 |
INTRODUCTION
The two sets of papers presented here were once simply an idea that seemed perhaps crazy. Without an introduction, the reader may find this volume schizophrenic. Holding the book in one direction, the reader will find three articles by Georgian researchers. Holding the book in another direction, the reader will find three articles by South Ossetian researchers. To read the other perspective, the reader must change orientation. Different terminology is used in each chapter, and contradictory statements appear from one chapter to another.
All this makes sense in the context of the initial question raised as people with good intentions brainstormed potential confidence building steps: Would there be any chance of engaging scholars to bridge across theGeorgian-South Ossetian divide with their writing, and offer some contribution to policy makers? Such confidence building measures once seemed almost impossible, when the first Point of View Civic Process discussion convened civil society peacebuilders in the immediate aftermath of the August 2008 war. But, Ihave been continuously impressed with the resilience, perseverance, and vision of people on both sides who want to create a stable peace in which Georgian and Ossetian children can grow up feeling at home in the world. After one Point of View discussion in Istanbul in October 2010, Kosta Dzugaev and Archil Gegeshidze decided to give this idea a try. The book you hold in your hands is proof they succeeded.
The two research groups worked independently, but coordinated with each other enough to end up with very different articles assembled together in this one book. After discussions together in Istanbul, the two teams of researchers identified different research priorities, which are reflected in the three articles from each group. Each group sought topics that would offer the most constructive contribution to policymakers on both sides, in the views of that group of authors. Each author worked independently to conduct his or her research. My editorial role was limited and did not engage at all with the content of the research. However, the authors did meet in Istanbul again as they completed drafts, and the articles are richer as a result of that discussion.
Readers will quickly notice that the authors agreed to disagree about terminology. What a Georgian author calls “Georgia proper” may be described as “Georgia” by an Ossetian author. What an Ossetian author refers to as “government” may be described as “leadership” by a Georgian author. Geographic names are also different, as are references to displaced people. The same people are referred to by Georgians as Internally Displaced People and by Ossetians as Forcefully Displaced People or Refugees. The word “border” takes on different significance, as the Ossetians describe an international border, and the Georgians see an administrative border.
This project did not attempt to force any standard terminology. Rather, the project goals are to highlight areas of potential confidence building, build a channel of communication amongst scholars bridging across the divide, and contribute policy relevant writing on areas that have been neglected by research in recent years.
All this would not have been possible without the dedication of Kosta Dzugaev and Archil Gegeshidze, each author, the translators, and a project support staff that kept the two separate projects coordinated with each other enough that they have ended up under one cover.
I hope each reader will find something of value in each chapter—even those chapters with which a reader will want to argue. Understanding the arguments across the current divide requires first knowing what they are. May these two sets of articles be a small step in that direction.
FOREWORD TO THE SOUTH OSSETIAN COLLECTION
This collection of works represents the first publication of its type since the Georgian-Ossetian armed conflict in August 2008. The collection is intended for various interested organizations and individuals.
Generally, war destroys humanitarian contacts between conflicting parties. Under these circumstances, it is delightful to underline the constructive mediating role of the School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at the George Mason University (in the United States) in renewing meaningful dialogue between Georgian and Ossetian scientific communities.
Professor Susan Allen Nan offered a highly flexible working format, including flexibility in the choice of themes for expert analysis. The participating parties informed each other regarding to the article topics, discussing these themes in a meeting in Istanbul.
The South Ossetian researchers chose three topics from the discussed issues. These themes are analyzed by experts and presented in the following collection. What were the reasons to choose these particular topics? There is a clear interest to the problems of the Leningorski Rayon (referred to in Georgian documents as Akhalgori). It would be reasonable that this analysis would be conducted by an expert who had visited the region multiple times as a professional and not just as a relative or for his personal affairs.
We asked Maria Kotaeva, a professional journalist to be the author. She already was aware of the problems in the region in general, so her task was to collect precise data and verify it. It was important that Maria had a wide range of contacts amongst the population of the region, and is knowledgeable not only about the specifics of the Administration there, but also knows about the general attitudes and conditions of the local Georgian and Ossetian population.
Merab Chigoev agreed to study the complicated and complex problem of refuges and Internally Displaced Persons. He currently is the Deputy Representative of the President in Post- Conflict Regulation. In this case, his official position (and his working experience) was a considerable factor assisting him as an expert and enabling him to perform the research.
Finally, the main problems of the economic rehabilitation of South Ossetia were analyzed by Batradz Kharebov. Kharebov had the opportunity to access the relevant material for his analysis as he also serves as the Head of the Informational-Analytical Service of the Parliament of South Ossetia.
I anticipate that this collection will allow the sides to get more information regarding each other and, most importantly, will become a precedent for constructive future relations between the civil societies and also for dialogue serving the vital interests of people who have had interrelations for many centuries.