Statesman Journal, OR

Georgia can’t take back provinces
Fred Thompson

August 16, 2008

I have a great affection for Georgia. But in thinking about this
situation, we ought to bear two facts in mind.

The first is that the Republic of Georgia, using tanks, artillery and
infantry, invaded South Ossetia on Aug. 8 to take it back. The
Financial Times reported that the Georgian military believed that
South Ossetia could be captured within48 hours. However, success
depended upon strategic surprise and quick control of the Roki Tunnel,
neither of which happened. The second is that the Russians squashed
the Georgians like bugs.

Why do Abkhazia and South Ossetia want to separate from Georgia? Why
do they prefer Russia?

Undoubtedly all sorts of ethnic conflicts and cultural
incompatibilities, about which I know nothing, play a part. But one
big problem is that the Georgians insist upon using their own language
and unique orthography, which neither the Abkhazians or the South
Ossetians understand, and rejecting Russian, which they do. Besides,
Abkhazia was once Russia’s Riviera and South Ossetia has natural ties
to the North Ossetian autonomous region in Russia.

Were I an Abkhazian or a South Ossetian, I too would probably prefer
to join Russia. I might reconsider if something like the Swiss
confederation were on the table, especially if it included Azerbaijan
and Armenia, but it’s not.

De facto Abkhazia and South Ossetia have been independent of Georgia
since 1992-93, although Georgia still claims them as "autonomous"
districts. As recent events have shown, that is much like Spain
claiming sovereignty over California.

The Russians like to compare South Ossetia to Kosovo, which is really
a pretty good analogy. The cases are parallel ‘ substituting Kosovo
for South Ossetia, Serbia for Georgia and Russia playing the part in
South Ossetia played by the U.S. in Kosovo. The big difference is that
Russia generally opposes secessionists and somewhat schizophrenically
continued to insist on Georgia’s de jure sovereignty over Abkhazia and
South Ossetia, while supporting their de facto independence.

(Another good analogy is Britain’s recognition of U.S. sovereignty in
the area between the Appalachians and the Mississippi River prior to
the War of 1812, while insisting upon the right to enforce its
territorial guarantees to the Amerindian tribes in the region. Like
Russia in Georgia, the Brits were also very slow to abandon their
military bases in the area after American independence. One could go
further still and liken Georgia’s invasion of South Ossetia to the
battle of Tippecanoe, except, obviously, for the outcome.

Now, perhaps, the issue of Abkhazia and South Ossetia can be settled
and Georgia can get over its irredentist preoccupation and concentrate
on building an economically viable, democratic state in what is one of
the best places on Earth. Of course, that depends on the Russians’
quitting of the remainder of Georgia.

American efforts ought to focus on persuading the Russians to go home,
taking Abkhazia and South Ossetia with them.

Fred Thompson of Salem is the director of the Willamette Center for
Governance and Public Policy Research and a professor at Willamette
University. He has advised the Republic of Georgia on its treasury
practices and fiscal administration and has taught at the Georgian
Institute of Public Administration. He can be reached at
fthompso@willamette.edu.