The news media failed to accurately and objectively evaluate the conflict between Russia and Georgia this past summer (2008), and have done little to ease lingering tension. To be certain, the story was not `missed,' coverage of the assault littered news programs. However, half of the story has bee `neglected.'
This half has to do with Georgia's responsibility for the conflict, and more specifically the responsibility of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili.
There is a disturbing tendency and near-enthusiasm to depict Russia as a marauder. This half of the story received a fair amount of coverage with John McCain claiming `today we are all Georgians,' and Obama echoing these statements from his home in Hawaii. While the media was quick to jump on the familiar story of David (Georgia) versus Goliath (Russia), certain balancing facts were not given their fair shake.
Points for: Russia is a much larger country with an admittedly bad history of exerting force on its smaller, previously sovereign countries. Elements of the Russian offensive were perhaps too violent in their scale – such as refusing to leave Georgia after the conflict had been resolved, including the false-withdrawal of troops from Abkhazia. But these aspects were, for the most part, covered.
Points against: While countries like Ukraine have a distinct population, Georgia does have a significantly large population with claims to Russian citizenship (the controversy surrounding the Orange Revolution is a prime example of tension over sovereignty). The division of Ossetia into North and South is reflective of many years of political separatism. Granted, relations between the two halves have been largely peaceful, excluding Soviet pressure levied in the early 1920s and a more violent separatist attempt by South Ossetia around the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. However, the division is an artificial border in the sense that many people in Georgia are considered Russian citizens and hold Russian passports. The tension between Russian nationals and the admittedly brash Georgian government has been on going, well before the 2008 attacks. Georgian government has banned the broadcasting of Russian television stations and even resorted to violent restraint on the more vocal Russian and separatist communities living in Georgia. Saakashvili's claim of Russian aggression neglects his own authorized attacks against Russian nationals. This oversight panders to the sympathies of the United States government, whom he expected would support Georgia militarily.
While Saakashvili was unable to win the support of the government, the American public was largely persuaded – helped by the media – that Georgia was the victim of Russian aggression.
This doesn't mean that Russia was right, or even that it was not an aggressor. The need for Russian military – as opposed to diplomatic – action is debatable, and the delayed withdrawal of troops is a certain indicator of post-conflict aggression, but this is not the full story. The media largely neglected to cover the pre-conflict situation in Georgia and the legitimate history of violence between the Georgian government and a Russian-based division of its population.
Rather than provide this historical context, the media adopted a narrative: small nation menaced by large nation. But this is not the whole story. To be sure, Russia cannot be justly absolved from its actions – but to neglect the actions of Georgia is to neglect, at very least, one half of the story.
Author's Comment: Several corrections have been made to this article to better match historical accuracy.
Printer-friendly version
Comments
April 15, 2009 by Ed (not verified),
While I would agree that many western media outlets did push a simplistic and one-sided view of the conflict (they say you should stick to what you're best at), I would argue that this has been nothing compared to the crimes against objectivity and reality that have been committed by both journalists and the blogosphere in the months since.
The fact that Georgia is such an unknown part of the world means it has become a blank canvas on which to paint a political agenda. I have watched the heap of distortion and misinformation get higher and higher and get passed around as bloggers and journalists grapple with then fudge the complexities of Georgian history and politics while they put in their two cents.
While I would applaud the author for making an all too rare attempt to be balanced and fair while writing about the conflict in Georgia, unfortunately it contains some misleading and incorrect information about Georgia.
For example it is Ukraine, not Georgia, that has a huge Russian speaking population, mostly in the Crimea. Georgia's Russian population is in fact negligible. Russian television was stopped during the conflict not before, which may have had something to do with the Russian news media claiming a genocide round the clock. (If you think the Western media misreported the conflict, you should have seen the Russian coverage).
North and South Ossetia were not divided following the collapse of the Soviet Union. South Ossetia had always been part of the SSR Georgia. Conflict over its status along with Abhazia began even before Georgian independence, when the Soviet Union backed Abhaz and South Ossetian separatists in response to Georgian calls for independence. However the Abhaz and Ossetians are not Russians and have their own languages. The fact that many have Russian passports is due to the fact that the Russians have been issuing them in the breakaway regions. The Georgian government saw this as part of a slow 'salami slicing' annexation of their territory. However the Russian claim that they are Russians was very misleading.
Also while there has been violence and atrocities on both sides, to portray the situation in Georgia as one of a Georgian majority oppressing minority groups, Russian or otherwise is also misleading. For example there are more Ossetians living throughout Georgia than the 40,000 or so inside South Ossetia, many in mixed marriages and they have not been subject to persecution before or since the conflict. On the other hand Georgians have been ethnically cleansed from the breakaway regions. The issue of Abhaz independence is particularly complicated as while there are around 250,000 Abhaz who generally want independence, there are still around 300,000 ethnic Georgians refugees who were driven out in the early 90s and have been unable to return to their homes where their families have lived for generations.
Sorry about this post being so long but I just feel that there is so misinformation about Georgia in the press and on blogs which seems to get passed around. I would however agree with the message of the article that people should try look at as full a picture as possible when it comes to the Georgian conflict.
April 15, 2009 by Alexander Melikishvili (not verified),
It is both surprising and disappointing that the blog associated with an allegedly prestigious Harvard International Review featured this utterly amateur vignette. Its hapless author, Zachary Sniderman, displays monumental ignorance of the subject at hand. This awkwardly written (consider this gem: "While countries like Ukraine (and the controversy surrounding the Orange Revolution) have a distinct population, Georgia does have a significantly large Russian population.") "masterpiece" is extremely incoherent and devoid of relevant facts and figures. I will not waste time here to refute all the laughable claims that the author makes and instead I would highly recommend him to read the article entitled "Georgia's Russians express shame" by Tara Bahrampour in The Washington Post of August 27, 2008 (web link: http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/08/27/georgias_rus...). It provides a sufficient response to some of the issues raised here. Publishing dilettante pieces like this hardly contributes to the reputation of the Harvard International Review.
April 19, 2009 by Tengiz (not verified),
I'sorry to say but seems that the author knows very little in the subject. Some examples:
1"Georgia does have a significantly large Russian population". In fact this is other way around.
2. "The division of Ossetia into North and South was arguably an under-thought decision levied by allied powers following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The division is an artificial border in the sense that many people in Georgia are still Russian citizens and hold Russian passports". This is mistery. I didn't ever hear about any "allied powers". Russian pasports were distributed from 2000 by Russia while both territories are in Georgia's international borders. Do you think Caucasus mountines are artifitial borders?