The Lessons from South Ossetia: Respect Matters

We in the conflict resolution field knew what needed to change to prevent a war over South Ossetia or Abkhazia, yet the course towards war continued. Preventing future unnecessary wars requires us to share our insights so broadly that we bring about a fundamental shift in the way the world thinks about international relations. The war in South Ossetia shows we need to shift popular thinking away from the doomed project of a Pax Americana to what I call a Pax Respect us, that is, international relationships based on a fundamental respect for all people's needs and dignity. A mutual lack of respect between Georgians and the Abkhaz and South Ossetians contributed to the emergence and continuation of the frozen conflicts, and sparked the recent fighting, while a mutual lack of respect between the U.S. and Russia fueled the Russian will for a show of force.

The slogan "Georgia for the Georgians" circulated during the period when Georgia sought independence from the Soviet Union. Abkhaz and South Ossetians found the Georgian authorities curtailing their autonomy, and sought independence. Fighting broke out, leading to deaths in each group as well as massive population shifts. For fifteen years, the Abkhaz have enjoyed de facto control of Abkhazia, and the South Ossetians of South Ossetia, while Georgia had, until Russia's August 2008 recognition of the republics, maintained a de jure authority over the territories in the eyes of the international community. During this period, the Abkhaz and South Ossetians announced no desire to live with the Georgians, and gave no nod of respect to the Georgian memories of a history of a multi-ethnic Georgian empire. On both sides, wounds festered without recognition of the underlying needs involved.

Since the end of—or brief reprieve from—the Cold War, the U.S. has, with a misguided triumphalism, refused Russia respect for its need for security and the identity of a valued member of the international community. Expanding NATO to Russia's borders and plans for a "defensive" missile shield in Poland threaten the former enemy. And the August 2008 condemnation of Russia as an international pariah and announcement of no further NATO Russia Council meetings serves only to alienate Russia further. Meanwhile, with the arrogance of a self-appointed world policeman, the U.S. acted without U.N. Security Council approval to bomb Serbia, invade Iraq, and recognize Kosovar independence, showing no respect for international consensus. Numerous conflict resolution initiatives sought to change these dynamics. Individuals on all sides of these conflicts came together to respectfully develop mutual understanding and respect for the needs of all involved. Some of the participants shared their new understandings with their home communities. But despite attitudinal change documented in each society, leadership in all of these areas continued to seek a security built on military might rather than neighborly good will.

Can you imagine if in your neighborhood you sought a security based on having more guns than your neighbors? You would not feel very secure walking on your own block. Instead, in our individual lives, most of us develop a friendly exchange with our neighbors. We know someone will notice if our mail starts spilling out of the mailbox or if our windows are busted in, and someone will offer help when our grocery bag splits open and apples start rolling every which way. There's a basic shared respect for each other's security and human needs. No one tries to rule the neighborhood.

We need to develop norms of international relations that more closely mirror healthy neighborhoods and the basic respect afforded all residents. These norms need to reach not only throughout the peacebuilding community, but into leadership. The conflict resolution community needs to expand into the political leadership too. We need conflict resolution-oriented presidents, prime ministers, parliamentarians, congresspersons, and ambassadors. Who from amongst the ICAR alumni will run for office or take a senior government position?

In the Caucasus, leaders must be willing to take into account the needs of not only the recognized states, but also the Abkhaz, Ossetians, and other ethnic minorities with human rights and political grievances. Leaders need to make space for previously marginalized voices and hear their messages. Rather than consider what the western media have dubbed the "Russian-Georgian war", we need to look at all the complexity of the "War Over South Ossetia", recognizing that the South Ossetians matter too. If all peoples can participate in crafting settlements that meet their needs, as well as others' needs, then there will be no motivation to return to war. But if any party is not allowed to be part of the solution, that party will remain part of the problem.

As one of the founders of our field, Kenneth Boulding said, what exists is possible. There are many non-warring and peaceful societies in history and in today's world too. A Pax Respectus is possible, especially in the Caucasus where honor remains common to all the cultures of the region.