Wars are defining moments in the life of states and nations. Throughout history wars often gave birth to nations, or caused the disappearance of states. Most nations had fought many wars, but almost every nation has one war to which they refer to as “the war”. For a German, Greek or Serb the term “before the war” means entirely different things and different periods.
I just spent a few days in Abkhazia and Tbilisi. I will write more about the trip in the following days. But it was interesting to see that the word “war” refers to different historical events. For the Georgians the phrase “after the war” means “after the August 2008 war”. For the Abkhaz (and I guess the 240.000 Georgian refugees from Abkhazia) the term “war” refers to a the war in 1992-93. For the Abkhaz “after the war” means “after the 1992-1993 war”, while the August 2008 war is referred to as “the August events”. For Georgians the 1992-1993 war in Abkhazia is “the conflict in Abkhazia”. And for the Russians “the war” refers to the great patriotic war of 1941-1945 (which is symbolically different from the Second World War, as some Russian like to stress). So here it comes three nations that fought wars against each-other in the recent past – have entirely different meanings of the word “war”.
The pattern is not so different in the case of Moldova and Transnistria. For Transnistria “the war” is the 1992 armed conflict with Moldova. For Moldova, the 1992 clashes are just the “Transnistria conflict”.
“The war” is the event that shakes the core foundations of a state or nation, and the rest are just conflicts. “The war” is the one war that affects most of the population directly (that is why the 1992-93 is “the war” for the Abkhaz, but not for the most Georgians). So if one wants to understand which of the wars had the most decisive impact on the psyche of a nation, one has to look into what this nations calls “the war”.
The fact that the term “war” refers to recent events, also shows the degree to which “war” is a defining moment for contemporary politics in the South Caucasus, as opposed to most of Europe where “war” refers to historical events.
PS: I also wonder what is the by default meaning of the term “war” for Serbia?
#1 by Kent on June 12, 2009 - 9:42 am
In my experience, the term “the war” (rat) has much more traction in Bosnia than in Serbia (referring to the 92-95 conflict), whereas Serbs from Serbia proper are more likely to refer to “the Milosevic time” (sa vremena Milosevica) or just “the 90s”, maybe because that technically involves multiple wars. Plus the general population was much more affected by the hyperinflaction and economic sanctions than actual fighting. I’ve also definitely heard Serbs refer to both World War II and the Kosovo conflict as “the war”. In general though, it’s not something anybody likes to talk about.
#2 by Inge on June 12, 2009 - 9:42 am
although I find your smal analyzes on the word war with regards to interpretation of conflicts interesting; I must add that when you state “The war” is the one war that affects most of the population directly (that is why the 1992-93 is “the war” for the Abkhaz, but not for the most Georgians).’” You must not forget that the Georgian population was gravely affected by it too, since before ’92 60% of the population in abkhazia was ethnic georgian, and afterwards (due to displacement and death) this was reduced to 20%. I don’t think if you talk to the IDP’s that they call it a conflict – as far as I have encountered, everyone in Georgia is referring to it as the ’92 war; however, the clashes with the Ossetians during that time might be considered as conflict rather then war in georgia.
#3 by nicu on June 12, 2009 - 10:40 am
Kent, thanks!
Inge, but I specifically mention “For the Abkhaz (and I guess the 240.000 Georgian refugees from Abkhazia) the term “war” refers to a the war in 1992-93.” So you are right. The Georgian IDPs from Abkhazia and the Abkhaz have the same “war” in mind when they talk about “the war”.
#4 by Marcel on June 12, 2009 - 1:16 pm
There is another reason altogether for wanting a legal definition of war: the Lisbon Treaty (and the EHR charter coupled with it) allows for the death penalty.
Professor Schachtschneider who discovered this points out that the Lisbon Treaty reintroduces the death penalty in Europe.
And this is not in the treaty, but in a footnote, because with the European Union reform treaty, we accept also the European Union HR Charter, which says that there is no death penalty, and then it also has a footnote, which says, “except in the case of war, riots, upheaval” – then the death penalty is possible. There seems no limitation to the EU’s power to declare a state of ‘war, riots or upheaval’. This is no scaremongering but a fact.
Schachtschneider points to the fact that this is an outrage, because they put it in a footnote of a footnote, and you have to read it, really like a super-expert to find out! That the EU did its best to hide this is very telling indeed. They already display their contempt for democracy, so what’s to stop them from showing contempt for more things?
#5 by Kazimierz on June 12, 2009 - 9:06 pm
When I saw the title “On the meanings of ‘war”‘ I thought of
- military wars,
- economic wars,
- information wars, or more broadly, psychological wars.
Psychological wars are in the modern day world of omnipresent media as important as military wars. Actually, modern day empires must rely mostly on psychological warfare, then on economic warfare and only as the last resort on military warfare.