Part 3 of a five-part exclusive interview series with South Ossetian Foreign Minister Akhsar Dzhioev exploring the country’s foreign policy, public diplomacy, and its vision for an evolving international order.
LENTERAMERAH — Every country tells its story not only through its history and culture, but also through the way it engages with the world. For South Ossetia, diplomacy has become one of the principal ways of presenting its identity, building international partnerships, and articulating its place in a changing global landscape.
In recent years, shifting geopolitical dynamics and the emergence of new regional initiatives have created fresh opportunities for dialogue across Eurasia. Within this evolving environment, South Ossetia continues to expand its international engagement through public diplomacy, cultural exchanges, and cooperation with partners that share its vision of a more diverse international order.
In the third installment of this exclusive interview series, South Ossetian Foreign Minister Akhsar Dzhioev discusses his country’s foreign policy priorities, the role of public diplomacy and South Ossetia’s perspective on regional initiatives, including the Eurasian Charter and the proposed Eurasian Consultative Mechanism.
Over the past several years, have South Ossetia’s foreign policy priorities evolved? What factors have been the main drivers of these changes?
In 2026, South Ossetia will celebrate the 36th anniversary of the proclamation of the Republic, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of South Ossetia celebrated its 34th anniversary in May. The history of South Ossetia’s foreign policy agency is, in essence, the history of our republic’s formation. Therefore, let me begin with a brief excursus into the past to recall the origins of our statehood.
The independence of South Ossetia was proclaimed in the early 1990s as a means of preserving the people of South Ossetia from destruction by Georgia, or more precisely the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic, led at that time by the famous nationalist Zviad Gamsakhurdia, whose policy was based on the slogan “Georgia – for Georgians.”
South Ossetia went through a difficult and thorny path of development: aggression, ethnic cleansing, genocide and the economic blockade carried out by Georgia against South Ossetia from 1989 to 2008 resulted in the death and suffering of thousands of people. It can be said that the history of modern South Ossetia is a chronicle of the people’s struggle for the right to self-determination and the preservation of their identity.
It should be noted that the process of South Ossetia’s sovereignization was carried out exclusively through democratic means, in full compliance with the spirit and letter of the USSR legislation in force at the time, and was based on the inalienable right of peoples to self-determination. The proclamation of South Ossetian statehood was dictated by the de facto collapse of the USSR, the illegal abolition of South Ossetia’s autonomous status by the Georgian authorities, the onset of armed aggression and attempts to seize territory of South Ossetia, and the systematic extermination of Ossetians defending their right to freedom, human dignity, and, ultimately, the right to life that was orchestrated in Georgia.
Under these extremely difficult conditions, responsible and timely political decisions were made, ultimately leading to the legal formation of the new state. These included the adoption of the Declaration of Independence of the Republic of South Ossetia on December 21, 1991, the independence referendum on January 19, 1992, the adoption of the Act of Declaration of Independence of the Republic of South Ossetia on May 29, 1992, and the adoption of the first Constitution on November 2, 1993.
On May 28, 1992, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of South Ossetia was established. The creation of its own diplomatic service – an essential attribute of the independent South Ossetian state -played a significant role in the development of the country and made a significant contribution to the construction of the young nation.
No doubt, the period before the recognition of South Ossetia’s independence was both the most difficult and the most fateful. It was a time of constant struggle for survival, for the right to self-determination. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, still in its infancy, faced enormous challenges. The republic was completely blockaded, its voice unheard on the international stage. Our task was to break through this wall and convey to the international community the truth about what was happening, despite powerful opposition.
An active information campaign was waged against South Ossetia, distorting reality and demonizing the people. We had to fight a flood of lies, defending historical justice and the right to exist in the face of constant threat from Georgia. Lacking experience and resources, the Ministry had to build relationships with potential partners, seek allies, and establish contacts in a climate of extreme uncertainty.
The fateful nature of this period lies in the fact that it was during these years, despite all the difficulties, that the foundations of future statehood were laid. Successful resistance to aggression, consolidation of society and, ultimately, the recognition of independence were the result of titanic efforts.
Another equally important and complex milestone can be identified as the period following the recognition of independence and the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Russian Federation and other states. The events of 2008 can be considered a turning point in the modern history of the South Ossetian people, dividing the country’s life into “before” and “after.”
This historic decision opened new horizons for the country’s development and its foreign policy. Following recognition, the need arose to build full-fledged diplomatic relations, conclude international treaties, and interact on international platforms. This required new competencies, development of professional personnel, and adaptation to international norms.
Recognition opened the door to cooperation, but its development required active work. Despite recognition, Georgia and its allies continued – and still continue – their attempts to isolate South Ossetia and undermine its sovereignty. Constant efforts were required to strengthen the republic’s position on the international stage, explaining its right to independent development.
The South Ossetian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has always prioritized the protection of the country’s national interests and sovereignty. This principle remains unchanged today, defining the main areas of the Ministry’s activities.
Today, the South Ossetian Ministry of Foreign Affairs continues its work facing new challenges and discovering new prospects. Work is underway to further strengthen South Ossetia’s position, expand its circle of friendly countries, develop mutually beneficial relations, and ensure the rights and interests of our citizens living outside the Republic.
The past years have demonstrated the need and mutual interest of the Republic of South Ossetia and the Russian Federation in a friendly alliance and cooperation in a challenging international environment, opening the way for South Ossetia to develop and for Russia to strengthen its position in the south.
Looking back, it’s clear that, despite changing geopolitical realities, our foreign policy priorities remain unshakable. All these years, we have consistently adhered to our chosen course, relying on the principles established during the early days of our foreign policy agency.
The question of our foreign policy priorities is, at its core, a question of how we adapt to a rapidly changing world while remaining true to our fundamental principles.
If we talk about the dynamics of recent years, I wouldn’t call it a change in course. Rather, it’s a process of qualitative deepening and broadening of our horizons. Our main strategic vector remains unchanged: allied, integrated, and fraternal relations with the Russian Federation. This is the foundation of our security and statehood, and it is not subject to revision.
The world is no longer unipolar, and we are witnessing the emergence of new centers of power. South Ossetia is forced to develop while at the epicenter of complex regional processes amid increasing geopolitical turbulence.
Ensuring national security is of paramount importance to us. With the West attempting to destabilize the Caucasus, our foreign policy has become more focused on preventive diplomacy. We clearly define our red lines and work to strengthen South Ossetia’s voice in all international forums where there is willingness to hear the truth about our path.
We understand that foreign policy is not just about diplomatic protocols but also about delivering concrete results for our citizens: from simplifying border crossing procedures to attracting investment and humanitarian projects. We continue to build a modern state that is open to friends and reliable for allies.
Throughout his account of South Ossetia's diplomatic evolution, Dzhioev returns to a recurring theme: foreign policy is not measured solely by official recognition or formal diplomatic relations. It is also about ensuring that the country's voice, history, and identity are understood beyond political narratives. That broader objective naturally raises another question—how does South Ossetia engage with the world beyond traditional diplomacy?
Beyond traditional state-to-state diplomacy, how does South Ossetia seek to expand its international engagement through culture, education, academia and public diplomacy?
For South Ossetia, “soft power” is a way to be heard and understood in the world despite all political barriers. To be known, we need to not just announce ourselves from the stands, but to show who we really are. And here our culture is the main ambassador. When our dance companies perform on international stages and artists exhibit their works, it sparks genuine interest. It’s a living dialogue that breaks through any information blockade. People see our traditions, our character, our history, and this changes their perceptions better than any press release could.
In terms of education and science, we prioritize youth and academic connections. We actively work to integrate our students and scholars into the shared educational environment. Sharing experiences, participating in international conferences, and conducting joint research are bridges that cannot be broken. When a young scientist from Tskhinval discusses a scientific problem with a colleague from another country, politics fades into the background. What remains are professionalism and human interaction.
We strive to be open. We want people to come here, to see our republic with their own eyes, and to interact with our people. Ultimately, our goal is to show that South Ossetia is not just a dot on the map but a distinctive culture open to dialogue. We don’t isolate ourselves but rather build connections where possible, and we believe that sincerity and cultural exchange are the most reliable foundation for long-term recognition and friendship between peoples.
In describing South Ossetia's approach to public diplomacy, Dzhioev places particular emphasis on dialogue through culture, education and people-to-people exchanges. Yet, for him, diplomacy is not limited to practical cooperation. It is also closely connected to the principles that shape the international order itself. This broader perspective provides the context for South Ossetia's view of the proposed Eurasian Charter.
South Ossetia’s Vision for a Multipolar World
Some analysts argue that the proposed Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity represents a normative response to the fragmentation of today’s international order by emphasizing principles such as sovereignty, non-interference, equality among states and civilizational diversity. From South Ossetia’s perspective, do these principles resonate with the spirit of the 1955 Bandung Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement, despite today’s very different geopolitical context?
The question of the continuity of the ideas of the Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity with the legacy of Bandung in 1955 is not just an academic debate, but an attempt to find historical support for contemporary foreign policy. For South Ossetia, whose statehood is inextricably linked to the struggle for the right to self-determination and recognition, this parallel is profound and meaningful.
The Bandung Conference became a manifesto of the “global South” against the dictates of colonial powers. Its central message was the right of peoples to independently choose their own destiny, political system, and cultural way of life. For South Ossetia, which for decades defended its right to exist despite external pressure and attempts to impose alien standards, the principle of “civilizational diversity” enshrined in the Eurasian Charter sounds like a modern interpretation of the Bandung principles. It represents a rejection of the idea of a universal development model, which is often used as a tool for geopolitical domination.
The principles of non-interference in internal affairs and respect for territorial integrity (subject to the right to self-determination) were the cornerstones of the Non-Aligned Movement. In today’s world, where the sovereignty of small states is often eroded under the pretext of humanitarian interventions or democratization, the Eurasian Charter proposes a return to a classical understanding of international law. For South Ossetia, whose security directly depends on strict adherence to the principle of sovereign equality, such regulatory framework is a natural defense mechanism.
The Bandung Conference arose as an attempt by Asian and African countries to avoid becoming bargaining chips in the confrontation between two superpowers. Today’s fragmented world once again forces small states to face a stark choice: “Who do you stand with?” The Eurasian Charter, which proclaims multipolarity, essentially offers an alternative to that choice: the opportunity to be a part of the international community without sacrificing one’s identity or becoming a junior partner in a rigid hierarchical system. This resonates with the spirit of the Non-Aligned Movement, which sought to create a space where the voice of a small state is heard as clearly as that of a great power.
Of course, the context of 1955 and today is different. Back then, the world was struggling against colonialism; today, it’s struggling against attempts to establish a “rules-based order” that replaces international law. However, the essence remains the same: it is a struggle for subjectivity.
The Eurasian Charter is an attempt to legitimize a world in which small nations have the right to their own history, their own values, and their own security. In this sense, despite the decades separating Bandung and modern times, the spirit of the struggle for justice and equality remains unchanged. South Ossetia, like no other, understands that multipolarity is the only guarantee that the right to life and development will not be entirely dependent on the will of the “powers that be.”
While the Eurasian Charter outlines a set of principles, Dzhioev argues that lasting legitimacy ultimately depends on institutions capable of translating those principles into practical cooperation. This leads to the next question: what kind of consultative mechanism would be needed for those ideas to function effectively and gain wider international acceptance?
Belarus has adopted an official roadmap for the Eurasian Charter ahead of discussions at the United Nations in September 2026. In your view, what characteristics should a truly effective and inclusive Eurasian Consultative Mechanism possess? What would be necessary for such an initiative to gain broader international legitimacy?
The creation of a Eurasian Consultative Mechanism in the context of the implementation of the Eurasian Charter is an attempt to find a balance between regional specifics and global rules of the game. For such a mechanism to become an authoritative platform it must move from a declaration to actual functionality.
The main problem with many regional initiatives is their excessive politicization. An effective mechanism should focus on logistics, energy security, digital standards, and simplification of cross-border procedures. When countries see concrete economic benefits, trust naturally grows.
Inclusiveness shouldn’t mean mandatory unanimity on all issues, which often paralyzes work. What’s needed is a multi-tiered structure, a baseline for all participants, and “coalitions of the willing” for the implementation of specific projects, such as the construction of transport corridors. This will prevent initiatives from being blocked by individual players.
The mechanism must be supported by a permanent secretariat, comprised not only of officials but also of independent experts, academics, and business representatives. Decisions must be based on data, not just political expediency.
For the initiative to be recognized at the UN level and beyond Eurasia, it must overcome the perception of it as a “closed club.” Any regional charter must be “translated” into the language of the global agenda. Legitimacy comes when the rules of the game are clear and predictable for external players.
For the initiative of Belarus and its Eurasian Charter partners to be heard at the UN, it must be presented as Eurasia’s contribution to addressing global challenges. If the mechanism proves that it makes the region more stable, predictable, and open to trade, international legitimacy will follow naturally through recognition of its practical benefits.
Throughout the interview, Dzhioev presents diplomacy not merely as the conduct of foreign relations, but as an extension of South Ossetia's effort to preserve its sovereignty, identity, and place within an evolving international order. In the next part of this interview series, the discussion turns inward, focusing on South Ossetia's socioeconomic development, the aspirations of its younger generation, and its vision for the years ahead.***
