Paul
Goble
Staunton, July 25 – The president of
South Osetia, which broke away from Georgia with Russian help in 2008, says that
he wants to unite his republic with the Republic of North Osetia-Alania inside
the Russian Federation. But while his statement reflects the views of many
Osetins, Moscow is unlikely to agree given the problems such a move would
trigger.
South Osetian President Leonid Tibilov
said yesterday that “for every Osetin, the issue of unification of the people
is a priority” and that he “would consider his presidential mission fulfilled
if South Osetia by the desire of its citizens were to unite with Russia and the
reunification of the Osetins would occur” (regnum.ru/news/polit/1687422.html).
This declaration must be
considered in the context of three other developments this week. First, South
Osetia has declared that it will begin to unilaterally demarcate its border
with Georgia with the help of Russian advisors, a step that would appear to
presage even tighter relations between Moscow and Tskhinval (regnum.ru/news/polit/1687466.html).
Second, there were signals from
Moscow and Tbilisi that the Russian Federation and Georgia may now be inching
their way back toward diplomatic relations, ties that were broken when the
Russian government invaded Georgia in August 2008 but that both sides now appear
prepared to discuss the modalities of moving toward some kind of new normalcy.
And third, as Israeli
analyst Avraam Shmulyevich points out, Moscow is increasingly critical of the
independent-minded Abkhazian government, as suggested by recent articles in “Komsomolskaya
Pravda” and “Moskovsky komsomolets” and wants to send a signal that from now on
it will treat the two breakaway republics differently rather than in lock step
as in the past (ekhokavkaza.com/content/article/25056026.html).
Shmulyevich’s comments appear in the
first commentary on Tibilov’s declaration, a commentary prepared by Ekho Kavkaza’s
Murat Gukemukhov. The latter begins by calling attention to the South Osetin
president’s acknowledgement that for the unification of his republic and North
Osetia within Russia, many “political and legal obstacles” will have to be
overcome.
Aleksey Mukhin, head of the Moscow
Center for Political Information, told Gukemukhov that Tibilov’s speech
certainly was pre-cleared by Moscow but that at the same time it represented an
effort by the South Osetin leader to make sure that the interests of his
heavily subsidized republic were not sacrificed by some deal between Moscow and
Tbilisi.
Shmulyevich, besides stressing that this
speech shows that the Kremlin will now treat South Osetia and Abkhazia in a “differentiated”
way, also said the prospect of any concessions by Moscow to Georgia “cannot
fail to agitate Osetins both in the south and in the north” and that Moscow is
sending Tskhinvali a message that “’the unification of the Osetins is not far
off.’”
That may be Moscow’s message to Tskhinvali
and Vladikavkaz, but there are at least three reasons why the Russian
government is unlikely to act on it even if today the Kremlin finds it useful
to remind Georgia that it could take such a step and thus put even more
pressure on Tbilisi to reach an accord with Moscow.
First, any move to incorporate South
Osetia into the Russian Federation would set off alarm bells both in other
former Soviet republics who likely would feel threatened given some recent
Russian statements about the inadequacy of Soviet-era borders and in Western
capitals who likely would see such a step as a clear sign of the rebirth of
Russian imperialism.
While Western countries were
outraged by Russian behavior in Georgia in August 2008, most quickly found ways
to look beyond what Moscow had done in order to maintain or even expand
relations. Had Moscow absorbed either Abkhazia or South Osetia, they would have
found it far more difficult to “reset” their policies.
Second, uniting the two Osetias
would from Moscow’s point of view set a dangerous, even explosive
precedent. Osetins are hardly the only nation
in the region divided by a border. Among the others in the North Caucasus alone
are the Circassians, the Chechens, and the Ingush, to list only the three largest
and most cases.
If Moscow agreed to unite the two
Osetias, leaders of all these communities would step up their demands for
national reunification, something that would destabilize the North Caucasus at
a time when the Russian authorities are seeking to calm things down in advance
of the Sochi Olympics in February 2014.
And third, the Kremlin has other
reasons not to make such a move closer to home.
An increasing number of Russians judging from polls and demonstrations
would much prefer to let the North Caucasus go its own way than to take in yet
another group within the borders of the Russian Federation and make it an even
larger “problem” for Russians.
Were Vladimir Putin and the Russian
leadership to agree to the absorption of South Osetia, such a step would
trigger even more anti-Kremlin attitudes and actions at a time when the regime
is facing a rising tide of criticism.
Indeed, such a move would probably allow Aleksey Navalny to garner even
more support in opposition to Putin.
Five years ago, in the wake of the
Russian invasion of Georgia, many observers expected Moscow to absorb South
Osetia if not Abkhazia. Moscow did not do so then, and the reasons for not
doing so now are even more compelling. Consequently, Tibilov’s statement almost
certainly represents a diplomatic faint rather than an indication of where
things are heading.
No comments:
Post a Comment