On August 7, 2008, the night before the Summer Olympics were to open in Beijing, Georgian troops attacked South Ossetia, for the third time since the Soviet Union’s breakup in 1991. The first victims of cluster bombs, tanks, and rockets from the “Grad” multiple-launch system in South Ossetia were civilians, including hundreds of Russian citizens and Russian peacekeepers.
Russia had no other choice but to fight back against the Georgian aggression, in order to protect all those people. Alas, before Georgia could be forced into a ceasefire, blood was shed on both sides. It became clear that it would not be possible this time to forget that this happened because the Georgians’ centuries-old feud against Ossetians and Abkhazians has created an enormous abyss between them, and that Georgia’s breakup seems to be inevitable.
South Ossetia and Abkhazia, both formerly part of Georgia, proclaimed their independence. At the end of August, Russia recognised their independence. It was a difficult decision to make. Neither the United States nor the European Union accepted it, believing it to violate international law. The West does not think the Kosovo precedent can be applied to the Caucasus.
On request from Poland and the Baltic states, the current EU president – France – convened an EU summit on September 1. The centrepiece of its agenda was the situation in Georgia and a review of Europe’s relations with Russia.
In choosing a common foreign policy to deal with the current situation in the Caucasus and the world, 27 European leaders had to find a compromise between the hard-line approach of the “maximalists” (Britain, Poland and the Baltic states), who demanded sanctions against, and a freeze on relations with, Russia, and that of the EU “pragmatists” (France, Italy, Finland and Germany) who did not want to interrupt their dialogue with Moscow.
The Brussels summit showed that “pragmatists” make up a majority of the European Union. This majority is vitally interested in developing comprehensive cooperation with Russia, first of all in the energy sector. After all, the EU accounts for over 50% of Russia’s foreign trade. Russia supplies one third of the oil and 40% of the natural gas consumed in the EU. 30% of the EU’s exports go to Russia.
The tough sanctions against Russia proposed by Poland could have drastically damaged this cooperation.
According to the Polish draft resolution, the EU would have recommended that big business cut its investments in Russia, declaring the Russian market to be unstable and too risky. It also proposed introducing restrictions on such Russian exports as metals, fertilisers, etc. The hard-liners also wanted the EU to recommend that European banks no longer make new loans to Russian banks and companies.
However, Europe’s leading countries and the biggest consumers of Russian energy – Italy, Germany and France – objected to any economic sanctions against Russia. German Chancellor AngelaMerkel said ahead of the summit that the European Union should not suspend dialogue with Russia because of the developments around South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Berlin wanted to continue dealing with Moscow, she said.
Prime Minister of Luxembourg Jean-Claude Juncker said in an interview with the German newspaper Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, “We should not introduce sanctions against Russia or try to force it into isolation.”
President of the European Parliament Hans-Gert Pottering went even farther.
“Our goal is a strategic partnership with Russia, and we have to achieve this goal,” he said. “We need a new agreement with Russia; this is the opinion we have in the European Parliament, and this is what I believe. But now it will largely be up to Russia itself; everything will depend on how it sticks to the peace agreement it has signed.” And although Pottering said he disapproved of Russia’s decision to recognise the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, he added that he did not approve of Georgia’s actions either. Saakashvili has made “a grave mistake,” he said.
“I object to sanctions against Russia,” said Finland’s Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb ahead of the summit. “Russia is interested in our market, as we are in its. We should listen to and try to understand both parties; we need negotiations.” “The atmosphere and the mood are currently not too good, this is obvious to everyone. But I do not think it will be right to sever relations with Russia,” Austrian Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer said in Brussels.
Such were the sentiments of a majority of European leaders ahead of the EU summit.
This did not please Washington, which chose confrontation with Russia from the very beginning of the Georgian-Russian conflict and wanted to push Europe along the same course.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy unexpectedly told the public that the US had been pressing for the toughest possible decisions ahead of the summit. Speaking on behalf of the EU, Sarkozy said the crisis was “not a reason for a big war, for damaging relations, for flexing muscles.”
“Sanctions against sanctions – who can be the winner in this situation? I do not think the solution can be military and I do not think the solution lies within NATO,” he said. “We are interested in relations with Russia. The European Union needs Russia, and Russia needs the European Union. The Cold War is long over; today there can be no talk of confrontation.”
Discussions at the summit were held behind closed doors. But it is known that the agenda did not include sanctions against Russia, proposed by the EU hardliners and Washington.
The declaration adopted by the 27 EU leaders says that “given the interdependence between the European Union and Russia, and the global problems they are facing, there is no desirable alternative to a strong relationship, based on cooperation, trust and dialogue.” Nevertheless, the summit decided that “until troops have withdrawn to the positions held prior to 7 August, meetings on the negotiation of the Partnership Agreement will be postponed.” It has already been three years during which the parties have been unable to negotiate the agreement.
As to Europe’s assessment of the reasons for, and the progress of, the conflict, the differences between “maximalists” and “pragmatists” were narrowed, judging by the declaration. The summit said “a peaceful and lasting solution to the conflict in Georgia must be based on full respect for the principles of independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity recognised by international law, and United Nations Security Council resolutions.” The EU leaders also said they were “gravely concerned by the open conflict which has broken out in Georgia, by the resulting violence and by the disproportionate reaction of Russia.”
“Military action of this kind is not a solution and is not acceptable,” the document reads.
But it does not specify whose move it was and who attacked whom. “The European Council deplores the loss of human life, the suffering inflicted on the population, the number of displaced persons and refugees, and the considerable material damage,” the resolution points out. But it does not specify who is to blame for that, either.
On September 2 the European Parliament, having discussed the South Ossetia conflict, adopted a similar resolution. But, unlike the EU summit, the Parliament strongly condemned “all those who used force and violence” in order to change the situation in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. It also called for an independent international investigation to determine the guilt for extermination of civilians.
Thus, the European Parliament’s resolution became the first EU official document to refer to the Saakashvili regime’s responsibility for military attack against South Ossetia.
The resolution says, in particular, that on August 8 the “Georgian army launched a sudden artillery attack against Tskhinvali followed by ground operations with simultaneous use of tanks and infantry in order to seize control over South Ossetia”. It is worth noting that Martin Shultz, the head of the European Socialists, the second strongest faction in the European Parliament, characterized the actions of Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili as totally inappropriate. It is definitely good that EU leaders preferred dialogue to confrontation with Russia. The sensible majority in Europe has every right to consider this their victory. “We consider the outcome absolutely satisfactory,” Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said after the summit, “because we managed to get over a dangerous moment for the EU, when it risked accepting some countries’ proposal to introduce sanctions against Russia.”
“But we had to weigh all pros and cons and acknowledge that there had been a serious provocation and a response to it,” he added.
The European Union managed to avoid a direct confrontation with Russia in Brussels and in Avignon, where the EU foreign ministers gathered for an informal meeting. The EU will pursue its own policy on the Georgian issue, which is different from both that of Washington and that of Moscow, and it will demand more and more concessions from Russia in all areas. Immediately after the summit, the EU started preparing an “international conference to assist reconstruction in Georgia.”
Moscow adopted a flexible position at the talks with the EU. The Presidents of Russia and France agreed upon additional measures to accompany the Medvedev-Sarkozy plan on September 9 in Moscow. The European Union agreed to serve as guarantor of the non-use of force against the former Georgian enclaves. Russia promised to pull out all her military from the areas bordering South Ossetia and Abkhazia with Georgia immediately after an international observer mission is deployed there.
The Russian peacekeepers will leave the conflict zone, bordering Abkhazia and South Ossetia, returning to the positions they were in on the day the military actions started. The Georgian troops must return to their barracks. Both parties agreed that international observers and international UN and OSCE forces in Georgia will pursue their mandate in the areas of their responsibility, keeping their numbers and location scheme as agreed for August 7, 2008. Possible modifications by the UN Security Council and the OSCE Permanent Council are not excluded. The Russian leadership was concerned mainly with preventing Georgia from resuming hostilities against Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
On October 15, according to the Medvedev-Sarkozy peace plan, the situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia will be discussed at international negotiations in Geneva. Russian Foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said that the question of preventing militarization of Georgia will figure on the agenda of the meeting. As to the talks on a new strategic agreement with the EU, Moscow did not press the matter, saying only that “we are no less interested in cooperation with the EU than the EU is interested in cooperation with Russia.” This is the key phrase for understanding Russia’s new approach to resolving the foreign policy problems it is facing. “We want partnership, we want peace and hardly anybody now wants confrontation between Europe and Russia,” Sarkozy for his part said in Moscow.
The conflict in South Ossetia resulted in capital outflow from Russia, first of all from the stock market. Different estimates put the outflow at between $8bn and $20bn. If the trend continues and is encouraged during a potential confrontation with Russia, the damage to the country could be serious. However, experts say there have been no fundamental changes in the Russian economy since the August- September capital outflow, and the leading Russian companies still remain very profitable. By the end of the year, foreign investors are most likely to return to the Russian stock market.
At present, the leading European and global corporations, primarily automobile giants, have no intention of shutting down production in Russia. Instead, they are expanding it. Even British Petroleum, whose Russian joint venture, TNK-BP, has encountered numerous problems, intends to develop its business in Russia. Moreover, US big business opposes Washington’s stance against Russia. Notably the National Foreign Trade Council, which unites over 300 companies, has asked President George W. Bush not to introduce any economic sanctions against Russia. Still, company risk-management experts will have to take into account that both presidential candidates, McCain and Obama, have promised to “get tough” on Russia.
The local conflict in the Caucasus will definitely have global consequences. In this conflict, Russia has clearly shown that it is a country that cannot be disregarded.
Obviously, new rules-of-the-game are being developed in the former Soviet Union as a way to create a multipolar world. It is already clear that President Sarkozy, and, consequently the EU leadership, will be defending Europe’s interests for the next six months, resisting the temptations created by the political situation in the US. Of course, Washington will not cease its attempts to synchronise American and European foreign policies. Georgia is only a means of reinforcing the unipolar world constructed by the US. Having shown the US flag in the Black Sea together with the flags of its NATO allies immediately after the end of hostilities in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, US leaders will not stop trying to raise these flags in Georgia, Azerbaidjan and other post-Soviet countries.
So Russia should prepare for surprises, some of them highly unpleasant, after its “little war” against Georgia.
