Georgy Kalatozishvili, Tbilisi. Exclusively to Vestnik Kavkaza
Georgia continues discussing the feasibility of a criminal investigation into the developments of August 2008. Society, politicians, and experts have never been so disengaged since the parliamentary elections. It is interesting that the discussion appeared after the five-day war had paled into insignificance on the international agenda, except for routine diplomatic contacts in Geneva for development of “international mechanisms on security in the South Caucasus.”
The conflict between the teams of the president and prime minister is developing as the presidential elections approach; the political struggle has its own logic and, if an argument exists, it will be used.
The story began with a statement by the general prosecutor, Archil Kbilashvili, about the need for a criminal investigation into military crimes and probably genocide during the conflict over South Ossetia. Kbilashvili made the statement in the context of other accusations against President Mikhail Saakashvili. The general prosecutor emphasized that the international criminal court of the Hague demands an investigation into the five-day war developments. As Russia doesn’t recognize the jurisdiction of the court, the people involved in the investigation can only be Georgian leaders and military personnel. Kbilashvili’s statements caused a row, but were ascribed to the formalism of the top lawyer and his desire to fulfil his international duties. However, it was clear that such statements couldn’t be voiced without blessing from a high level.
The real sensation was a phrase by Premier Ivanishvili, who directly accused Saakashvili of starting the war and totally agreed with the version of developments put forward by the Russian authorities. “Saakashvili began military actions ahead of the Russian troops crossed the border. He made it in response to shootings by unknown armed groups, even though he had an opportunity to involve international observers and prevent an escalation using a wide-scale police operation,” the premier said, noting that the head of state “will have to answer investigators’ questions” on the issue.
Saakashvili responded to the statement by his main opponent while he was in Warsaw. He rejected the possibility of cooperation “with an anti-state investigation,” i.e. he initially refused to answer questions by a possible investigation even as a witness and accused Ivanishvili of fulfilling “the Kremlin’s orders.”
What could be the international legal consequences of the premier’s statements about Saakashvili's responsibility for starting the war and the need to interrogate him? The expert community has already voiced the idea that Moscow gets an important political and legal argument, at least for further improvement of the status quo over Abkhazia and South Ossetia; while attempts by the new Georgian authorities to make the “occupation” issue acute at international level will face the growing trend of “Tbilisi’s blame” for starting the war.
The most interesting question is: what were the reasons for the Georgian prime minister accusing the president of being guilty of starting the war? Probably Ivanishvili wanted to show Moscow that the new authorities of the country intend to change the policy toward Russia. At the same time, not all citizens of Georgia agree with Ivanishvili’s version of the developments of August 2008.
