Anyone who knows anything about the NYT's reporting on this war knows well that it focused almost exclusively on Russian crimes and initially paid little to no attention to the fact that Georgia began the fighting - that is, the war - when it carried out a large-scale ground invasion and indiscriminate bombing of civilians in South Ossetia's capitol Tskhinvali near midnight on August 7-8.
When the NYT did turn to the question of who precipitated the war, it dutifully published tapes received from Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili that purported to show that Russian began a large-scale invasion before the Georgians invaded, thereby justifying the Georgian attack. The NYT covered itself at the end of the article by mentioning that U.S. intelligence officials had stated that the veracity of the contents of the tapes and the Georgians' interpretation of them could only be verified if the entire body of taped calls and logs were handed over for analysis.
The tapes have never been verified as showing what Saakashvili claimed they showed (which was a Russian invasion of South Ossetia prior to the Georgian attack). Since Saakashvili lied about numerous other aspects of the war - for example, that the Russians set up detention camps, (trying to insinuate into Westerners' minds the images which moved the West to intervene in the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s), there was little reason to accept Saakashvili's interpretation of those tapes. Curiously, U.S. and NATO technical intelligence means have never verified the Georgians' claim of a Russian invasion of South Ossetia." This did not stop the NYT from dragging the tapes out once more on the eve of the EU report's release (see Ellen Barry, "E.U. Report to Place Blame on Both Sides in Georgia War," New York Times, September 29, 2009).
Do not be misled by the title of the NYT article, its contents did not reflect the title's reference to blaming both sides. Indeed, NYT articles published before and after showed the very predilection of siding with Georgia and focusing almost solely on Russia's violations of international law (see Gordon M. Hahn,"New York Times Tries to Soften Blow of Forthcoming EU Report on Georgia-Russian Five-Day War,"October 2, 2009 ). It was not the NYT but ROPV Russia Media Watch that has long been saying that "everyone is to blame," and we demonstrated so in the days and weeks following the war (see Gordon M. Hahn, "The Making of the Georgian Five-Day War: A Chronology of Military and Violent Events, June-August 7, 2008," Johnson's Russia List, #173, 24 September 2008; Gordon M. Hahn, "Georgia War: Timeline," Russia - Other Points of View, 22 September 2008; Gordon M. Hahn, "Georgia's Propaganda War," Russia - Other Points of View, 5 September 2008; and Gordon M. Hahn, "Georgia's Propaganda War (Long Version)," Russia - Other Points of View, 5 September 2008 . See also the exchange of views on the August war that took place on Johnson's Russia List between Professor Gordon M. Hahn, on the one hand, and Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili's chief PR consultant and two U.S. military officers, on the other hand, at Russia - Other Points of View through the link.
If the NYT "has long suspected" and apparently is now convinced that "everyone is to blame," then why does reporter Ellen Barry persist in shameful slanting the stories to emphasize only the report's critique of Russian conduct?
The NYT did it again one day after the EU report's release when it used its pages as if they belonged to a PR firm hired by Tbilisi. In an October 1 article "Georgia Challenges Report That Says It Fired First Shot" written by Ellen Barry, the NYT reports to the world for Georgia's objections to the EU report. Barry refers cursorily and vaguely to "Georgia attacking South Ossetia", but leaves out the details. However, when it comes to "Russia's long-term policy that provoked, and then exploited, the violence," Barry is quick to get into details on Russian violations and underscore them further by claiming the Commission report's author "emphasized" them (as opposed to Georgia's violations). It is Barry and the NYT who want to emphasize the "'years of provocations, mutual accusations, military and political threats and acts of violence' that led to the war - and urged readers to look beyond the issue of 'who shot first'.
Barry then gives some ink to a Russian official's point of view but quickly implies that she has caught him in a lie. She quotes Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the lower house of the Russian parliament's committee on foreign affairs, who points out that "events would have unfolded differently," if the kind of balanced criticism contained in the EU report had guided Western official and media reaction rather than the extreme pro-Georgian bias they displayed. Barry then pulls a slight of hand, writing: "In fact, the report finds serious wrongdoing on both sides." Of course, Kosachev was not complaining about the report. This trick was not only cheap, it was sloppy, and the careful readers likely caught it.
Barry then admits to the only Georgian violation she ever discusses - the bombing of the civilians of Tskhinvali and of Russian peacekeepers - after which she tries to undermine the EU and the Russian position. Of course, these particulars are never mentioned. Instead, the discussion is framed by repeating charges the Georgians made against the Russians - and noting that the report found that these Russian violations did not warrant Georgia's own.
The article repeatedly mentions Georgian charges and Russian violations, but no Russian charges and but one Georgian violation. But Barry and the NYT never mention the report's condemnation of Georgia's use of cluster bombs, its past policies of discrimination and violence against Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and Saakashvili's election promises to reclaim South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Barry then mentions twice - once in her text and once quoting a Georgian official - the unverified Georgian claim that a German member of the EU commission was biased and had been bought off by Russia's GazProm. This was the second and third rehearsal of this charge in the last two days in the NYT. By this time many readers had already come away with the NYT's main point: that despite the EU report's reiterating there was blame on all three sides, as far as the NYT's position, it was that Russia bears the most blame.
Here are the report's main findings regarding the respective combatant sides' violations of international humanitarian and human rights law:
* Allegations of genocide against Ossetians are not substantiated by evidence.
* There is serious and concurring evidence to indicate that ethnic cleansing was
committed by South Ossetians against ethnic Georgians in South Ossetia, through forced displacement and the destruction of their property.
* Violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and Human Rights Law (HRL) were committed by Georgia, Russia and South Ossetia. Very few examples of violations by Abkhaz forces were documented during the conflict or in its aftermath.
* While the August 2008 conflict lasted only five days, numerous violations of IHL were
committed during this period by Georgia, Russia and South Ossetia.
* Very serious violations of IHL and HRL were committed by South Ossetian forces, armed groups and individuals after the cease-fire.
* Violations mainly concern IHL on the conduct of hostilities, treatment of persons and
property and forced displacement.
* Dangers posed by explosive remnants of war, notably unexploded munitions from Georgia's use of cluster bombs, also need to be addressed.
* More specifically, violations include indiscriminate attacks and a lack of precautions by Georgia and Russia; a widespread campaign of looting and burning of ethnic Georgian
villages by South Ossetians, as well as ill treatment, such as beating, hostage-taking and arbitrary arrests; and the failure by Russia to prevent or stop violations by South Ossetian forces
and armed groups and individuals, after the cease-fire, in the buffer zone and in South Ossetia."
The report concluded that Russia's post-war conduct and South Ossetia's wartime and post-war conduct have violated international law and are responsible for the following points:
* The situation of the ethnic Georgians in the Gali District following the conflict and still at the time of writing this Report gives cause for serious concern under HRL.
* The situation of the ethnic Georgians in the Akhalgori region also raises serious concerns, as many continue to leave this region at the time of writing.
* Issues relating to insecurity and the destruction of property are key obstacles to the return of displaced persons, in particular the return of ethnic Georgians to South Ossetia.
* Measures still need to be taken by all sides to ensure accountability and reparation for all violations (report by the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia, Vol. II, pp. 430-31)
The report also criticizes the West's, particularly U.S. support for Saakashivili's military buildup and political thrust to restore Georgia's territorial integrity (which Saakhashvili intended to achieve by force). It also criticizes Europe's and responsible international organizations' failure to resolve the dispute between Georgia and the two breakaway republics.
EDITORIAL
A report by the European Union on last year’s brief but nasty war between Russia and Georgia confirms what we have long suspected: everyone is to blame.
Georgia is to blame because its blustering president, Mikheil Saakashvili, initiated a foolhardy attack into South Ossetia; Russia because it bullied and goaded Mr. Saakashvili and then used the attack as an excuse to invade Georgia; the United States because it tacitly encouraged Mr. Saakashvili for far too long; and Europe because it did nothing at all.
None of that may be surprising. But the report is still worth reading as an anatomy of a post-Soviet mess that was allowed to fester for too long — and could erupt again unless all sides show a lot more sense.
Unfortunately, neither the Russians nor the Georgians seem interested in learning anything. The Georgian government continues to insist — despite the report’s findings — that the Russian invasion was already under way when it decided to send in its own troops. Georgia’s ambassador to the European Union said that if the investigators didn’t think Georgia’s citizens deserved protection “then that’s a matter of opinion.”
The Russian government insisted that the report had vindicated its actions, but it rejected the finding that its army used disproportionate force and accused the European Union of a continuing bias.
What these governments should be paying attention to is the report’s real bottom line: Everybody lost. More than a year later, an estimated 30,000 people, mostly ethnic Georgians, are still displaced. Georgia is divided. Russia’s recognition of the independence of two rebel provinces, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, poses a lasting obstacle to better relations with the West.
The only way to repair the damage — and head off another fight — is for both sides to clean up their acts. The Kremlin will have to stop looking for ways to provoke Georgia and abandon, once and for all, its imperial ambitions. Georgia’s leaders need to figure out that their best chance of recovering their lost provinces is by making the idea of a union with a democratic Georgia, one respectful of minority rights, a lot more attractive.
The United States and the European Union also need to learn that heading off conflicts before they erupt is a lot easier than trying to pick up the pieces afterward.
Comments