After 70 years of particularly cruel treatment by Soviet authorities, this mountain people (for centuries subject to one or another of its stronger neighbors) longed to gain independence. And, as was the tradition amongst nearly all the peoples of the Caucuses, they were willing to take up arms to defend themselves. The fight frequently looked like clan-warfare – kidnappings and public executions, pillaging and rape, blood feuds that could simmer for decades, waiting for the time to be ripe to reap revenge. Yet, this was more than a local conflict – larger powers (with their larger geo-political and economic interests) were involved, carefully planning the course for their goals to be met, regardless of what happened to those ordinary folks who called this mountain country their home.
These words apply not only to the violence in Southern Ossetia and Georgia. Sadly, they could be used to speak of many conflicts (the most well-known of which are the wars in Chechnya) in the past 15 years.
The understanding (and, even more so, the media coverage) of these conflicts look quite different from those writing on different sides of the struggle; western and Russian sources each seem to enjoy painting a black-and-white picture of events that turns one side into a hero and the other side in to “the aggressor.” But what is clear from here is that both sides were aggressive – Russia in laying all the groundwork for war by giving people in break-away regions outside of their country Russian passports (thereby having a reason to come to “the defense of our citizens”) and by resisting changes to the status-quo of de facto independence for Southern Ossetia and Abkhazia, which de jure remained Georgian territories. Russia was even less adept in finding an opportunity to improve its image abroad in its response to what apparently was a military operation initiative by Georgia – instead of remaining as actual peacekeepers, it is clear that the Russian military desired to punish Georgia and, particularly, its president, for trying to re-integrate these regions. Russia’s response was clearly over the top if it were truly interested only in how the peoples of these lands were living. Yet, clearly Russia alone is not at fault. The status quo, no matter how bad it was, was less violent that the all-out war of the early 1990s; these small ethnic groups did truly desire independence and suffered under Georgian rule. It seems that Georgia’s supporters in the West, directly or indirectly, gave the Georgian President reason to think that he could and should take a “now or never” opportunity to bring the territories back into Georgian control. However, Georgia succeed only in pushing the republics further (much further, no matter what one might think about Russia’s recognition of independence for the two territories) away.
And while all of this politics is going on, thousands of refugees pour in Russia from Tskhinvali and surrounding regions, while the Russian military causes enormous damage as it pounds its way through Georgian cities, villages and ports far from the actual zone of conflict.
The last weeks have been filled with two countries’ PR-campaigns, each selling its own version of the war. One sells the story of a victim, beat up by an aggressive bully-of-a-neighbor with no respect for international law or even human life. The other side tells the story of delusional president whose love of power at home (while boot-liking abroad) led him to attempt a “genocide” of one (or two) of the proud peoples of the Caucuses. If one thinks even for a moment about the positions the two sides take in other conflicts (e.g., Kosovo, and especially if one considers the West to be unconditionally supportive of Georgia, as is frequently portrayed here), one loses any illusion that either side is defending any sort of moral principle; instead, each defends their own self-interest (and interest in making the other look bad) at the expense of the simple people who are most affected by these political games.
The human suffering has already been great. The ripple effects are likely to be wider – Georgia is today threatening to cut diplomatic ties with Russia. Does that mean that the young woman the Georgian Lutheran Church who was planning to send to study at our seminary will not be able to make it? Will the rhetoric eventually simmer down, or will we continue to see headlines such as “Will there be War with America?” as one popular and respected Russian news weekly asked on its cover this week?
I would ask you to pray for all political leaders involved in the conflict in one or another – they will need great wisdom to bring the people of the region safely out of the mess that has been made. Prayers, too, that the political conflict does not take on an even more distinct ethnic character – if it does, the up to one million Georgians in Russia and the thousands of Russians in Georgia could become the target of violence. I’d ask you to pray for the churches here, that they could raise a collective and prophetic voice in defense of those who suffer.
As I write this, it seems to me that the worst days of this conflict are behind us. I pray that, by God’s will, I am right.
