Pursuing and Publishing a Resolution to the Caucasus War

Shortly after the August war in the Caucasus, I spoke with Georgian and South Ossetian friends and colleagues there. These civil society based peace builders were eager to talk with each other, but the tense ceasefire left no possibility for crossing the ceasefire line. As we talked, it became clear that an internationally facilitated meeting would be useful. While building towards a meeting at which Georgians and South Ossetians can sit together to assess the prospects for civil society contributions to peace building there, a Georgian, an Ossetian, and I wrote an article explaining why such meetings could be useful. Writing together was a conflict resolution process. We practiced careful attention to each other's concerns and creative thinking about possible options for language that would meet each author's approval. The product of this process? The article we produced has been circulated by the Common Ground News Service in English, Urdu, Arabic, French, and Indonesian and published by newspapers including the Georgian Times in Tbilisi, Georgia. Perhaps more significantly, the article's publication comes only weeks before we plan to sit down together with other Georgian and South Ossetian colleagues to learn together how to build peace with each other in the aftermath of war. Here is the article:[Published, Georgian Times, November 25, 2008.

The Caucasus war this summer pitted predominantly Christian Orthodox Georgia against predominantly Christian Orthodox Russia and the Abkhaz and South Ossetians, whose Christianity, Islam and traditional spirituality weave a complex tapestry of religions cutting across ethnic and political divides. South Ossetia witnessed ethnic and political tensions over the past two decades, which came to a head in August. Each side has offered competing explanations for their military engagement. Georgian troops explain that they were fighting to repel Russian troops and secure territorial integrity. Abkhaz and South Ossetians tell us they were fighting against Georgian aggression and for self-determination. Russians say they were fighting to protect South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgian attacks and to establish a security buffer around them. Local peacebuilders also waged a peaceful struggle for a non-violent resolution of the disputes and lasting security for all parties involved. Beyond official "track one" government-to-government discussions, such as the Geneva talks that convened briefly on 15 October and again on 19 November, long-term peace in the Caucasus will require more creative channels of communication to rebuild relationships across the conflict's divide.

Unofficial "track two" diplomacy could augment the high-profile Geneva negotiations held earlier this week, in which participating diplomats seem to have made little progress towards an official agreement. In a process complementary to official "track one" diplomacy, ongoing relationships between civil society peace builders across the Caucasus' diverse religious, geographic and ethnic communities provide a foundation on which Abkhaz, Georgian, Russian and South Ossetian political leaders can begin building sustainable peace. Even while bombs were falling in August, and face-to face meetings were impossible, individual peace builders reached out to each other via phone, e-mail, and through the Caucasus Forum Yahoo! online group, lamented the war and its human cost, and presented widely divergent assessments of the causes of the war. While they disagree vigorously, these peacebuilders share a fundamental faith in each other's humanity.

This bridge at the civil society level is useful, but a stable peace will ultimately require that the political leadership learn from this example. Respectful, constructive conversation is possible across the conflict's divides when political leaders are willing to recognize the humanity of the other side. These civil society leaders have developed a wealth of insights about the conflict's dynamics that could usefully inform political leaders' search for a way forward. For example, over several discussions in unofficial peace-building dialogues during the course of the conflict, a Georgian NGO leader realized the importance of building the kind of Georgia in which Ossetians and Abkhaz might want to live, a Georgia with an impeccable human rights record, inclusive democratic rule, and respect for all ethnic groups. Other's learned that sovereignty is not always an all-or-nothing affair.

Remainder of article available online at icar.gmu.edu/ ICAR_Newspage. Written by Susan Allen Nan, George Khutsishvili (International Center on Conflict and Negotiation in Tbilisi), and Lira Kozaeva Tskhovrebova (Association of Women of South Ossetia for Democracy and Human Rights in Tskhinvali).