Abkhazia and South Ossetia should not be independent from Georgia

I apologize for the delay in posting my argument. I have been quite busy is recent days. I will continue responding to each point in the same order as they appear above. 1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND a) I see now that by "historical background for independence" he meant prior status as a sovereign nation. On this point, it depends. .. At what point do you call a region an independent state? Is it when they claim independence and then exercise autonomy? This is generally how Americans view their own history. We consider the Declaration of Independence as the mark of the beginning of our status as a sovereign nation. Or is a nation considered independent only when they are recognized as such by the international community? As Pro surely knows, that would change our own understanding of when our nation became independent. This point is relevant to this debate because South Ossetia declared its indeendence from Georgia on June 8, 1920. This was followed by the armed conflict mentioned in my first round, point 1A (. http://www.caucasus.dk... - 4.2: History, para. 16). This contradicts the claim by Pro that South Ossetia has never been independent. b) The other main point to be taken under this heading is that the two ethnic groups are distinct. I hope that the reader will note that Pro agrees here. If he agrees that Ossetians and Georgians are different, then Ossetians deserve self determination. c) Pro goes on to show that many more ethnic Georgians were cleansed in South Ossetia in the 1921 and 1991 conflicts. This actually helps my case, not his. It is irrelevant as to who was better at violating human rights. The point is that there is a volatile past that will likely continue in a similar fashion unless South Ossetia and Abkhazia remain independent from Georgia. 2. CONFLICT Pro says that he is not sure about my claim that conflict will decrease. I will restate my hypothesis because I do not feel that it was sufficiently addressed. Conflict will decrease with independence because South Ossetia and Abkazia have the backing of a major military force (Russia). Georgia does not have similar backing from a large military power. This will serve as a disincentive for Georgian attacks on the two breakaway regions. As for population shifts. Pro is assuming that all of the refugees from the conflict in the 1990s and 2000s will want to return to a S. Ossetia under S. Ossetian government, thus making the population of S. Ossetia 30% Georgian. This seems highly optimistic. Even if they do return and violence follows, the principle of self determination for S. Ossetians is more important than complete peace. If the S. Ossetians are willing to fight off aggression from Georgian nationals in exchange for their independence, then that is their choice. The same concept applies to Abkhaz as well. Pro claims that Georgia's role historically was to be the guardian of peace in the Caucasus. That may be the role that they assign to themselves. That may even be the role that much of the Caucasus assign to them for much of their history. This raises questions as to how they managed to guard this peace. Was it through oppression of the other ethnic groups? Did they repress nationalist movements like they did in 1921, the early 1990s, and attempted to do in the late 2000s? Georgians are certainly not viewed as the guardians of peace in these two regions today. Today they are accused of genocide and other human rights violations. 3. IGNORANT OSSETIANS and ABKHAZ I will note that the source provided by Pro is a Georgian source. We can expect that the writer will be biased in favor of Georgia. Unfortunately, the article does not cite or link to any of the historical evidence that the author claims exists. Are we supposed to just take the word of a Georgian nationalist that Georgian history has been peachy and that the Abkhaz and Ossetians have been happy under their rule for centuries? The author repeatedly claims that the historical data that they DO use is misinterpreted. Since we can't see the data in question, why should we not believe that it is simply a different interpretation of the same data? Why does one perspective have to be wrong? Even if this is true, it does not reflect the feelings and views of Ossetians and the Abkhaz today. 4. SELF DETERMINATION I hope that the reader will note that Pro values the principle of self determination. Where we disagree is on which s more important, self determination or territorial integrity. I will agree that territorial integrity is quite important. However, in this case, self determination trumps it. Pro's argument centers around the fact that an Ossetian and Abkhaz majority in each region is a recent phenomenon. The influx came between the 17th century and the 20th century - the majority occurring in the 20t century. Let us take the Ossetian example. Pro points out that Ossetians have spilled into S. Ossetia between 1922 (when they were a small minority) and 1959 (when they became an overwhelming majority). It is my position that it matters not what the population USED to be. Take, for example, North America. Prior to 1492 there were almost no Europeans in N. America. Native Americans made up an overwhelming majority until the late 1700s. Does Pro advocate that N. American nations should return these lands to the natives? There are numerous other examples of population shifts that changes the politics of a region. Tejas-Texas (1830s) is just one such examples. If Georgians wished to maintain a Georgian majority in each of these regions then they should have had more strict immigration laws and enforcement. Abkhaz and Ossetians legally moved into these regions and the politics changed. Prior to this population shift the regions may have accepted Georgian rule. Now they do not.