a war that left them in control of their enclaves, with 250,000 Georgians ethnically cleansed from Abkhazia and a smaller number from South Ossetia.

What about a diplomatic solution?

Georgia has offered both enclaves autonomy, but they have insisted on independence, meaning the talks are permanently stalled. Georgia says Russia stands in the way as its peacekeepers act as a shield to guarantee the enclaves.

Do the enclaves have the right to secede?

This is the bugbear of international law, as there is no agreement on whether a community has the right to self-determination. The UN charter says each state is sovereign over its own territory and can enforce its law there. Russia used this argument to justify its crushing of Chechens fighting for independence. Georgia says it has the same right to have control over South Ossetia.

What about International law?

In practice, individual states are free to "recognise" as independent enclaves of one country set up within another: The EU and United States did this in recognising Kosovo as independent from Serbia in February. Russia did the same for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. But this is a grey zone – neither territory has UN recognition, which presumably allows Serbia and Georgia to assert their sovereignty.

No exceptions?

One state may not legally invade another unless it has permission from the UN or faces imminent attack. The invasion of Iraq was launched without a UN mandate, but with Washington and London arguing they were justified as Saddam Hussein was poised to use weapons of mass destruction. Nato intervened in Kosovo without a UN mandate, arguing humanitarian concerns outweighed international law. Russia used this argument to justify intervention in Georgia.

Why are the US and Russia so interested in these remote enclaves?

Pipeline politics. Georgia is home to an oil pipeline and a soon-to-be-completed gas pipeline, which connect the West to Central Asia, home to the world's second-biggest reserves. With the pipeline, the West has access. Without it, Russia controls those resources. Georgia's president, Mikhail Saakashvili, is pro-West, but a pro-Moscow replacement could cut the pipelines.

What can the international community do?

Not much. Power at the UN rests with the five permanent members of the Security Council; when they act in concert, peace deals are enforced. With Georgia, the council is split, with China and Russia on one side and Britain, France and the US on the other. Each permanent member can veto council decisions, allowing Russia to block any resolution condemning the conflict.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 11 August 2008 9:37 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Georgia
 
1

Carolyn 1,

12/08/2008 00:40:22
To be clear, it is not a Russian pipeline. It is owned by BP etc and financed by the World Bank. Currently they're trying to expand it. If its bombed out, or Russia can take control of it, then Russia will have control of Europe's energy.

Also, these mountains are the smuggling route that carries weapons and drugs to and from Iran. If it's under the control of Russiaa, terrorist supplies can more easily flow to Iran.
2

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 12/08/2008 00:58:15
This is truly a war for oil. The Russians want that pipeline. You don't have to use atomic weapons when you have control of Europe's oil.
How long do you think it will be before the appeasers will condone this, while Russia tries to rebuild her "empire" to the glory days of the Soviet Union.
The UN will have to call a Security Council meeting so that Russia can use its veto, and that China could for once prove where it stands.
If Russia get control of Georgia, does that mean the Ukraine can be next, and then where does it stop?!!
3

Carolyn 1,

12/08/2008 01:38:19
Lynne, you and I both know from meeting people who survived the Russian suppression, that these new democracies will not fall easily again.

The Russians slaughtered too many Ukrainians- they will not sit by and watch Russia gobble up Georgia, because they know they're next. Yesterday the Ukrainian ministry took an immediate strong stand and announced early that he was closing the harbor to Russia. Thank God he has the cutzpah because the UN surrendered long ago.
4

vlada,

Belgrade, Serbia 12/08/2008 03:08:14
Western powers have avoided the UN Security Council when they acknowledged Kosovo secession from Serbia. That is why their demands for maintaining Georgia's sovereignty are generally taken as "empty declarations" by the free world countries. Consequently, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline is going to be overtaken by Russia to further contribute to its emerging supreme position in the world. Nobody really cares anymore what does the US (and Brit.) have to say for nobody believes them anything. The oil price will go high, the US economy and US dollar will go low and the most amazing thing is that they (US and Brit) can do nothing to prevent such unfolding. As to Georgia - it will never be the same as of 6th Aug. Ukraine will be divided in the ortodox eastern part (to join Russia), while the rest may pursue "democracy", but without subsidized Russian oil.
Things are not going well for the Yanks and Brits in the Middle East as well - for nobody likes em there. Latin America is also notoriously reserved towards US and Brit. It will take them decades to make people believe even something what will they have to say. The bankrupt anglo west has in fact already crashed down, but the actual dimensions of the catastrophe are not fully visible yet.
5

vlada,

Belgrade, Serbia 12/08/2008 03:12:08
Western powers have avoided the UN Security Council when they acknowledged Kosovo secession from Serbia. That is why their demands for maintaining Georgia's sovereignty are generally taken as "empty declarations" by the free world countries. Consequently, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline is going to be overtaken by Russia to further contribute to its emerging supreme position in the world. Nobody really cares anymore what does the US (and Brit.) have to say for nobody believes them anything. The oil price will go high, the US economy and US dollar will go low and the most amazing thing is that they (US and Brit) can do nothing to prevent such unfolding. As to Georgia - it will never be the same as of 6th Aug. Ukraine will be divided in the ortodox eastern part (to join Russia), while the rest may pursue "democracy", but without subsidized Russian oil.
Things are not going well for the Yanks and Brits in the Middle East as well - for nobody likes em there. Latin America is also notoriously reserved towards US and Brit. It will take them decades to make people believe even something what will they have to say. The bankrupt anglo west has in fact already crashed down, but the actual dimensions of the catastrophe are not fully visible yet.
6

James Donald,

Newbridge 12/08/2008 11:23:16
#4 vlada,Belgrade, Serbia - Your views make a compelling case to exclude Serbia from the EU for many years.
The scenarios you outline may be your "wish list" of the way you would like the world to go but you surmise that the West will do nothing. If this episode in Georgia has illustrated anything it is that Russia cannot be trusted under the de facto dictatorship of a former KGB leader and that NATO must once again prepare for the possibility of conflict with the successor state of the Soviet Union. We should also be very wary of the Russians' "little brother" in the Balkans and ensure that our "friends" in the region who are not already in NATO and the EU become members soon. Then "little brother" Serbia becomes a "hostage" when the Russians flex their muscles again as it will be surrounded. Putin likes to talk of "spheres of influence" - look at the map; your country is within our "sphere of influence".
7

Neil,

Glasgow 12/08/2008 11:28:27
Some points on law.

The UN Charter does defend national sovereignty. The sole exception is where genocide is taking place where there is an obligation to intervene. The Georgians were clearly attempting to replicate the genocide the Craotian Nazis achieved in 1995 with NATO assistance.

NATO used this argument for invading Kosovo but, as foreign Secretary Cook told Parliament before the bombing started, this was untrue & the genocide was being perpetrated by our KLA allies. International law allows intervention only to prevent genocide not for the purposes of carrying it out.

As pointed out the alleged justification for invading Iraq (self defence since Iraq had WMDs ready for use in 45 minutes) was also a lie. Consequently both wars were war crimes & if there was an established & uncorrupt war crimes court for Yugoslavia or Iraq the entire British cabinet, among many others, would be in prison.

The international law on "recognition" is more restrictive than the article claims. As decided at the Montevideo conference, recognition can only be done if the "state" has a settled population, accepted borders & IS IN FULL CONTROL OF ITS TERRITORY. This was a reaction to Teddy Rooseveldt "recognising" Panama as a separate state, sending in the marines to expel the "occupying" Colombians & then negotiating the purchase of the Canal Zone. Hence the "recognition" of the Croatin & Bosnian Moslem (ex-)Nazi regimes was illegal & since it deliberately encouraged ghenocidal wars, a crime against humanity. We are also prevented from legally recognising Croatia, Bosnia & Kosovo by the Helsinki Treaty under which we guarantee to "take no action against the territorial integrity or unity" of other signatories. This obviously does not apply to Georgia, which was part of the USSR at the time.

By destroying the rule of law & practicing genocide against Yugoslavia & to a lesser extent Iraq we have made the world far more dangerous, in ways which are now quite obvious. The
8

Neil,

Glasgow 12/08/2008 11:35:15
The world is geting smaller & WMDs ever easier ot produce. Humanity therefore need a rule of international law more than we ever have in history.

The Russians are to be commended for not fully following our example over Yugoslavia.

No western leader or journalist with the slightest integrity, who has not publicly called for bringing most of our political leaders to trial for war crimes & genocide will ever criticise the Rusian action here. Unfortunately, as the continued censorship of the news of our leaders role in the kidnapping, dissection while alive & sale of organs of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Serb teens shows - such integrity is overwhelmingly non-existent.
9

Gere,

Scotland 12/08/2008 19:10:38
Remember the hidden hand of Israel is at work here!

Israel has been fuelling the Georgian war machine by supplying Georgia with weapons and have thousands of "Israeli Advisors" in Georgia!

Israel has invested heavily in the international oil industry and have a financial interest in seeing the oil pipeline bypass Russia and diverted to Israel's ally, Turkey. From there, oil would pass to the Israeli port Ashkolan. Israel then would have anbother stranglehold on the world, it would be able to play a role in who gets oil.

Israel's slave state of America was also anxious to test the defences of Russia. If Russia proved weak America would consider a military adventure to annex Russia's oil rich territories!

Kosovo, after conducting a long provokative campgain of terrorism against Serbia was wrenched from Serbian sovereign territory by Western military intervention and encouraged to become an independant state!

The truth about the placing of missiles by America in Poland and Chez have not been told!

a Polish politition whilst in communication with the Georgian President let it slip that the missiles are to neutralise Russian defences!

Note also that Lynne, Palm Beach Gardens has commented on this article. This is confirmation that Israel is involved in this one.
10

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 12/08/2008 19:24:13
There is one person capable of being an honest broker in dealing with the conflict between Georgia and the South Ossetians and that is Angus Robertson, the SNP MP for Moray. Back in 2003 he invited the disputative parties from Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan to Craigellachie on the Spey and with gentle and unthreatening diplomacy he helped to get them to resolve there differences. That peace has remained after five years.

The great powers are incapable of understanding the feelings of small countries and 'separatist' movements. Alex Salmond has already spoken with the Russian Ambassador and asked that his concerns be passed to the Russian Government.

Angus Robertson has already proved his worth in dealing with problems in the Caucusus and has retained goodwill in the region. The South Ossetians have not had dealings with Angus Robertson, but as a representative of an independence movement party which is now the government of Scotland (something not the case back in 2003, I am sure they will trust his impartiality.

The present dispute is tragic and the parties have become entrenched. A war of words between superpowers can only add to the difficulties. A fresh approach is needed where only someone with no axe to grind can suggest a way forward. I believe Angus Robertson is that person.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.