这是我自娱自乐写的东西，内容是：
去年今日此门中，
人面桃花相映红，
人面不知何处去，
桃花依旧笑春风。
2008年9月2日星期二
我译国际工人委员会（CWI)的俄罗斯和格鲁吉亚
俄罗斯和格鲁吉亚
5天战争的影响
战争对高加索地区和其他地方意味着什么？
Rob Jones， 工人国际委员会CWI ，莫斯科 2008年8月23日
由于俄罗斯和高加索格鲁吉亚共和国在很小的分离地区南奥塞梯上的冲突突然升级为一场恶梦般的军事冲突，世界各地媒体的关注焦点转离了中国的奥运会。
南奥塞梯的首府茨欣瓦利在数周的日趋紧张后，格鲁吉亚总统米哈伊尔萨卡什维利出兵夺取了该地区。在8月6日和8月7日的晚上，格鲁吉亚军队用自动武器和火炮袭击了茨欣瓦利和其他五个市镇。对于在最初阶段战斗中死亡的人数，有着不同的说法。
一名俄罗斯记者说，南奥塞梯的首府已严重受损。来自茨欣瓦利的Zaid Tsarnayev告诉路透社说“城市被摧毁，有许多人员伤亡，许多人受伤。” “昨天我在医院，我看到了许多平民受伤。医院后来被格鲁吉亚喷气式飞机摧毁，我不知道是否受伤者仍然在那里” 。南奥塞梯的总统，爱德华科科伊季和俄罗斯外长拉夫罗夫都声称有超过1500人，主要是平民在袭击期间被炸死，至少有15个驻茨欣瓦利的俄罗斯的“维持和平部队”士兵被打死。
随着格鲁吉亚部队夺取城镇，俄罗斯军队以表面上保卫该地区的人民的名义开着一群重型坦克越过俄罗斯进入南奥塞梯的山区。在茨欣瓦利，战斗再次爆发，几天来，无论是俄罗斯还是格鲁吉亚方面的军事发言人都声称他们自己控制了该城镇。双方都使用了自己的空军。
扩大着的破坏
俄罗斯军队随后离开南奥塞梯，占领了哥里市并且袭击了格鲁吉亚其余整个军事和经济目标。哥里市和茨欣瓦利一样遭受了重创。许多人在袭击中丧生或受伤。格鲁吉亚还声称，俄罗斯飞机轰炸了格鲁吉亚在黑海港口的船舶而且还袭击了穿越该国的石油和天然气管道。
萨卡什维利宣称格鲁吉亚进入战争状态，宣布征召预备役军人，并立即撤出了该国驻伊拉克的特遣队。在伊拉克，格鲁吉亚有2000名军人，是继美国和英国后的第三大队伍。双方承受了巨大的要求缓和冲突的外交压力。美国出来并公开地和俄罗斯敌对起来，事实上在整个冲突中，赖斯握着萨卡什维利的手。欧盟试图更加的中立，默克尔和萨尔科齐穿梭于两国首都之间试图找到一种妥协。与高加索地区相邻的伊朗充当了争端斡旋者的角色，而中国呼吁停火，“ 这是奥运会期间传统的回应” ！
现在，虽然许多俄罗斯军队继续留在格鲁吉亚，战争似乎结束了。但是，世界已经发生急剧变化。
地区紧张局势升级
2006年末格鲁吉亚周边地区长期的紧张局势的升级，与之相应的是国际上美国和俄罗斯关系越来越紧张。由于多项因素，俄罗斯政府所谓的“冻结的冲突”升温起来。今年7月第比利斯附近的军事演习中投入了超过一千名美国海军陆战队，格鲁吉亚继续试图加入北约，（虽然今年年初其最后的尝试被拒绝）以及格鲁吉亚公开支持美国导弹防御系统部署在东欧，这些因素都发挥了作用使得冲突越来越深。
不凑巧的是可能因为格鲁吉亚拘捕四名俄罗斯间谍，2006年年底俄罗斯当局发起了针对居住在俄罗斯的格鲁吉亚人的恶劣的种族主义运动。政府实施了对格鲁吉亚的货物主要是葡萄酒和白兰地的经济抵制。结果是很多咖啡厅和酒吧都“干涸了” 。同时，生活在莫斯科的格鲁吉亚人受到的骚扰戏剧性地增加-不断进行护照和工作许可证的检查。俄罗斯电视显示，数百名格鲁吉亚人，在假定'非法'的情况下被载入“紧急情况部“的飞机驱逐出境。数百人通过列车被驱逐出境。
北约的问题使得双方的观点两级化。萨卡什维利把格鲁吉亚加入北约作为他的政府的一个基本政策。因此，令他感到强烈失望的是今年早些时候格鲁吉亚加入北约的申请在布加勒斯特会议上被拒绝了（同乌克兰一起）。一些分析家曾暗示他因此想通过攻击南奥塞梯以便让北约采取行动站在格鲁吉亚一边。这是一个不太可能的说法。萨卡什维利的政府一直面临着越来越多的经济困难。对于大多数的人来说，玫瑰革命的承诺和希望，即格鲁吉亚将加入西方世界将带来较高的生活水准和自由，已落空。
越来越多的反对
随着对其统治反对的增多，示威者开始走上街，2007年11月初，萨卡什维利使用警察和军队打击第比利斯的示威者并宣布国家进入紧急状态。那时，为了能越过这一日益严重的反对声浪，今年1月萨卡什维利宣布提前进行总统大选和决定何时举行议会选举的公民投票。同时，他再次当选，反对党指责萨卡什维利“巧妙操纵”一月的选举。这些事件至少导致一些欧洲列强开始试图和萨卡什维利拉开距离。因此，这更可能是萨卡什维利垂死挣扎，而不是经过深思熟虑的战略计划。
对俄罗斯政府而言，一个关键的转折点是在今年二月对科索沃独立的承认。这是俄罗斯在巴尔干地区的利益的一个打击，因为它看到了一个公开亲美的科索沃政府，该政府是不符合俄罗斯的历史上的盟友塞尔维亚的意愿的。俄罗斯的统治精英恨得咬牙切齿。当时仍是俄罗斯总统的普京指出， “科索沃的做法是一个可怕的先例，实际上这将冲击整个国际关系体系，该冲击的发展不至几十年，而且要几个世纪。他们没有想过他们所做事情的结果。事已做完的时候，这是一个双节棍，其第二节会折回打在他们自己的脸上“ 。
俄罗斯派往北约的特使，民族主义的政客，好久以来一直是克里姆林宫的重要人物的德米特里罗戈津表示的更是明确。他表示这一决定意味着： “我们也不得不从如下观点来办事，即为了得到尊重，我们必须使用蛮力，换句话说用武力” 。此评论紧跟着他先前的关于北约东扩的评论，罗戈津指出： “一旦格鲁吉亚得到华盛顿允许其加入北约的承诺，第二天这两个地区从格鲁吉亚分离出来的进程将马上开始” 。
随着承认科索沃的独立，俄罗斯取消了它曾经对阿布哈兹和南奥塞梯施加的经济限制以便在该共和国加强对它的支持。今年2月至8月的六个月里双方的挑衅行为不断升级，包括飞入禁飞区和枪击事件。在萨卡什维利攻击茨欣瓦利的几个星期之前，俄罗斯派出数十名“铁路”部队进入南奥塞梯，表面上是为了恢复与莫斯科铁路连接。这被第比利斯视为对其领土主权实施的敌对行为，而事实上它有助于解释为什么俄罗斯军队可以这么快地把坦克和军队推进茨欣瓦利。
虚伪——战争的一个症象
正如俄罗斯领导人指出的，美国指责俄罗斯进入格鲁吉亚是令人难以置信的虚伪。毕竟，伊拉克战争是非法的而且残酷。但8月的第二个星期公开战争的爆发见证了双方更令人难以置信的虚伪和宣传。
突然，美国反对起自决权，虽然它支持科索沃独立。俄罗斯支持自决权，虽然它已发动两次残酷的战争以阻止车臣独立。西部亲格鲁吉亚的媒体新闻几乎完全站在支持萨卡什维利的立场上。几乎完全忽略格鲁吉亚部队对茨欣瓦利的首先发动的攻击。城市遭到重炮轰击导致许多平民死亡。后果之一是有12名俄罗斯“维和”士兵也被打死。当俄罗斯派出坦克进入格鲁吉亚后，新闻界主导的消息是俄罗斯侵占该地区。最初的五天战争已经结束之后，才出现文章，例如在位于英国的报纸卫报上，片面地暗示美国应对冲突负责。
俄罗斯媒体站在克里姆林宫一边。专栏只报道茨欣瓦利人民的苦难，而一字不提俄罗斯军队进入格鲁吉亚，或对哥里市狂暴袭击。在没有独立的检查的情况下，夸大其词和谣言漫天飞。他们报道着科科伊季和俄罗斯外长拉夫罗夫声称的在格鲁吉亚的最初攻击中有1600到2000名的平民被炸死的消息。不过，人权观察，在医院调查后，说不超过100名被杀害。
不过这足以使俄罗斯派进部队了。在五天里面，在整个格鲁吉亚，随处可见俄罗斯坦克纵队。同时，亲俄罗斯的目击者盲目地宣称他们看到了成队的北约部队通过格鲁吉亚。双方的试图“客观地”报道的记者成了受害人。俄罗斯国际广播“今日俄罗斯”的一名记者试图从第比利斯发送有关俄罗斯袭击的报告而被迫辞职。企图通过俄罗斯前往南奥塞梯的来自西方的记者受到解雇的威胁。双方抛出了不同的术语，如“法西斯主义者”萨卡什维利，对奥塞梯人的“种族灭绝”， “侵略者”或“斯大林主义的”克里姆林宫来发泄情绪和隐藏真正问题以及分散人们对发生着的人类的严重灾难的注意力。
因此，社会主义者会说些什么呢？
社会主义者立足于什么是有利于或不利于劳动阶层和穷人上。我们反对用经验主义的方法来分析情况的做法——也就是'谁开了第一枪？ ' 我们也不把我们的立场放在伪装的国家利益上。因此，我们只是看到了一些疑问： “谁是亲美帝国主义的或反美帝国主义的？ ” ，而其他人问： “谁是亲俄或反俄的？ ” 但这些问题没有看到如下这一点：这冲突的真正原因是华盛顿和莫斯科的统治阶级间竞争着的帝国主义利益。这就是为什么双方的工人运动必须保持其独立性的原因。
许多左派人士 ，特别是源自斯大林主义的传统的左派，选择了给予俄罗斯的资本主义关键性的支持的做法，他们这样做的基础性认识是在当今世界上俄罗斯及其盟国是对美帝国主义的肆无忌惮最好的防御。这是基于如下悲观的评估：国际工人阶级是没有能力团结起来斗争以推翻资本主义的。他们还相信他们正在支持一个“较小的邪恶” 。
带有改良主义倾向的左派人士和其他人谈及到了在有争议的地区需要一个“中立”部队以监督维持和平，呼吁使用联合国（UN）或欧安组织（OSCE）的部队。然而，正如前南斯拉夫或卢旺达的经历所显示的，这些特遣队也捍卫他们自己的政府的政策并且没有能力维持和平。事实上，巴尔干地区冲突中最严重的大屠杀在斯雷布雷尼察发生时，联合国维和部队无动于衷。
在俄罗斯，革命的马克思主义者所面对的形势是特别困难的。社会上有令人难以置信的要求支持俄罗斯的行动的压力。摆在我们面前的有各种各样的问题——“我们应该如何捍卫俄罗斯护照持有人的权利？ ” “为什么俄罗斯不应该勇敢地抵抗美帝国主义及其傀儡格鲁吉亚萨卡什维利？ ” “当然，如果南奥塞梯的人民要与北奥塞梯统一起来，他们应该有这个权利吗？ “ ”俄罗斯军队进入格鲁吉亚以确保格鲁吉亚军队被解除武装而使他们不可以再攻击我们？ “ ”社会主义是抽象的，现在必须做些什么， “这些问题都需要回答的，但我们也明白，有时社会主义者必须采取长远的看法和采取站在工人阶级的利益上的坚定立场。
应保护谁？
苏联的崩溃和资本主义之恢复的整个悲剧是没有独立的工人阶级的组织能够提供一个方案以结束斯大林主义和资本主义的恐怖。后果之一是，工人阶级分崩离析，社会退化和民族分裂已成为一种规范，这是毫不奇怪的，这是资本主义的本质。即使是“现代的，文明的”的国家，如比利时，英国和西班牙都没有成功地解决民族问题。但在前苏联，新生的资本主义精英自觉无恐地在用种族冲突来达到其目的。
社会主义者需要出来说话，不仅是为了受到攻击的民族，而且是在保卫所有民族的广大劳工阶层反对他们的压迫者的权利。这意味着，尽管萨卡什维利政府的侵略政策，我们也不应该支持南奥塞梯科科伊季（kokoiki）政府，该政府建立在克格勃和军代表以及通过走私和黑市交易筹措财政资金的基础上的政府，该政府得到俄罗斯老板的支持。正如萨卡什维利是一个亲美的走卒，科科伊季政府是一个黑手党的政府，捍卫黑手党的利益与支持俄罗斯的帝国主义。因此，我们呼吁奥塞梯，俄罗斯和格鲁吉亚工人阶级的团结以维护他们的共同利益。
享有自决权意味什么？
正如在南奥塞梯（和科索沃）发生的事件中看到的，自决权的问题被双方虚伪地利用着。所谓的领导人，并不意味着工人阶级和穷人的自决权，只是那些拥有军队和强大的朋友的人的自决权。作为真正的社会主义者，我们通过组织工人阶级和国际性的团结来捍卫我们的自决权和打击一切形式的民族歧视和压迫。正如科索沃和南奥塞梯所证明的，在资本主义下，一个民族的真正独立是没有可能性的。寻求这一个或另一个帝国主义力量的支持不是解决办法。发展一个能挑战和推翻资本主义的独立的工人阶级的力量-在国内和国际上-是保证享有自决权唯一的出路。在另一方面，社会主义者始终不主张工人阶级的分离，我们甚至要做工作以便各民族的劳动阶层在行动上能相互团结起来和联合起来。
在南奥塞梯，我们要问，哪个南奥塞梯有自决的权利？南奥塞梯应在俄罗斯联邦的框架下加入北奥塞梯，或作为一个独立的实体呢？南奥塞梯的一部分应脱离另一部分（沿民族线），既把格鲁吉亚的一部分留在格鲁吉亚和奥塞梯的一部分留在俄罗斯吗？或居住在南奥塞梯的人民应该被迫返回到“现状” ？对于这些变化的每一个，我们可以清楚表明，除非推翻资本主义，该地区基本的经济问题和社会问题将不会得到解决，只要资本主义仍然存在着，该地区仍然会因为世界帝国主义势力为了控制石油和天然气管道而冲突不断，压迫性的民族主义政府为了富人和有权有势的人而将沿民族界限把人们分离开来。
我们支持一个基于社会上的工人和穷人有权决定他们希望生活在什么地方的真正的民族自决权。这只有当劳动阶层和穷人建立起有能力捍卫自己的利益的自己的组织时方能实现。同时，一个自决权不应该以牺牲另一个自决权为代价。因此，我们支持在一个联邦或邦联结构下的任何团体的自治或独立的权利，如果他们愿意的话。工人阶级为真正的而不是斯大林主义意义上的社会主义斗争的最高的团结是我们的目标，我们对民族情绪是敏感的。因此，举例来说，如果南奥塞梯决定独立，其中的格鲁吉亚的人口也应该有权自主或独立，如果他们希望这样做的话。
谁可以维护工人的权益呢？
许多人认为现在至少俄罗斯军队将捍卫南奥塞梯的权利。但在过去20年里，军队（无论是以其常规的形式或非正规的形式）表明，它对该地区的介入是为了这部分或那部分俄罗斯统治精英的利益而以各民族的普通百姓的牺牲为代价的。在阿布哈兹的背景下，它参与了对格鲁吉亚人的大屠杀，仅仅因为他们住在错误的地方。他们并不试图反对科科伊季的如下声明：居住在南奥塞梯的格鲁吉亚人不应被允许返回。决不能说俄罗斯军队通过两次残酷的战争保护了车臣人的权利，它也没有能够确保印古什或北奥塞梯的和平。事实上，军队首领的笨拙的做法恶化了别斯兰市的灾难。
在目前的冲突中，俄罗斯军队占领哥里市和攻击格鲁吉亚港口的船只已显示出它是维护俄罗斯的寡头资本家的石油和天然气的利益的。
短期内，有可能为了创造一个稳定的形象，将看到军队在保护当地人口（至少那些没有被阻止返回的人），但它不久将回到其通常的捍卫俄罗斯的统治阶级利益的角色上来。
在其他此类冲突中，我们已提出要建立工人的防卫力量。但在这些条件下，他们不应该仅仅是成立保卫某一特定地区的居民的“ narodnii opolchentsi ” （人民的捍卫者）。这样他们只会成为以民族为基础的民兵。我们必须主张工人的防卫力量应是多民族的，在工人的民主控制下建立这样的力量以保护工人和穷人免受攻击，不论其民族是什么。
在资本主义下，问题能得到解决吗？
只说在高加索地区的民族和种族冲突完全是资本主义的产物就显得太粗糙了。很清楚斯大林主义的遗产及其处理这些问题的官僚主义的方法在该地区留下了痕迹。但恢复资本主义是导致该地区在以控制石油和天然气路线为目的的派系斗争以及帝国主义列强的无休止的冲突的支配下变得极端贫穷。如果不论其民族是什么，能提供所有人适当的住房和就业机会，像样的卫生服务和教育以及退休金，那么争取自决的斗争必须和与资本主义的斗争联系起来。如果工人能被充分地组织起来并在该地区的任何一个共和国取得政治权力，那么，民族的地图将引人注目地重画，因为生活水平的改善和真正的自决的可能性将意味着各民族将能够合作而不是相互冲突。
这是现实吗？
有人会说： “没错，那很好，但现在我们需要做一些事情！”问题是只要该地区被像萨卡什维利，科科伊季或kadyrev这样的人以及他们的华盛顿和莫斯科帝国主义支持者的支配，就没有实际的解决办法。当然，我们欢迎任何短期的缓和问题的做法，但要警告说，一个真正的解决办法是把资本主义赶出该地区。
要达到这个目的，社会主义的纲领必须基于如下几点：
呼吁俄罗斯，格鲁吉亚和南奥塞梯，当然包括其他国家的所有的工人和左翼活动家一起来要求立即停止军事活动。工人不能依靠他们的政府和外交官的不受控制的行动，或一些外部势力的干预来解决冲突，他们只能依靠他们自己的力量。
所有的俄罗斯和格鲁吉亚军队撤出南奥塞梯以及反对其他资本主义国家派送的部队。我们呼吁在工人阶级的民主控制下建立跨民族的工人的防卫部队而不是以所谓的维持和平部队来保护工人和穷人（不论其民族如何）免受攻击。
为南奥塞梯和其他未被承认的共和国得到没有军事干预的自决权。
号召格鲁吉亚，俄罗斯和南奥塞梯的劳工大众采取联合行动以推翻对普通百姓发动战争的这些国家的政府和把帝国主义赶出该地区。
在工人民主的控制和管理下国有化该地区的石油，天然气和其他自然资源以及运送用的管道，把相关收入用来解决该地区的贫困问题。
在民主选举产生的委员会的控制之下，制定一个紧急的建设计划和创造就业机会为该地区的所有民族的所有难民提供住房和收入。
建立将捍卫工人的利益、克服贫困和确保和平的政府。
一个高加索地区的民主的社会主义联邦-没有它，不可能有任何长期解决土地和资源上的冲突的方案。
该地区面临着什么样的未来呢？
无论目前的军事调遣的最后的结果是什么，没有什么问题能得到解决。格鲁吉亚继续被迫使阿布哈兹和南奥塞梯违背它们的意愿回到格鲁吉亚的集团统治下。萨卡什维利以他的的方式攻击南奥塞梯是犯了一个严重的错误。现在许多西方领导人都意识到他是一个不可靠的盟友。美国无法使得北约同意完全支持他，如果奥巴马赢得美国总统大选，美国外交政策的策略可能会改变。萨卡什维利会发现自己的国内支持率的下降和被世界大国控制。格鲁吉亚的一些反对派领导人已发出呼吁进行新的选举以取代萨卡什维利，但如果萨卡什维利只是被另一个新自由主义政治家取代的话，这些不会有任何的效果。有迫切需要在格鲁吉亚建立真正的左翼来替代萨卡什维利。
在俄罗斯， “梅德韦杰夫与普京的”双簧赢得了得不偿失的胜利。这不会是他发动第二次车臣战争后普京总统成功的一个重复。一方面由于这些事件，整个高加索地区将更加不稳定，需要更大的资源来“控制”该地区。而且经济再增长十年的条件已不复存在。美国，欧盟和日本正经历经济减速或经济衰退。石油价格的进一步严重下跌将重重地打击俄罗斯经济。甚至在这些事件之前，外国对俄罗斯的投资已急剧下降。
财政部部长库德林说，由于战争，160亿美元的外国投资已逃离该国。虽然一段时期内，政权可能会得到暂时的加强，这不大可能成为永久性的。如果经济条件恶化，几年后，人们可能回顾并指出南奥塞梯的战争是一个转折点。唯一的问题是是否有能得到群众支持的真正的左翼替代能发展起来。
在作为一个整体的高加索地区，形势是可怕的。帝国主义列强为了控制该地区而进行的斗争将会更痛苦。现在建设天然气管道是个问题，因为投资者对不稳定的不满。俄罗斯使得萨卡什维利得到惩罚的明显的成功可能会鼓励阿泽（Azeri）政权尝试夺取纳戈尔诺-卡拉巴赫，使之回到其控制下。整个高加索地区现有的状况将爆发一场巴尔干类型的战争，不仅涉及区域势力，而且包括主要的帝国主义势力。
国际反响
在国际上，老帝国主义列强发现自己处在一个更为困难的境地。二十年来帝国主义者一直在试图逐步发展与俄罗斯的关系，同时保持自己的优势。现在它认为它创造了一个难以控制的怪兽。北约在如何作出反应上出现了分歧。一方面，波兰，乌克兰和波罗的海国家忙着保卫格鲁吉亚。现在美国反导弹防御系统将在波兰和乌克兰推进部署。
作为回应，白俄罗斯和俄罗斯已经宣布，它们将建立自己的反制系统。八国集团内已呼吁再次返回到七国集团。美国发现在如何对付俄罗斯上，它遭到了一些欧洲资本家的反对。在联合国，美国将在坚持自己的立场上更为困难，俄罗斯将更为有意愿去使用其否决权。由于国际组织如联合国和欧安组织都不情愿把他们的维和部队派往高加索地区，拒不允许俄罗斯去控制。帝国主义列强将被拖入高加索火药库。
但国际条件和1990年代初巴尔干战争时不一样。当时苏联刚刚垮台，资本主义似乎已经赢得了意识形态的斗争，世界经济稳步增长以及工人运动失去方向感并且缺乏领导。现在，人们已开始越来越多地质疑资本主义的问题，世界经济正处于一个可怕的状态，国际上工人运动已开始施展其力量。必须从高加索地区的这场恶梦般的情况中汲取教训和为新的一代在高水平上建立社会主义合作关系开辟道路。
23 August 2008
Russia and Georgia
Implications of a five day war
What does the war mean for the Caucusus and beyond?
Rob Jones, CWI, Moscow
The world’s press had their attention diverted from the glitter of China’s Olympic Games as the conflict between Russia and the Caucasian republic of Georgia over the small breakaway region of South Ossetia suddenly escalated into a nightmarish military conflict.
After weeks of growing tension in South Ossetia’s capital, Tskhinvali, Georgia’s President Mikhail Saakashvili sent troops to seize the region. Over the night of 6th and 7th August Georgian troops attacked Tskhinvali and five other towns with automatic weapons and artillery. Claims vary on the number killed in the initial stages of the fighting.
A Russian journalist said the South Ossetian capital had been badly damaged. "The town is destroyed. There are many casualties, many wounded," Zaid Tsarnayev told Reuters from Tskhinvali. "I was in the hospital yesterday where I saw many civilian wounded. The hospital was later destroyed by a Georgian jet. I don't know whether the wounded were still there". Both South Ossetia’s president, Eduard Kokoiti, and Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, have claimed that over 1500 people, mainly peaceful residents were killed during the attacks. At least 15 Russian “peacekeeping troops” based in Tskhinvali were killed.
With the Georgian troops having initially seized the town, Russian troops, headed by a huge column of heavy tanks, crossed the mountain passes from Russia into South Ossetia, ostensibly to defend the people of the area. Fighting again broke out in Tskhinvali and for days, both Russian and Georgian military spokesmen claimed control of the city. Both sides used their airforce.
Unfolding destruction
Russian troops then moved out of South Ossetia, occupying the city of Gori and attacking military and economic targets throughout the rest of Georgia. Gori ended up in the same state of destruction as Tskhinvali. Many were killed or wounded in these attacks. The Georgians also claim that Russian aircraft bombed ships in Georgia’s Black Sea Ports and that the oil and gas pipelines crossing the country were also attacked.
Saakashvili declared that Georgia was in a state of war, announced the call up of reservists and the immediate withdrawal of the country’s contingent from Iraq. Georgia has 2,000 troops there, the third biggest contingent after the US and Britain,. Huge diplomatic pressure was put on both sides to tone down the conflict. The US came out openly hostile to Russia, with Condoleezza Rice in effect holding Saakashvili’s hand throughout the conflict. The EU tried to be more bi-partisan, with Merkel and Sarkozy shuttling between the two capitals trying to find a compromise. Iran, which borders on the Caucasian region, offered to arbitrate in the dispute, whilst China called for a ceasefire “which is the traditional response during the Olympic Games”!
Now, although many Russian troops remain in Georgia, the fighting war appears to be over. But the world has dramatically changed.
Regional tensions escalated
Long-running tensions in the region around Georgia escalated considerably after the end of 2006 in parallel with the increase in tensions between the US and Russia internationally. What the Russian government called the “frozen conflict” heated up as a result of a number of factors. Military exercises near Tbilisi in July of this year, involving over a thousand US marines, Georgia’s continued attempts to join NATO, (although the last attempt was pushed back at the beginning of this year) and Georgia’s open support for the US missile defence system based in Eastern Europe have all played a role in bringing the conflict closer.
Not coincidentally a nasty racist campaign had been launched by the Russian authorities against Georgians living in Russia towards the end of 2006, supposedly after the Georgians arrested four Russian spies. The government imposed an economic boycott of Georgian goods, mainly wine and brandy. As a result many cafes and bars “ran dry”. At the same time harassment of Georgians living in Moscow was stepped up dramatically – passports and work permits constantly checked. Russian TV showed hundreds of Georgians, who were supposedly ‘illegal’, being loaded onto ‘Ministry of Emergencies’ aircraft for deportation. Many hundreds more were sent by train.
The question of NATO has acted to polarise opinions on both sides. Saakashvili had made the entry of Georgia into NATO a key policy of his administration. He was therefore bitterly disappointed that the application was pushed back (together with the Ukraine’s) at the Bucharest Conference earlier this year. Some analysts have suggested that he therefore decided to attack South Ossetia in order to attempt to push NATO into action on Georgia’s side. This is an unlikely explanation. Saakashvili’s government has been meeting increasing economic difficulties. For the majority of the population, the promises and hopes of the Rose Revolution that somehow Georgia would join the West with its high living standards and freedoms, have been dashed.
Growing opposition
As opposition to his rule grew, protesters began to come out on the streets Saakashvili, in early November 2007, used police and troops to attack demonstrators in Tbilisi and declared a state of emergency. Then, in an attempt to cut across this growing opposition, Saakashvili announced an early presidential election and a referendum on when to hold parliamentary elections in January this year. While he was re-elected the opposition accused Saakashvili of “subtly rigging” January’s election. These events led at least some European powers to begin to try and distance themselves from Saakashvili. It is therefore more likely that Saakashvili, rather than following a well thought out strategic plan, was actually desperately trying to find a way out of the corner into which he had been forced.
A key turning point for the Russian government was the recognition of Kosovo independence in February of this year. This was a blow to Russian interests in the Balkans as it saw an openly pro-US Kosovan government granted recognition against the wishes of Russia’s historical ally Serbia. Russia’s ruling elite reacted with venom spitting through clenched teeth. The then still Russian president, Putin, stated that, “The precedent of Kosovo is a terrible precedent, which will de facto blow apart the whole system of international relations, developed not over decades, but over centuries. They have not thought through the results of what they are doing. At the end of the day it is a two-ended stick and the second end will come back and hit them in the face".
Russia’s envoy to NATO, nationalist politician and long time Kremlin insider Dmitri Rogozin was even more explicit. This decision, he stated means that: "We too would then have to proceed from the view that in order to be respected we must use brute force, in other words armed force". This comment follows on from his earlier comments concerning NATO expansion, in which Rogozin stated: “As soon as Georgia gets the promise to join NATO from Washington, on the next day the real process to separate these two territories from Georgia will begin.”
Following the recognition of Kosova, Russia lifted the economic restrictions it still had in place against Abkhazia and South Ossetia and activated its attempts to strengthen its support in the republics. The sixth months from February to August this year saw a steady increase in incidents provoked by both sides including flights into the no fly zone and shooting incidents. In the weeks before Saakashvili’s attack on Tskhinvali, Russia sent scores of “railway troops” into South Ossetia, ostensibly to restore the rail link with Moscow. This was interpreted by Tbilisi as a hostile act on sovereign territory, and indeed it helps to explain how the Russian army could get tanks and troops into Tskhinvali so quickly.
Hypocrisy – the first sign of war
As the Russian leadership point out, the US is unbelievably hypocritical when it attacks Russia for going in to Georgia. After all the war in Iraq is illegal and just as brutal. But the outbreak of open warfare in the second week of August saw even more incredible hypocrisy and propaganda on both sides.
Suddenly the US is against self-determination, although it supports Kosovo independence. Russia supports self-determination although it has waged two brutal wars to prevent Chechen independence. The western pro-Georgian press put almost purely the pro-Saakashvili position. Almost no attention was paid to the initial attack by Georgian troops on Tskhinvali. The town was subjected to heavy artillery bombardment leaving many of the civilian population dead. As a result 12 Russian “peacekeeping” troops were also killed. After the Russians sent tanks into Georgia, the press was dominated by the Russian occupation. Only after the initial five days war was over did articles start appearing, for example in the Guardian, a British-based newspaper, suggesting, in a one-sided way, that the US was responsible for the conflict.
The Russian press towed the Kremlin line to a man. Columns reported on the suffering of the population in Tskhinvali but not a word was said about Russian troops moving into Georgia, or the vicious attacks on Gori. Exaggerations and rumours were reported with no independent checking. The claims of Kokoiti and Russian foreign minister Lavrov that between 1,600 and 2,000 civilians were killed in Georgia’s initial attack are taken as read. However Human Rights Watch, after surveying hospitals, talks of less than a hundred being killed.
But this was enough for Russia to send the troops in. During the five days, Russian tank columns were spotted throughout Georgia. At the same time pro-Russian witnesses swore blindly they had seen columns of NATO troops moving through Georgia. Reporters on both sides who tried to be “objective” were victimised. A reporter for Russia’s world service, “Russia today”, tried to send reports from Tbilisi reporting on Russian attacks but was forced to resign. Reporters from western papers who attempted to go to South Ossetia through Russia were threatened with the sack. Varying terminology on both sides such as the “fascist” Saakashvili, the “genocide” of the Ossetian people, “aggressors” or the “Stalinist” Kremlin are thrown around to play on emotions and hide the real issues and distract from the grave human catastrophe taking place.
So what would socialists say?
Socialists base themselves on what is beneficial or detrimental to the working class and poor people. We reject attempts to analyse the situation in an empirical way – that is, ‘Who fired the first shot?’ Nor do we base our standpoint on questions that can be used to disguise national interests. Thus we see some asking simply “Who is pro- or anti-US imperialism?”, while others ask “Who is pro- or anti-Russian?” But these questions miss the point that the real reason for this clash is the competing imperialist interests of the ruling classes in both Washington and Moscow. This is why the workers’ movement must maintain its independence from both.
Many lefts, especially from a Stalinist tradition, have chosen to give critical support to Russian capitalism, on the basis that Russia and its allies are the best defence there is in the world today against unbridled US imperialism. This is based on the pessimistic assessment that the international working class is incapable of uniting and struggling to overthrow capitalism. They still imagine they are backing a “lesser evil”.
Lefts with a reformist leaning and others speak of the need for a “neutral” force to oversee peace-keeping in the disputed regions. Calls are made for UN or OSCE troops to be used. However, as the experience of the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda show, these contingents also defend the policies of their own governments and are not capable of maintaining peace. Indeed the worst massacre of the conflicts in the Balkans, at Srebrenica took place while UN peacekeepers looked the other way.
In particular, the position facing revolutionary Marxists in Russia is hard. There is incredible pressure in society to support the Russian actions. All sorts of questions are thrown at us - “How else are we supposed to defend the rights of the Russian passport holders?” “Why shouldn’t Russia stand up to US imperialism and its Georgian puppet Saakashvili?” “Surely if the people of South Ossetia want to unite with North Ossetia, they should have the right?” “Russian troops are in Georgia just to ensure that the Georgian army is disarmed and can no longer attack us?” “Socialism is abstract, something has to be done now.” These questions have to be answered, but we also understand that sometimes socialists must adopt the longer view and take a firm position in the interests of the working class.
Who should be defended?
The whole tragedy of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the restoration of capitalism is that there was no independent working class organisation capable of offering a programme to end the horrors of Stalinism and capitalism. As a consequence, the working class has become divided; social degradation and ethnic division have become the norm. This is no surprise. This is in the nature of capitalism. Even “modern, civilised” states such as Belgium, Britain and Spain have not succeeded in solving the national question. But in the former Soviet Union the newly developed capitalist elites have not baulked at consciously using ethnic conflict to further their aims.
Socialists need to speak out, not only in favour of the ethnic group under attack, but also in defence of the rights of the working class of all ethnic groups against their oppressors. This means, notwithstanding the aggressive policies of the Saakashvili government, we should give no support to the Kokoiki government in South Ossetia, based on KGB and army representatives and financing itself through smuggling and the black market, with the support of its Russian paymasters. Just as Saakashvili is a pro-American stooge, the Kokoiti government is a mafia government, defending mafia interests with the backing of Russian imperialism. We therefore call for the unity of the Ossetian, Russian and Georgian working class in defence of their common interests.
What does the right of self-determination mean?
As seen in the events around South Ossetia (and Kosova), the question of self-determination is used hypocritically by both sides. So-called leaders do not mean self-determination for the working class and poor, just for those who have armies and powerful friends. As genuine socialists, we defend the right of self-determination and fight against all forms of national discrimination and oppression through organising working class and international solidarity. As Kosovo and South Ossetia demonstrate, under capitalism there is no possibility of a nation being genuinely independent. Seeking the support of one or another imperialist power is no solution. Developing an independent working class force capable of challenging and overthrowing capitalism – nationally and internationally – is the only way to guarantee the right of self-determination. On the other hand, socialists do not always advocate separation and even when we do work to build the solidarity between and unity in action of the working class of all nationalities.
In South Ossetia, we have to ask which South Ossetia has the right to self-determination? Should South Ossetia join with North Ossetia, within the Russian Federation or as an independent entity? Should part of South Ossetia break away from another part (along ethnic lines) leaving the Georgian part in Georgia and the Ossetian part in Russia? Or should the people who live in South Ossetia be forced to return to the “status quo”? In each of these variations, we can say clearly that the fundamental economic and social problems of the region will not be solved unless capitalism is overthrown, So long as capitalism remains the region will still be subject to the permanent conflict of the world’s imperialist powers for control of the oil and gas pipelines, that repressive and nationalist governments will attempt to divide people along ethnic lines in the interests of the rich and powerful.
We support a genuine right to self-determination based on the rights of the working class and poor in society to decide where they wish to live. This can only be determined when the working class and poor have established their own organisations capable of defending their interests. At the same time self-determination of one group should not be at the expense of another. We therefore support the right to autonomy or independence of any groups within a federal or confederal structure if they so desire. While the maximum unity of the working class in the struggle for socialism, in the genuine and not Stalinist meaning, is our aim we are sensitive to national feelings. Thus if, for example, South Ossetia decided to become independent, the Georgian population within it should have the right to be autonomous or independent, if they so wish.
Who can defend the rights of workers?
Many now argue that at least the Russian army will defend the rights of South Ossetia now. But during the course of the last twenty years, the army (either in its regular form or through irregular units) has shown that it intervenes in the region in the interest of one section or another of the Russian ruling elite at the cost of ordinary people of all nationalities. In the Abkhazia context, it participated in the massacre of Georgians, for no other reason than that they lived in the wrong place. No attempt has been made to counter the recent statements of Kokoiti that Georgians living in Ossetia should not be allowed to return. In no way can the Russian army be said to have defended the rights of Chechens through two brutal wars, nor has it been able to ensure peace in Ingushetia or North Ossetia. Indeed it was the bungling of the army chiefs that worsened the Beslan catastrophe.
During the present conflict, by occupying Gori and attacking ships in Georgian ports, the Russian army has shown it is defending the oil and gas interests of Russia’s capitalist oligarchs.
It may be possible that for a short period, to create an image of stability, the army will be seen to defend the local population (at least those who have not been prevented from returning) but it will soon return to its normal role of defending the interests of the Russian ruling class.
In other such conflicts, we have raised the need to establish workers’ defence forces. But in these conditions they should not be simply “narodnii opolchentsi”, (people’s defenders) formed to defend residents of a particular area. As such they would just become ethnically-based militias. We need to argue that workers’ defence forces should be multi-ethnic, formed to defend workers and the poor from attack, whatever their nationality and under the democratic control of the working class.
Can the question be solved under capitalism?
It is too crude to say that the national and ethnic conflicts in the Caucasus are entirely the result of capitalism. The legacy of Stalinism and its bureaucratic approach to the question of nationalities has clearly left its mark in the region. However it has been the restoration of capitalism that has left the region so desperately poor, under the control of warring factions struggling to control oil and gas routes and subject to the never ending conflict between imperialist powers. If proper homes and jobs, a decent health service and education, pensions are to be provided for all, irrespective of nationality, then the struggle for self-determination has to be linked to the struggle against capitalism. If workers were to be sufficiently organised to take political power in any of the republics in that region, then the nationalities map would be dramatically re-drawn as the improvement in living standards and the possibility of genuine self determination would mean that ethnic groups would be able to cooperate and not be in conflict with each other.
Is this realistic?
Some will say, “Yes, that’s nice but we need to do something now!” The problem is that there is no realistic solution as long as the region is dominated by the likes of Saakashvili, Kokoiti or Kadyrev and by their imperialist backers in Washington and Moscow. Of course we would welcome any short-term easing of the problems but have to warn that, to reach a genuine solution, capitalism has to be driven out of the region.
To achieve this the socialists’ programme is based around:
• a call on all worker and left activists in Russia, Georgia and South Ossetia, and of course in other countries, to demand that military activities are immediately halted. Workers cannot rely on the uncontrolled actions of their governments, diplomats or intervention by some outside forces to solve the conflict, they can only rely on their own forces.
• the withdrawal of all Russian and Georgian troops from South Ossetia and oppose troops supplied by other capitalist states. We call for the formation of trans-ethnic workers’ defence forces to defend workers and poor people from attack, whatever their nationality, and under the democratic control of the working class rather than so-called peace-keeping forces.
• for the right of South Ossetia and the other unrecognised republics to self-determination without military intervention.
• for united action by the working masses of Georgia, Russia and South Ossetia to overthrow those governments who wage war against ordinary people and to drive imperialism out of the region.
• the nationalisation under democratic workers’ control and management of the oil, gas and other natural resources in the region and the pipelines through which they are transported and for the use of the income from these for overcoming poverty in the region.
• an emergency construction programme and job creation to provide homes and incomes for all refugees of all nationalities in the region, under the control of democratically elected committees.
• the establishment of governments which will defend workers’ interests, overcome poverty and ensure peace.
• for a democratic socialist federation of the Caucasus - without this there can be no long-term solution to the conflict over land and resources.
What future now faces the region?
Whatever the final outcome of the current military manoeuvrings, nothing has been resolved. Georgia continues to be ruled by a clique set on forcing Abkhazia and South Ossetia against their will back into Georgia. Saakashvili has made a serious error in attacking South Ossetia in the way he did. Now many western leaders are realising that he is an unreliable ally. The US could not get NATO to agree to fully back him, and, if Obama wins the US Presidential election, US foreign policy tactics may change. Saakashvili will find himself with declining support at home and held at arm’s length by the world powers. Some opposition leaders in Georgia have issued the call for elections to replace Saakashvili, but these will have no purpose if Saakashvili is just replaced by another set of neoliberal politicians. There is an urgent need in Georgia to build a genuine left wing alternative to Saakashvili.
In Russia, the “Medvedev-Putin” tandem has won a Pyrrhic victory. This will not be a repeat of the success of Putin’s presidency after he waged the second Chechen war. On the one hand the whole Caucasus region will be more unstable as a result of these events, demanding even greater resources to “control” the area. But also the conditions no longer exist for a further ten years of economic growth. The US, EU and Japan are now experiencing a slow-down or recession. A further major fall in oil prices would hit the Russian economy hard. There was already a sharp decline in foreign investment into Russia even before these events.
Finance Minister Kudrin says that as a result of the war $16 billion of foreign investment has fled the country. Although for a period there may be a temporary strengthening of the regime, this is unlikely to be permanent. If economic conditions worsen, in a couple of years people could well look back and say that the South Ossetia war was a turning point. The only question is whether a serious left wing alternative capable of building mass support can develop in time.
In the Caucasus as a whole, the situation is dire. The struggle by imperialist powers for control will be even more bitter. The building of the gas pipeline is now under question as the investors are unhappy about the instability. The apparent success of Russia in bringing Saakashvili to book may encourage the Azeri regime to try and wrest Nagorno Karabakh back under its control. The conditions now exist throughout the Caucasus for the explosion of a Balkan type of war, involving not only the regional powers but the major imperialist ones as well.
International repercussions
Internationally, the older imperialist powers find themselves in a much more difficult position. For two decades imperialism has been trying to gradually develop relations with Russia while maintaining their own superiority. Now it finds it has created a monster that is difficult to control. NATO is divided on how to react. On the one hand, Poland, the Ukraine and the Baltic States rushed to Georgia’s defence. The US anti-missile defence system will now go ahead in Poland and the Ukraine.
In reply, Belarus and Russia have announced they will build their own system in opposition. Calls have been made within the G8 to once again return to G7. The US is finding itself in opposition to some of the European capitalists over how to deal with Russia. And in the United Nations the US will find it much harder to carry its position, as Russia will be more willing to use its veto. Whilst the international organisations such as the UN and OSCE are reluctant for their peacekeeping troops to be pulled into the Caucasus, refusal will leave Russia in control. The imperialist powers are being dragged into the Caucasian powder keg.
But the conditions internationally are not the same as those at the start of the nineteen nineties, when the Balkan wars started. Then the Soviet Union had just collapsed, capitalism appeared to have won the ideological war, the world economy was growing steadily and the workers’ movement was disorientated and leaderless. Now, people are beginning to question capitalism more and more, the world economy is in a dire state, the workers movement internationally is beginning to flex its muscles. The lessons of this nightmare situation in the Caucasus must be learned and the way opened for new generations to establish socialist cooperation on the highest scale.
5天战争的影响
战争对高加索地区和其他地方意味着什么？
Rob Jones， 工人国际委员会CWI ，莫斯科 2008年8月23日
由于俄罗斯和高加索格鲁吉亚共和国在很小的分离地区南奥塞梯上的冲突突然升级为一场恶梦般的军事冲突，世界各地媒体的关注焦点转离了中国的奥运会。
南奥塞梯的首府茨欣瓦利在数周的日趋紧张后，格鲁吉亚总统米哈伊尔萨卡什维利出兵夺取了该地区。在8月6日和8月7日的晚上，格鲁吉亚军队用自动武器和火炮袭击了茨欣瓦利和其他五个市镇。对于在最初阶段战斗中死亡的人数，有着不同的说法。
一名俄罗斯记者说，南奥塞梯的首府已严重受损。来自茨欣瓦利的Zaid Tsarnayev告诉路透社说“城市被摧毁，有许多人员伤亡，许多人受伤。” “昨天我在医院，我看到了许多平民受伤。医院后来被格鲁吉亚喷气式飞机摧毁，我不知道是否受伤者仍然在那里” 。南奥塞梯的总统，爱德华科科伊季和俄罗斯外长拉夫罗夫都声称有超过1500人，主要是平民在袭击期间被炸死，至少有15个驻茨欣瓦利的俄罗斯的“维持和平部队”士兵被打死。
随着格鲁吉亚部队夺取城镇，俄罗斯军队以表面上保卫该地区的人民的名义开着一群重型坦克越过俄罗斯进入南奥塞梯的山区。在茨欣瓦利，战斗再次爆发，几天来，无论是俄罗斯还是格鲁吉亚方面的军事发言人都声称他们自己控制了该城镇。双方都使用了自己的空军。
扩大着的破坏
俄罗斯军队随后离开南奥塞梯，占领了哥里市并且袭击了格鲁吉亚其余整个军事和经济目标。哥里市和茨欣瓦利一样遭受了重创。许多人在袭击中丧生或受伤。格鲁吉亚还声称，俄罗斯飞机轰炸了格鲁吉亚在黑海港口的船舶而且还袭击了穿越该国的石油和天然气管道。
萨卡什维利宣称格鲁吉亚进入战争状态，宣布征召预备役军人，并立即撤出了该国驻伊拉克的特遣队。在伊拉克，格鲁吉亚有2000名军人，是继美国和英国后的第三大队伍。双方承受了巨大的要求缓和冲突的外交压力。美国出来并公开地和俄罗斯敌对起来，事实上在整个冲突中，赖斯握着萨卡什维利的手。欧盟试图更加的中立，默克尔和萨尔科齐穿梭于两国首都之间试图找到一种妥协。与高加索地区相邻的伊朗充当了争端斡旋者的角色，而中国呼吁停火，“ 这是奥运会期间传统的回应” ！
现在，虽然许多俄罗斯军队继续留在格鲁吉亚，战争似乎结束了。但是，世界已经发生急剧变化。
地区紧张局势升级
2006年末格鲁吉亚周边地区长期的紧张局势的升级，与之相应的是国际上美国和俄罗斯关系越来越紧张。由于多项因素，俄罗斯政府所谓的“冻结的冲突”升温起来。今年7月第比利斯附近的军事演习中投入了超过一千名美国海军陆战队，格鲁吉亚继续试图加入北约，（虽然今年年初其最后的尝试被拒绝）以及格鲁吉亚公开支持美国导弹防御系统部署在东欧，这些因素都发挥了作用使得冲突越来越深。
不凑巧的是可能因为格鲁吉亚拘捕四名俄罗斯间谍，2006年年底俄罗斯当局发起了针对居住在俄罗斯的格鲁吉亚人的恶劣的种族主义运动。政府实施了对格鲁吉亚的货物主要是葡萄酒和白兰地的经济抵制。结果是很多咖啡厅和酒吧都“干涸了” 。同时，生活在莫斯科的格鲁吉亚人受到的骚扰戏剧性地增加-不断进行护照和工作许可证的检查。俄罗斯电视显示，数百名格鲁吉亚人，在假定'非法'的情况下被载入“紧急情况部“的飞机驱逐出境。数百人通过列车被驱逐出境。
北约的问题使得双方的观点两级化。萨卡什维利把格鲁吉亚加入北约作为他的政府的一个基本政策。因此，令他感到强烈失望的是今年早些时候格鲁吉亚加入北约的申请在布加勒斯特会议上被拒绝了（同乌克兰一起）。一些分析家曾暗示他因此想通过攻击南奥塞梯以便让北约采取行动站在格鲁吉亚一边。这是一个不太可能的说法。萨卡什维利的政府一直面临着越来越多的经济困难。对于大多数的人来说，玫瑰革命的承诺和希望，即格鲁吉亚将加入西方世界将带来较高的生活水准和自由，已落空。
越来越多的反对
随着对其统治反对的增多，示威者开始走上街，2007年11月初，萨卡什维利使用警察和军队打击第比利斯的示威者并宣布国家进入紧急状态。那时，为了能越过这一日益严重的反对声浪，今年1月萨卡什维利宣布提前进行总统大选和决定何时举行议会选举的公民投票。同时，他再次当选，反对党指责萨卡什维利“巧妙操纵”一月的选举。这些事件至少导致一些欧洲列强开始试图和萨卡什维利拉开距离。因此，这更可能是萨卡什维利垂死挣扎，而不是经过深思熟虑的战略计划。
对俄罗斯政府而言，一个关键的转折点是在今年二月对科索沃独立的承认。这是俄罗斯在巴尔干地区的利益的一个打击，因为它看到了一个公开亲美的科索沃政府，该政府是不符合俄罗斯的历史上的盟友塞尔维亚的意愿的。俄罗斯的统治精英恨得咬牙切齿。当时仍是俄罗斯总统的普京指出， “科索沃的做法是一个可怕的先例，实际上这将冲击整个国际关系体系，该冲击的发展不至几十年，而且要几个世纪。他们没有想过他们所做事情的结果。事已做完的时候，这是一个双节棍，其第二节会折回打在他们自己的脸上“ 。
俄罗斯派往北约的特使，民族主义的政客，好久以来一直是克里姆林宫的重要人物的德米特里罗戈津表示的更是明确。他表示这一决定意味着： “我们也不得不从如下观点来办事，即为了得到尊重，我们必须使用蛮力，换句话说用武力” 。此评论紧跟着他先前的关于北约东扩的评论，罗戈津指出： “一旦格鲁吉亚得到华盛顿允许其加入北约的承诺，第二天这两个地区从格鲁吉亚分离出来的进程将马上开始” 。
随着承认科索沃的独立，俄罗斯取消了它曾经对阿布哈兹和南奥塞梯施加的经济限制以便在该共和国加强对它的支持。今年2月至8月的六个月里双方的挑衅行为不断升级，包括飞入禁飞区和枪击事件。在萨卡什维利攻击茨欣瓦利的几个星期之前，俄罗斯派出数十名“铁路”部队进入南奥塞梯，表面上是为了恢复与莫斯科铁路连接。这被第比利斯视为对其领土主权实施的敌对行为，而事实上它有助于解释为什么俄罗斯军队可以这么快地把坦克和军队推进茨欣瓦利。
虚伪——战争的一个症象
正如俄罗斯领导人指出的，美国指责俄罗斯进入格鲁吉亚是令人难以置信的虚伪。毕竟，伊拉克战争是非法的而且残酷。但8月的第二个星期公开战争的爆发见证了双方更令人难以置信的虚伪和宣传。
突然，美国反对起自决权，虽然它支持科索沃独立。俄罗斯支持自决权，虽然它已发动两次残酷的战争以阻止车臣独立。西部亲格鲁吉亚的媒体新闻几乎完全站在支持萨卡什维利的立场上。几乎完全忽略格鲁吉亚部队对茨欣瓦利的首先发动的攻击。城市遭到重炮轰击导致许多平民死亡。后果之一是有12名俄罗斯“维和”士兵也被打死。当俄罗斯派出坦克进入格鲁吉亚后，新闻界主导的消息是俄罗斯侵占该地区。最初的五天战争已经结束之后，才出现文章，例如在位于英国的报纸卫报上，片面地暗示美国应对冲突负责。
俄罗斯媒体站在克里姆林宫一边。专栏只报道茨欣瓦利人民的苦难，而一字不提俄罗斯军队进入格鲁吉亚，或对哥里市狂暴袭击。在没有独立的检查的情况下，夸大其词和谣言漫天飞。他们报道着科科伊季和俄罗斯外长拉夫罗夫声称的在格鲁吉亚的最初攻击中有1600到2000名的平民被炸死的消息。不过，人权观察，在医院调查后，说不超过100名被杀害。
不过这足以使俄罗斯派进部队了。在五天里面，在整个格鲁吉亚，随处可见俄罗斯坦克纵队。同时，亲俄罗斯的目击者盲目地宣称他们看到了成队的北约部队通过格鲁吉亚。双方的试图“客观地”报道的记者成了受害人。俄罗斯国际广播“今日俄罗斯”的一名记者试图从第比利斯发送有关俄罗斯袭击的报告而被迫辞职。企图通过俄罗斯前往南奥塞梯的来自西方的记者受到解雇的威胁。双方抛出了不同的术语，如“法西斯主义者”萨卡什维利，对奥塞梯人的“种族灭绝”， “侵略者”或“斯大林主义的”克里姆林宫来发泄情绪和隐藏真正问题以及分散人们对发生着的人类的严重灾难的注意力。
因此，社会主义者会说些什么呢？
社会主义者立足于什么是有利于或不利于劳动阶层和穷人上。我们反对用经验主义的方法来分析情况的做法——也就是'谁开了第一枪？ ' 我们也不把我们的立场放在伪装的国家利益上。因此，我们只是看到了一些疑问： “谁是亲美帝国主义的或反美帝国主义的？ ” ，而其他人问： “谁是亲俄或反俄的？ ” 但这些问题没有看到如下这一点：这冲突的真正原因是华盛顿和莫斯科的统治阶级间竞争着的帝国主义利益。这就是为什么双方的工人运动必须保持其独立性的原因。
许多左派人士 ，特别是源自斯大林主义的传统的左派，选择了给予俄罗斯的资本主义关键性的支持的做法，他们这样做的基础性认识是在当今世界上俄罗斯及其盟国是对美帝国主义的肆无忌惮最好的防御。这是基于如下悲观的评估：国际工人阶级是没有能力团结起来斗争以推翻资本主义的。他们还相信他们正在支持一个“较小的邪恶” 。
带有改良主义倾向的左派人士和其他人谈及到了在有争议的地区需要一个“中立”部队以监督维持和平，呼吁使用联合国（UN）或欧安组织（OSCE）的部队。然而，正如前南斯拉夫或卢旺达的经历所显示的，这些特遣队也捍卫他们自己的政府的政策并且没有能力维持和平。事实上，巴尔干地区冲突中最严重的大屠杀在斯雷布雷尼察发生时，联合国维和部队无动于衷。
在俄罗斯，革命的马克思主义者所面对的形势是特别困难的。社会上有令人难以置信的要求支持俄罗斯的行动的压力。摆在我们面前的有各种各样的问题——“我们应该如何捍卫俄罗斯护照持有人的权利？ ” “为什么俄罗斯不应该勇敢地抵抗美帝国主义及其傀儡格鲁吉亚萨卡什维利？ ” “当然，如果南奥塞梯的人民要与北奥塞梯统一起来，他们应该有这个权利吗？ “ ”俄罗斯军队进入格鲁吉亚以确保格鲁吉亚军队被解除武装而使他们不可以再攻击我们？ “ ”社会主义是抽象的，现在必须做些什么， “这些问题都需要回答的，但我们也明白，有时社会主义者必须采取长远的看法和采取站在工人阶级的利益上的坚定立场。
应保护谁？
苏联的崩溃和资本主义之恢复的整个悲剧是没有独立的工人阶级的组织能够提供一个方案以结束斯大林主义和资本主义的恐怖。后果之一是，工人阶级分崩离析，社会退化和民族分裂已成为一种规范，这是毫不奇怪的，这是资本主义的本质。即使是“现代的，文明的”的国家，如比利时，英国和西班牙都没有成功地解决民族问题。但在前苏联，新生的资本主义精英自觉无恐地在用种族冲突来达到其目的。
社会主义者需要出来说话，不仅是为了受到攻击的民族，而且是在保卫所有民族的广大劳工阶层反对他们的压迫者的权利。这意味着，尽管萨卡什维利政府的侵略政策，我们也不应该支持南奥塞梯科科伊季（kokoiki）政府，该政府建立在克格勃和军代表以及通过走私和黑市交易筹措财政资金的基础上的政府，该政府得到俄罗斯老板的支持。正如萨卡什维利是一个亲美的走卒，科科伊季政府是一个黑手党的政府，捍卫黑手党的利益与支持俄罗斯的帝国主义。因此，我们呼吁奥塞梯，俄罗斯和格鲁吉亚工人阶级的团结以维护他们的共同利益。
享有自决权意味什么？
正如在南奥塞梯（和科索沃）发生的事件中看到的，自决权的问题被双方虚伪地利用着。所谓的领导人，并不意味着工人阶级和穷人的自决权，只是那些拥有军队和强大的朋友的人的自决权。作为真正的社会主义者，我们通过组织工人阶级和国际性的团结来捍卫我们的自决权和打击一切形式的民族歧视和压迫。正如科索沃和南奥塞梯所证明的，在资本主义下，一个民族的真正独立是没有可能性的。寻求这一个或另一个帝国主义力量的支持不是解决办法。发展一个能挑战和推翻资本主义的独立的工人阶级的力量-在国内和国际上-是保证享有自决权唯一的出路。在另一方面，社会主义者始终不主张工人阶级的分离，我们甚至要做工作以便各民族的劳动阶层在行动上能相互团结起来和联合起来。
在南奥塞梯，我们要问，哪个南奥塞梯有自决的权利？南奥塞梯应在俄罗斯联邦的框架下加入北奥塞梯，或作为一个独立的实体呢？南奥塞梯的一部分应脱离另一部分（沿民族线），既把格鲁吉亚的一部分留在格鲁吉亚和奥塞梯的一部分留在俄罗斯吗？或居住在南奥塞梯的人民应该被迫返回到“现状” ？对于这些变化的每一个，我们可以清楚表明，除非推翻资本主义，该地区基本的经济问题和社会问题将不会得到解决，只要资本主义仍然存在着，该地区仍然会因为世界帝国主义势力为了控制石油和天然气管道而冲突不断，压迫性的民族主义政府为了富人和有权有势的人而将沿民族界限把人们分离开来。
我们支持一个基于社会上的工人和穷人有权决定他们希望生活在什么地方的真正的民族自决权。这只有当劳动阶层和穷人建立起有能力捍卫自己的利益的自己的组织时方能实现。同时，一个自决权不应该以牺牲另一个自决权为代价。因此，我们支持在一个联邦或邦联结构下的任何团体的自治或独立的权利，如果他们愿意的话。工人阶级为真正的而不是斯大林主义意义上的社会主义斗争的最高的团结是我们的目标，我们对民族情绪是敏感的。因此，举例来说，如果南奥塞梯决定独立，其中的格鲁吉亚的人口也应该有权自主或独立，如果他们希望这样做的话。
谁可以维护工人的权益呢？
许多人认为现在至少俄罗斯军队将捍卫南奥塞梯的权利。但在过去20年里，军队（无论是以其常规的形式或非正规的形式）表明，它对该地区的介入是为了这部分或那部分俄罗斯统治精英的利益而以各民族的普通百姓的牺牲为代价的。在阿布哈兹的背景下，它参与了对格鲁吉亚人的大屠杀，仅仅因为他们住在错误的地方。他们并不试图反对科科伊季的如下声明：居住在南奥塞梯的格鲁吉亚人不应被允许返回。决不能说俄罗斯军队通过两次残酷的战争保护了车臣人的权利，它也没有能够确保印古什或北奥塞梯的和平。事实上，军队首领的笨拙的做法恶化了别斯兰市的灾难。
在目前的冲突中，俄罗斯军队占领哥里市和攻击格鲁吉亚港口的船只已显示出它是维护俄罗斯的寡头资本家的石油和天然气的利益的。
短期内，有可能为了创造一个稳定的形象，将看到军队在保护当地人口（至少那些没有被阻止返回的人），但它不久将回到其通常的捍卫俄罗斯的统治阶级利益的角色上来。
在其他此类冲突中，我们已提出要建立工人的防卫力量。但在这些条件下，他们不应该仅仅是成立保卫某一特定地区的居民的“ narodnii opolchentsi ” （人民的捍卫者）。这样他们只会成为以民族为基础的民兵。我们必须主张工人的防卫力量应是多民族的，在工人的民主控制下建立这样的力量以保护工人和穷人免受攻击，不论其民族是什么。
在资本主义下，问题能得到解决吗？
只说在高加索地区的民族和种族冲突完全是资本主义的产物就显得太粗糙了。很清楚斯大林主义的遗产及其处理这些问题的官僚主义的方法在该地区留下了痕迹。但恢复资本主义是导致该地区在以控制石油和天然气路线为目的的派系斗争以及帝国主义列强的无休止的冲突的支配下变得极端贫穷。如果不论其民族是什么，能提供所有人适当的住房和就业机会，像样的卫生服务和教育以及退休金，那么争取自决的斗争必须和与资本主义的斗争联系起来。如果工人能被充分地组织起来并在该地区的任何一个共和国取得政治权力，那么，民族的地图将引人注目地重画，因为生活水平的改善和真正的自决的可能性将意味着各民族将能够合作而不是相互冲突。
这是现实吗？
有人会说： “没错，那很好，但现在我们需要做一些事情！”问题是只要该地区被像萨卡什维利，科科伊季或kadyrev这样的人以及他们的华盛顿和莫斯科帝国主义支持者的支配，就没有实际的解决办法。当然，我们欢迎任何短期的缓和问题的做法，但要警告说，一个真正的解决办法是把资本主义赶出该地区。
要达到这个目的，社会主义的纲领必须基于如下几点：
呼吁俄罗斯，格鲁吉亚和南奥塞梯，当然包括其他国家的所有的工人和左翼活动家一起来要求立即停止军事活动。工人不能依靠他们的政府和外交官的不受控制的行动，或一些外部势力的干预来解决冲突，他们只能依靠他们自己的力量。
所有的俄罗斯和格鲁吉亚军队撤出南奥塞梯以及反对其他资本主义国家派送的部队。我们呼吁在工人阶级的民主控制下建立跨民族的工人的防卫部队而不是以所谓的维持和平部队来保护工人和穷人（不论其民族如何）免受攻击。
为南奥塞梯和其他未被承认的共和国得到没有军事干预的自决权。
号召格鲁吉亚，俄罗斯和南奥塞梯的劳工大众采取联合行动以推翻对普通百姓发动战争的这些国家的政府和把帝国主义赶出该地区。
在工人民主的控制和管理下国有化该地区的石油，天然气和其他自然资源以及运送用的管道，把相关收入用来解决该地区的贫困问题。
在民主选举产生的委员会的控制之下，制定一个紧急的建设计划和创造就业机会为该地区的所有民族的所有难民提供住房和收入。
建立将捍卫工人的利益、克服贫困和确保和平的政府。
一个高加索地区的民主的社会主义联邦-没有它，不可能有任何长期解决土地和资源上的冲突的方案。
该地区面临着什么样的未来呢？
无论目前的军事调遣的最后的结果是什么，没有什么问题能得到解决。格鲁吉亚继续被迫使阿布哈兹和南奥塞梯违背它们的意愿回到格鲁吉亚的集团统治下。萨卡什维利以他的的方式攻击南奥塞梯是犯了一个严重的错误。现在许多西方领导人都意识到他是一个不可靠的盟友。美国无法使得北约同意完全支持他，如果奥巴马赢得美国总统大选，美国外交政策的策略可能会改变。萨卡什维利会发现自己的国内支持率的下降和被世界大国控制。格鲁吉亚的一些反对派领导人已发出呼吁进行新的选举以取代萨卡什维利，但如果萨卡什维利只是被另一个新自由主义政治家取代的话，这些不会有任何的效果。有迫切需要在格鲁吉亚建立真正的左翼来替代萨卡什维利。
在俄罗斯， “梅德韦杰夫与普京的”双簧赢得了得不偿失的胜利。这不会是他发动第二次车臣战争后普京总统成功的一个重复。一方面由于这些事件，整个高加索地区将更加不稳定，需要更大的资源来“控制”该地区。而且经济再增长十年的条件已不复存在。美国，欧盟和日本正经历经济减速或经济衰退。石油价格的进一步严重下跌将重重地打击俄罗斯经济。甚至在这些事件之前，外国对俄罗斯的投资已急剧下降。
财政部部长库德林说，由于战争，160亿美元的外国投资已逃离该国。虽然一段时期内，政权可能会得到暂时的加强，这不大可能成为永久性的。如果经济条件恶化，几年后，人们可能回顾并指出南奥塞梯的战争是一个转折点。唯一的问题是是否有能得到群众支持的真正的左翼替代能发展起来。
在作为一个整体的高加索地区，形势是可怕的。帝国主义列强为了控制该地区而进行的斗争将会更痛苦。现在建设天然气管道是个问题，因为投资者对不稳定的不满。俄罗斯使得萨卡什维利得到惩罚的明显的成功可能会鼓励阿泽（Azeri）政权尝试夺取纳戈尔诺-卡拉巴赫，使之回到其控制下。整个高加索地区现有的状况将爆发一场巴尔干类型的战争，不仅涉及区域势力，而且包括主要的帝国主义势力。
国际反响
在国际上，老帝国主义列强发现自己处在一个更为困难的境地。二十年来帝国主义者一直在试图逐步发展与俄罗斯的关系，同时保持自己的优势。现在它认为它创造了一个难以控制的怪兽。北约在如何作出反应上出现了分歧。一方面，波兰，乌克兰和波罗的海国家忙着保卫格鲁吉亚。现在美国反导弹防御系统将在波兰和乌克兰推进部署。
作为回应，白俄罗斯和俄罗斯已经宣布，它们将建立自己的反制系统。八国集团内已呼吁再次返回到七国集团。美国发现在如何对付俄罗斯上，它遭到了一些欧洲资本家的反对。在联合国，美国将在坚持自己的立场上更为困难，俄罗斯将更为有意愿去使用其否决权。由于国际组织如联合国和欧安组织都不情愿把他们的维和部队派往高加索地区，拒不允许俄罗斯去控制。帝国主义列强将被拖入高加索火药库。
但国际条件和1990年代初巴尔干战争时不一样。当时苏联刚刚垮台，资本主义似乎已经赢得了意识形态的斗争，世界经济稳步增长以及工人运动失去方向感并且缺乏领导。现在，人们已开始越来越多地质疑资本主义的问题，世界经济正处于一个可怕的状态，国际上工人运动已开始施展其力量。必须从高加索地区的这场恶梦般的情况中汲取教训和为新的一代在高水平上建立社会主义合作关系开辟道路。
23 August 2008
Russia and Georgia
Implications of a five day war
What does the war mean for the Caucusus and beyond?
Rob Jones, CWI, Moscow
The world’s press had their attention diverted from the glitter of China’s Olympic Games as the conflict between Russia and the Caucasian republic of Georgia over the small breakaway region of South Ossetia suddenly escalated into a nightmarish military conflict.
After weeks of growing tension in South Ossetia’s capital, Tskhinvali, Georgia’s President Mikhail Saakashvili sent troops to seize the region. Over the night of 6th and 7th August Georgian troops attacked Tskhinvali and five other towns with automatic weapons and artillery. Claims vary on the number killed in the initial stages of the fighting.
A Russian journalist said the South Ossetian capital had been badly damaged. "The town is destroyed. There are many casualties, many wounded," Zaid Tsarnayev told Reuters from Tskhinvali. "I was in the hospital yesterday where I saw many civilian wounded. The hospital was later destroyed by a Georgian jet. I don't know whether the wounded were still there". Both South Ossetia’s president, Eduard Kokoiti, and Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, have claimed that over 1500 people, mainly peaceful residents were killed during the attacks. At least 15 Russian “peacekeeping troops” based in Tskhinvali were killed.
With the Georgian troops having initially seized the town, Russian troops, headed by a huge column of heavy tanks, crossed the mountain passes from Russia into South Ossetia, ostensibly to defend the people of the area. Fighting again broke out in Tskhinvali and for days, both Russian and Georgian military spokesmen claimed control of the city. Both sides used their airforce.
Unfolding destruction
Russian troops then moved out of South Ossetia, occupying the city of Gori and attacking military and economic targets throughout the rest of Georgia. Gori ended up in the same state of destruction as Tskhinvali. Many were killed or wounded in these attacks. The Georgians also claim that Russian aircraft bombed ships in Georgia’s Black Sea Ports and that the oil and gas pipelines crossing the country were also attacked.
Saakashvili declared that Georgia was in a state of war, announced the call up of reservists and the immediate withdrawal of the country’s contingent from Iraq. Georgia has 2,000 troops there, the third biggest contingent after the US and Britain,. Huge diplomatic pressure was put on both sides to tone down the conflict. The US came out openly hostile to Russia, with Condoleezza Rice in effect holding Saakashvili’s hand throughout the conflict. The EU tried to be more bi-partisan, with Merkel and Sarkozy shuttling between the two capitals trying to find a compromise. Iran, which borders on the Caucasian region, offered to arbitrate in the dispute, whilst China called for a ceasefire “which is the traditional response during the Olympic Games”!
Now, although many Russian troops remain in Georgia, the fighting war appears to be over. But the world has dramatically changed.
Regional tensions escalated
Long-running tensions in the region around Georgia escalated considerably after the end of 2006 in parallel with the increase in tensions between the US and Russia internationally. What the Russian government called the “frozen conflict” heated up as a result of a number of factors. Military exercises near Tbilisi in July of this year, involving over a thousand US marines, Georgia’s continued attempts to join NATO, (although the last attempt was pushed back at the beginning of this year) and Georgia’s open support for the US missile defence system based in Eastern Europe have all played a role in bringing the conflict closer.
Not coincidentally a nasty racist campaign had been launched by the Russian authorities against Georgians living in Russia towards the end of 2006, supposedly after the Georgians arrested four Russian spies. The government imposed an economic boycott of Georgian goods, mainly wine and brandy. As a result many cafes and bars “ran dry”. At the same time harassment of Georgians living in Moscow was stepped up dramatically – passports and work permits constantly checked. Russian TV showed hundreds of Georgians, who were supposedly ‘illegal’, being loaded onto ‘Ministry of Emergencies’ aircraft for deportation. Many hundreds more were sent by train.
The question of NATO has acted to polarise opinions on both sides. Saakashvili had made the entry of Georgia into NATO a key policy of his administration. He was therefore bitterly disappointed that the application was pushed back (together with the Ukraine’s) at the Bucharest Conference earlier this year. Some analysts have suggested that he therefore decided to attack South Ossetia in order to attempt to push NATO into action on Georgia’s side. This is an unlikely explanation. Saakashvili’s government has been meeting increasing economic difficulties. For the majority of the population, the promises and hopes of the Rose Revolution that somehow Georgia would join the West with its high living standards and freedoms, have been dashed.
Growing opposition
As opposition to his rule grew, protesters began to come out on the streets Saakashvili, in early November 2007, used police and troops to attack demonstrators in Tbilisi and declared a state of emergency. Then, in an attempt to cut across this growing opposition, Saakashvili announced an early presidential election and a referendum on when to hold parliamentary elections in January this year. While he was re-elected the opposition accused Saakashvili of “subtly rigging” January’s election. These events led at least some European powers to begin to try and distance themselves from Saakashvili. It is therefore more likely that Saakashvili, rather than following a well thought out strategic plan, was actually desperately trying to find a way out of the corner into which he had been forced.
A key turning point for the Russian government was the recognition of Kosovo independence in February of this year. This was a blow to Russian interests in the Balkans as it saw an openly pro-US Kosovan government granted recognition against the wishes of Russia’s historical ally Serbia. Russia’s ruling elite reacted with venom spitting through clenched teeth. The then still Russian president, Putin, stated that, “The precedent of Kosovo is a terrible precedent, which will de facto blow apart the whole system of international relations, developed not over decades, but over centuries. They have not thought through the results of what they are doing. At the end of the day it is a two-ended stick and the second end will come back and hit them in the face".
Russia’s envoy to NATO, nationalist politician and long time Kremlin insider Dmitri Rogozin was even more explicit. This decision, he stated means that: "We too would then have to proceed from the view that in order to be respected we must use brute force, in other words armed force". This comment follows on from his earlier comments concerning NATO expansion, in which Rogozin stated: “As soon as Georgia gets the promise to join NATO from Washington, on the next day the real process to separate these two territories from Georgia will begin.”
Following the recognition of Kosova, Russia lifted the economic restrictions it still had in place against Abkhazia and South Ossetia and activated its attempts to strengthen its support in the republics. The sixth months from February to August this year saw a steady increase in incidents provoked by both sides including flights into the no fly zone and shooting incidents. In the weeks before Saakashvili’s attack on Tskhinvali, Russia sent scores of “railway troops” into South Ossetia, ostensibly to restore the rail link with Moscow. This was interpreted by Tbilisi as a hostile act on sovereign territory, and indeed it helps to explain how the Russian army could get tanks and troops into Tskhinvali so quickly.
Hypocrisy – the first sign of war
As the Russian leadership point out, the US is unbelievably hypocritical when it attacks Russia for going in to Georgia. After all the war in Iraq is illegal and just as brutal. But the outbreak of open warfare in the second week of August saw even more incredible hypocrisy and propaganda on both sides.
Suddenly the US is against self-determination, although it supports Kosovo independence. Russia supports self-determination although it has waged two brutal wars to prevent Chechen independence. The western pro-Georgian press put almost purely the pro-Saakashvili position. Almost no attention was paid to the initial attack by Georgian troops on Tskhinvali. The town was subjected to heavy artillery bombardment leaving many of the civilian population dead. As a result 12 Russian “peacekeeping” troops were also killed. After the Russians sent tanks into Georgia, the press was dominated by the Russian occupation. Only after the initial five days war was over did articles start appearing, for example in the Guardian, a British-based newspaper, suggesting, in a one-sided way, that the US was responsible for the conflict.
The Russian press towed the Kremlin line to a man. Columns reported on the suffering of the population in Tskhinvali but not a word was said about Russian troops moving into Georgia, or the vicious attacks on Gori. Exaggerations and rumours were reported with no independent checking. The claims of Kokoiti and Russian foreign minister Lavrov that between 1,600 and 2,000 civilians were killed in Georgia’s initial attack are taken as read. However Human Rights Watch, after surveying hospitals, talks of less than a hundred being killed.
But this was enough for Russia to send the troops in. During the five days, Russian tank columns were spotted throughout Georgia. At the same time pro-Russian witnesses swore blindly they had seen columns of NATO troops moving through Georgia. Reporters on both sides who tried to be “objective” were victimised. A reporter for Russia’s world service, “Russia today”, tried to send reports from Tbilisi reporting on Russian attacks but was forced to resign. Reporters from western papers who attempted to go to South Ossetia through Russia were threatened with the sack. Varying terminology on both sides such as the “fascist” Saakashvili, the “genocide” of the Ossetian people, “aggressors” or the “Stalinist” Kremlin are thrown around to play on emotions and hide the real issues and distract from the grave human catastrophe taking place.
So what would socialists say?
Socialists base themselves on what is beneficial or detrimental to the working class and poor people. We reject attempts to analyse the situation in an empirical way – that is, ‘Who fired the first shot?’ Nor do we base our standpoint on questions that can be used to disguise national interests. Thus we see some asking simply “Who is pro- or anti-US imperialism?”, while others ask “Who is pro- or anti-Russian?” But these questions miss the point that the real reason for this clash is the competing imperialist interests of the ruling classes in both Washington and Moscow. This is why the workers’ movement must maintain its independence from both.
Many lefts, especially from a Stalinist tradition, have chosen to give critical support to Russian capitalism, on the basis that Russia and its allies are the best defence there is in the world today against unbridled US imperialism. This is based on the pessimistic assessment that the international working class is incapable of uniting and struggling to overthrow capitalism. They still imagine they are backing a “lesser evil”.
Lefts with a reformist leaning and others speak of the need for a “neutral” force to oversee peace-keeping in the disputed regions. Calls are made for UN or OSCE troops to be used. However, as the experience of the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda show, these contingents also defend the policies of their own governments and are not capable of maintaining peace. Indeed the worst massacre of the conflicts in the Balkans, at Srebrenica took place while UN peacekeepers looked the other way.
In particular, the position facing revolutionary Marxists in Russia is hard. There is incredible pressure in society to support the Russian actions. All sorts of questions are thrown at us - “How else are we supposed to defend the rights of the Russian passport holders?” “Why shouldn’t Russia stand up to US imperialism and its Georgian puppet Saakashvili?” “Surely if the people of South Ossetia want to unite with North Ossetia, they should have the right?” “Russian troops are in Georgia just to ensure that the Georgian army is disarmed and can no longer attack us?” “Socialism is abstract, something has to be done now.” These questions have to be answered, but we also understand that sometimes socialists must adopt the longer view and take a firm position in the interests of the working class.
Who should be defended?
The whole tragedy of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the restoration of capitalism is that there was no independent working class organisation capable of offering a programme to end the horrors of Stalinism and capitalism. As a consequence, the working class has become divided; social degradation and ethnic division have become the norm. This is no surprise. This is in the nature of capitalism. Even “modern, civilised” states such as Belgium, Britain and Spain have not succeeded in solving the national question. But in the former Soviet Union the newly developed capitalist elites have not baulked at consciously using ethnic conflict to further their aims.
Socialists need to speak out, not only in favour of the ethnic group under attack, but also in defence of the rights of the working class of all ethnic groups against their oppressors. This means, notwithstanding the aggressive policies of the Saakashvili government, we should give no support to the Kokoiki government in South Ossetia, based on KGB and army representatives and financing itself through smuggling and the black market, with the support of its Russian paymasters. Just as Saakashvili is a pro-American stooge, the Kokoiti government is a mafia government, defending mafia interests with the backing of Russian imperialism. We therefore call for the unity of the Ossetian, Russian and Georgian working class in defence of their common interests.
What does the right of self-determination mean?
As seen in the events around South Ossetia (and Kosova), the question of self-determination is used hypocritically by both sides. So-called leaders do not mean self-determination for the working class and poor, just for those who have armies and powerful friends. As genuine socialists, we defend the right of self-determination and fight against all forms of national discrimination and oppression through organising working class and international solidarity. As Kosovo and South Ossetia demonstrate, under capitalism there is no possibility of a nation being genuinely independent. Seeking the support of one or another imperialist power is no solution. Developing an independent working class force capable of challenging and overthrowing capitalism – nationally and internationally – is the only way to guarantee the right of self-determination. On the other hand, socialists do not always advocate separation and even when we do work to build the solidarity between and unity in action of the working class of all nationalities.
In South Ossetia, we have to ask which South Ossetia has the right to self-determination? Should South Ossetia join with North Ossetia, within the Russian Federation or as an independent entity? Should part of South Ossetia break away from another part (along ethnic lines) leaving the Georgian part in Georgia and the Ossetian part in Russia? Or should the people who live in South Ossetia be forced to return to the “status quo”? In each of these variations, we can say clearly that the fundamental economic and social problems of the region will not be solved unless capitalism is overthrown, So long as capitalism remains the region will still be subject to the permanent conflict of the world’s imperialist powers for control of the oil and gas pipelines, that repressive and nationalist governments will attempt to divide people along ethnic lines in the interests of the rich and powerful.
We support a genuine right to self-determination based on the rights of the working class and poor in society to decide where they wish to live. This can only be determined when the working class and poor have established their own organisations capable of defending their interests. At the same time self-determination of one group should not be at the expense of another. We therefore support the right to autonomy or independence of any groups within a federal or confederal structure if they so desire. While the maximum unity of the working class in the struggle for socialism, in the genuine and not Stalinist meaning, is our aim we are sensitive to national feelings. Thus if, for example, South Ossetia decided to become independent, the Georgian population within it should have the right to be autonomous or independent, if they so wish.
Who can defend the rights of workers?
Many now argue that at least the Russian army will defend the rights of South Ossetia now. But during the course of the last twenty years, the army (either in its regular form or through irregular units) has shown that it intervenes in the region in the interest of one section or another of the Russian ruling elite at the cost of ordinary people of all nationalities. In the Abkhazia context, it participated in the massacre of Georgians, for no other reason than that they lived in the wrong place. No attempt has been made to counter the recent statements of Kokoiti that Georgians living in Ossetia should not be allowed to return. In no way can the Russian army be said to have defended the rights of Chechens through two brutal wars, nor has it been able to ensure peace in Ingushetia or North Ossetia. Indeed it was the bungling of the army chiefs that worsened the Beslan catastrophe.
During the present conflict, by occupying Gori and attacking ships in Georgian ports, the Russian army has shown it is defending the oil and gas interests of Russia’s capitalist oligarchs.
It may be possible that for a short period, to create an image of stability, the army will be seen to defend the local population (at least those who have not been prevented from returning) but it will soon return to its normal role of defending the interests of the Russian ruling class.
In other such conflicts, we have raised the need to establish workers’ defence forces. But in these conditions they should not be simply “narodnii opolchentsi”, (people’s defenders) formed to defend residents of a particular area. As such they would just become ethnically-based militias. We need to argue that workers’ defence forces should be multi-ethnic, formed to defend workers and the poor from attack, whatever their nationality and under the democratic control of the working class.
Can the question be solved under capitalism?
It is too crude to say that the national and ethnic conflicts in the Caucasus are entirely the result of capitalism. The legacy of Stalinism and its bureaucratic approach to the question of nationalities has clearly left its mark in the region. However it has been the restoration of capitalism that has left the region so desperately poor, under the control of warring factions struggling to control oil and gas routes and subject to the never ending conflict between imperialist powers. If proper homes and jobs, a decent health service and education, pensions are to be provided for all, irrespective of nationality, then the struggle for self-determination has to be linked to the struggle against capitalism. If workers were to be sufficiently organised to take political power in any of the republics in that region, then the nationalities map would be dramatically re-drawn as the improvement in living standards and the possibility of genuine self determination would mean that ethnic groups would be able to cooperate and not be in conflict with each other.
Is this realistic?
Some will say, “Yes, that’s nice but we need to do something now!” The problem is that there is no realistic solution as long as the region is dominated by the likes of Saakashvili, Kokoiti or Kadyrev and by their imperialist backers in Washington and Moscow. Of course we would welcome any short-term easing of the problems but have to warn that, to reach a genuine solution, capitalism has to be driven out of the region.
To achieve this the socialists’ programme is based around:
• a call on all worker and left activists in Russia, Georgia and South Ossetia, and of course in other countries, to demand that military activities are immediately halted. Workers cannot rely on the uncontrolled actions of their governments, diplomats or intervention by some outside forces to solve the conflict, they can only rely on their own forces.
• the withdrawal of all Russian and Georgian troops from South Ossetia and oppose troops supplied by other capitalist states. We call for the formation of trans-ethnic workers’ defence forces to defend workers and poor people from attack, whatever their nationality, and under the democratic control of the working class rather than so-called peace-keeping forces.
• for the right of South Ossetia and the other unrecognised republics to self-determination without military intervention.
• for united action by the working masses of Georgia, Russia and South Ossetia to overthrow those governments who wage war against ordinary people and to drive imperialism out of the region.
• the nationalisation under democratic workers’ control and management of the oil, gas and other natural resources in the region and the pipelines through which they are transported and for the use of the income from these for overcoming poverty in the region.
• an emergency construction programme and job creation to provide homes and incomes for all refugees of all nationalities in the region, under the control of democratically elected committees.
• the establishment of governments which will defend workers’ interests, overcome poverty and ensure peace.
• for a democratic socialist federation of the Caucasus - without this there can be no long-term solution to the conflict over land and resources.
What future now faces the region?
Whatever the final outcome of the current military manoeuvrings, nothing has been resolved. Georgia continues to be ruled by a clique set on forcing Abkhazia and South Ossetia against their will back into Georgia. Saakashvili has made a serious error in attacking South Ossetia in the way he did. Now many western leaders are realising that he is an unreliable ally. The US could not get NATO to agree to fully back him, and, if Obama wins the US Presidential election, US foreign policy tactics may change. Saakashvili will find himself with declining support at home and held at arm’s length by the world powers. Some opposition leaders in Georgia have issued the call for elections to replace Saakashvili, but these will have no purpose if Saakashvili is just replaced by another set of neoliberal politicians. There is an urgent need in Georgia to build a genuine left wing alternative to Saakashvili.
In Russia, the “Medvedev-Putin” tandem has won a Pyrrhic victory. This will not be a repeat of the success of Putin’s presidency after he waged the second Chechen war. On the one hand the whole Caucasus region will be more unstable as a result of these events, demanding even greater resources to “control” the area. But also the conditions no longer exist for a further ten years of economic growth. The US, EU and Japan are now experiencing a slow-down or recession. A further major fall in oil prices would hit the Russian economy hard. There was already a sharp decline in foreign investment into Russia even before these events.
Finance Minister Kudrin says that as a result of the war $16 billion of foreign investment has fled the country. Although for a period there may be a temporary strengthening of the regime, this is unlikely to be permanent. If economic conditions worsen, in a couple of years people could well look back and say that the South Ossetia war was a turning point. The only question is whether a serious left wing alternative capable of building mass support can develop in time.
In the Caucasus as a whole, the situation is dire. The struggle by imperialist powers for control will be even more bitter. The building of the gas pipeline is now under question as the investors are unhappy about the instability. The apparent success of Russia in bringing Saakashvili to book may encourage the Azeri regime to try and wrest Nagorno Karabakh back under its control. The conditions now exist throughout the Caucasus for the explosion of a Balkan type of war, involving not only the regional powers but the major imperialist ones as well.
International repercussions
Internationally, the older imperialist powers find themselves in a much more difficult position. For two decades imperialism has been trying to gradually develop relations with Russia while maintaining their own superiority. Now it finds it has created a monster that is difficult to control. NATO is divided on how to react. On the one hand, Poland, the Ukraine and the Baltic States rushed to Georgia’s defence. The US anti-missile defence system will now go ahead in Poland and the Ukraine.
In reply, Belarus and Russia have announced they will build their own system in opposition. Calls have been made within the G8 to once again return to G7. The US is finding itself in opposition to some of the European capitalists over how to deal with Russia. And in the United Nations the US will find it much harder to carry its position, as Russia will be more willing to use its veto. Whilst the international organisations such as the UN and OSCE are reluctant for their peacekeeping troops to be pulled into the Caucasus, refusal will leave Russia in control. The imperialist powers are being dragged into the Caucasian powder keg.
But the conditions internationally are not the same as those at the start of the nineteen nineties, when the Balkan wars started. Then the Soviet Union had just collapsed, capitalism appeared to have won the ideological war, the world economy was growing steadily and the workers’ movement was disorientated and leaderless. Now, people are beginning to question capitalism more and more, the world economy is in a dire state, the workers movement internationally is beginning to flex its muscles. The lessons of this nightmare situation in the Caucasus must be learned and the way opened for new generations to establish socialist cooperation on the highest scale.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)
