Abkhazia and South Ossetia should not be independent from Georgia

I hope the reader will not penalize him for missing a single round in a five round debate. There is still plenty of space for both of us to make our arguments. --------------- I will address each point in the order that Pro uses above. === Historical Background === Pro attempts to confuse the point on what makes a legitimate state. It matters not what the mystical values and cultural principles of Eastern Europe constitute legitimacy. We are discussing a legal question, not a mystical or cultural one. If we are to use Pro's logic, then all ethnic groups are stuck in their current state of (possible) oppression forever. They are at the mercy of the government with no way to change things, specially if they are in the minority. Pro again mentions that the Ossetians and Abkhaz did not make up majorities in the districts in question until fairly recently (within the last century or so). Again I counter that the time frame in which a group becomes a majority is not relevant. The relevant point is that they are the majority AT PRESENT. Finally, Pro claims that the Ossetians declared independence because of the Menshevik-Bolshevik conflict, not due to nationalist tendency. Once again, relevance is the issue. It does not matter what reason the Ossetians wanted independence from the Georgians. In this case it would seem that they had different ideas as to how the government should operate and treat the working class. This is no less legitimate of a reason for self determination than any other. The point here is that the Ossetians do indeed have a historical background of both independence (1921) and of desiring independence from Georgia (1921, 1991, 2008). === Conflict === Pro has misrepresented my position on this point. Abkhazia and South Ossetia do not have to give up their military institutions in order to gain protection from Russia. So far, the two regions have determined on their own that they wish to give up some of that control to Russia. This is not much different than the U. S. presence in nation like South Korea and Japan. Pro states that the recent conflicts are not relevant to the peace achieved by Georgia in past centuries. Think about that for a moment. The Georgians achieved peace in the distant past, but not during the past century. That means the Georgians are no longer able to keep the peace. Additionally, such "arrangements" are usually the result of one ethnic group dominating others (see Russian history). Their role in the past as a "peace keeper" does not entitle them to control the territory of other ethnic groups. === Ignorance === Pro has challenged me to produce sources proving the history claimed by the Abkhaz and Ossetian version of events. This, of course, would be an impossible undertaking. I neither speak the language, nor do I have access to their historical documents. Besides, it is not my responsibility to show that their interpretation of their own history is correct. I ask the reader to ponder this question: Whose interpretation of the Abkhaz and Ossetian perspective of Caucasus history is more accurate - the Abkaz' and Ossetians'; or their overlords, the Georgians? === Self Determination vs. Territorial Integrity === This is a legal question, and perhaps the most important issue for this debate. Pro's position is easily refuted. He claims that since the Ossetians already have a home, that the Ossetians in S. Ossetia do not deserve self determination (presumably because they can migrate to N. Ossetia-Alania). That is like saying that the English in N. America in the 1500s - present already have a home in the United Kingdom, so they do not need the U. S. and Canada. The English violated the territorial integrity of the Native Americans. Does Pro advocate returning these lands to their traditional occupants and for the English and French to return to their home in Europe? Pro once again asserts that the Ossetians and Abkhaz majority in their respective regions is a recent occurrence. However, Ossetian and Abkhaz culture expanded into what used to be a Georgian majority, while the Georgians in these regions migrated away. This is the reality on the ground now. The reality on the ground now is what is relevant to independence, not what the reality used to be over a century ago. Pro again tries to confuse the question by relating it to personal property. The analogy is not a good one, either. The Abkhaz and Ossetians are not trying to take over the entire nation (house). They are just trying to control their own region. Besides that, the house analogy grossly oversimplifies the question. It does not take into account the changes in demographics and culture over generations.