A security dilemma on the boundary line: an EU perspective to Georgian–Russian confrontation after the 2008 war

Abstract

Although a relative stability has been reached between Georgia and Russia, they have not done enough to alleviate the security dilemma that led to the armed hostilities in 2008. The changed situation on the administrative boundary lines of the separatist regions together with hard security policies have worsened basic living conditions and possible incomes of the people living in the disputed zones. The EU has taken a strong responsibility as a conflict manager, but so far its achievements have been limited. If the EU is not able to adapt to changing needs on the ground and get its foreign policy together regarding the conflicting parties, its raison d’être in the area is at stake.

Keywords:

• Georgia
• the European Union
• South Ossetia
• Abkhazia
• conflict
• confidence-building measures
• Russia
• separatism

Notes

aThe EU delegation is not part of the toolbox, since its tasks are related to the EU-Georgia relationship in the framework of Eastern Partnership rather than conflict resolution. However, many topics it is dealing with contribute to the peace process indirectly.

bCouncil of the EU web page on EUSR http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showpage.aspx?id=1523&lang=EN, accessed 26 January 2011.

cUNDP Georgia web page http://www.undp.org.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=78, accessed 26 January 2011.

dSigned between EUMM and Georgian Ministry of Defence in January 2009 – amended in July 2010 – and with the Ministry of Internal Affairs in October 2008.

1. A great deal of the preparatory mediation work and drafting of the 6-point agreement was done by Finland, who held the OSCE presidency, but Sarkozy’s efforts were required to get the agreement signed by the conflicting parties. This fact gives more weight to the question by Whitman and Wolff (2010) as to whether the EU has enough capacity to act when some of the smaller states are holding the presidency.

2. All three versions of the agreement documents in French, Russian and Georgian are available in the IIFFMCG 2009c, 587–592.

3. EUMM web page http://www.eumm.eu/en/about_eumm, accessed 24 January 2011.

4. In 2003 the Corruption Perception Index in Georgia was 1.8, whereas in 2010 it was 3.8. Transparency International ratings. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results and http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2003, accessed 27 January 2011.

5. See, e.g. Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302478.html, accessed 27 January 2011.

6. See the comments by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), CDL (2009) 43–7.

7. English version available at http://www.government.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=225, accessed 31 January 2011.

8. Cited e.g. at http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=22556, accessed 21 January 2011.

9. Georgia was ranked 99th in the survey of Reporters sans frontiers press freedom index at http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010,1034.html, accessed 31 January 2011.

10. President’s speech from 28 December 2010 cited at http://en.trend.az/capital/business/1804426.html, accessed 28 January 2011.

11. Overall results available e.g. http://www.eurasianet.org/node/61190, accessed 28 January 2011.