The Mass Media have spread the statement that "International court of UN in Hague on April 1 will announce the verdict on the suit of Georgia against Russia. Tbilisi accuses Moscow in undertaking ethnic cleansing and breaking of the International convention of 1965 about the elimination of all forms of race discrimination".
Russia in this case, how we can see, is a defending side. Moreover, it seems to me, that the efficiency of this defence is seriously doubtful. I see the reason of it in that we use not all the available arguments.
In particular, almost no one use the most important fact that, with the standpoint of the international Law at night 7 - 8 August 2008 Georgia has carried out the military aggression not only against the unacknowledged for that period the Republic of South Ossetia (the recognition is not a legal category, influencing upon the aptness or non-aptness using of the term "aggression" in the given context), but also against the recognized state - the Russian Federation.
At first about the pertinence of using the word "aggression" in the context of the military attack of Georgia on the Republic South Ossetia. I want completely bring the article 1 of the Resolution 3314 9(XXIX) of the General Assembly from December 14 1974, which refutes the opinion of many people that in connection with unrecognizing of the South Ossetia the military aggression on the georgian side cannot be called the aggression: "Aggression is using of armed force by some state against the sovereignty, territorial inviolability or political independence of the other state or some other way incompatible with the Charter of the Organization of the United Nations, as it is set up in the present definition. The explanatory note: In present definition the term "state" ) a) is used, not predetermining the issue of recognition or the issue , if the state is the member of the Organization of the United Nations; b) includes the notion "the groups of state" at the relevant places.
Now we shall look, if the definition "aggression» fits the actions of Georgia against Russia.
Let’s recall some positions of the article 3 of the same Resolution: "Any one of the following actions, notwithstanding of the announcement of war, and in accordance with the positions of the article 2, will be qualified as the act of aggression: d) the attack of the armed forces of a state on the land, marine or air forces or the fleet of another state".
In August 7 2008 about 23:35 many journalists, who were at the territory of the Russian battalion of the Mixed Forces for Supporting Peace in the zone of the georgian-ossetian conflict in MFSP, have fixed that a missile had hit this territory. They also fixed that all the lodgings, where the militants of the russian battalion of MFSP had been settled down, had been fired by the Georgian artillery, in the result they have got a lot of holes.
The Southern (upper) borough of the Russian battalion of the MFSP was undergone the more cruel attack of the Georgian army and was completely destroyed by the Georgian heavy artillery fire, in the result it was killed 12 peacemakers – the militants of the Russian army. Also some tollgates and the posts of Russian peacemakers have been attacked in the zone of the georgian-ossetian conflict.
These actions, according to the above mentioned Resolution of UN, are nothing more, than the attack of the armed forces of Georgia on the land forces of Russia.
To "justify" its own actions Georgia declares as if the Russian peacemaking forces were the "occupation". In the mobile telephone video recording, made in the morning of August 8 2008, which had been extracted from the captive Georgian militant, it was fixed, as the Georgian militants were mocking at the body of the murdered russian peacemaker on the road to Tskhinval. Herewith such dialogue has been taking place: "Is he russian?" - "Yes, russian" - "And what did he need for in Georgia?"
And herewith is ignoring the fact that this Russian peacemaker either as the other Russian peacemakers, was found here not on his whim, but in accordance with the international agreement, signed between Georgia and Russia. That is to say that at first Georgia has signed the agreement of bringing the Russian peacemakers in, and then killed them - impudently and mercilessly.
It is obvious that for Georgia it does not matter the earlier signed international agreements not only on political, but even on everyday level. It is also obviously seen that if the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia were recognized already at the beginning of the 90-th years, thousands of people, including this peacemaker, would have been alive.
""And what did he need for? » Such blasphemous "principles" are cynically confessing today by the hypocritical attorneys of Georgia. However the stay of the Russian troops in the zone of the georgian- ossetian conflict (having covered the part of the territory of South Ossetia and the part of the territory of Georgia), was not the occupation. It had been implementing with the knowledge and consent of all the interested sides, on the basis of Sochi agreement in 1992, which had the signatures of the former high officials of Russia, North Ossetia, South Ossetia and Georgia. This agreement is an international agreement according to the Viennese convention about the right of the international agreements from 23 May 1969, and stands above the internal regulatory acts of the countries-participants. The unilateral statements and resolutions of the state bodies of Georgia including the resolution of the parliament of Georgia in 2006, in which the Russian peacemaker forces are declared the "occupation" and, had to be withdrawn, have no legal power.
Thereby, we have found the fact of the legal stay of the Russian troops at those territories, where they had been attacked by the Georgian army. It has been also established that the attack of the Georgian armed forces on the russian land forces in the person of the russian peacemakers battalion is no more, as the military aggression of Georgia against Russian Federation.
The Russian Federation in these term acted solely on legal base in full correspondence to the right on self-defense, provided by the Charter of Organization of the United Nations as the state, which has been undergone to military attack, but Georgia acted as the state-aggressor.
In the result of the Georgian aggression against Russian Federation there have been killed and wounded the Russian militants, it has been damaged or destroyed the property, belonging to the Russian Federation. Georgia did not suffer any punishment for its actions.
Now - about the doubts, expressed at the beginning of the commentary. Unfortunately, the reason of them is the irresponsibility, in protecting our interest in the international instances. Having disgraced itself amongst the normal people by the unseemly behavior of the North-Ossetian attorneys, protecting the interests of people, having suffered in the result of the military aggression of Georgia, and failed its mission, we (but the hand on the pulse of this case had to be kept by the South Ossetia, and Russia) did not actuate the observable image of activity of the positive positioning of South Ossetia at the international arena, on the explanation of the real circumstances of the military aggression of Georgia against Russia and South Ossetia.
Moreover what can we say of the international level if even inside the country some people, spreading in our own, russian Mass Media, the fabrications about the "russian occupation", are not subjected to the legal persecution, as the slanderers?
So the forecast is: the International court on 1 April in its verdict on total russian-georgian listening in connection with the events in South Ossetia in August 2008 will not give the certain answer, who was a perpetrator and the initiator of these tragic events.
Inal Pliev, in 2002 - 2008 - a chief of the Information Department of the South-Ossetian part of the Mixed checking commission on settling the georgian-ossetian conflict.
