Eric Witte October 29th, 2008

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili is denying indications from BBC reporting in South Ossetia that Georgian forces committed war crimes during their short-lived August offensive to establish control over the break-away region.  The BBC found that Georgian forces used indiscriminate force, and may have deliberately targeted civilians.

In cases such as this, where war crimes accusations are leveled against the side that was eventually most wronged in the conflict (in this case by Russia’s savaging of Georgia), it can be tempting for international diplomats to attempt a whitewash.  It is refreshing then to see UK Foreign Minister David Miliband’s reaction to the BBC allegations:

Mr Miliband - normally a strong supporter of Georgia - told the BBC: “I think the Georgian action was reckless, I think the Russian response was disproportionate and wrong.

“And that is the series of events that have landed us where we are.

“On my visit to Tbilisi of course I raised at the highest level in Georgia, the questions that have been asked and raised about war crimes and other military actions by the Georgian authorities.

“We have acted in this without fear, without favour.”

Blind support for Saakashvili in Washington may have encouraged him to blunder into a war he could not win.  It will be interesting to see whether the British reaction to indications of Georgian war crimes has any echo in Washington.

BBC reporting from South Ossetia also strongly indicated that ethnic Georgian villages were targeted by Ossetian and Russian forces.  President Saakashvili says he is open to any kind of investigation.  With all of Russia’s bluster about “genocide” in South Ossetia (which seems an immense stretch, even if war crimes were committed), the International Criminal Court should be encouraged to launch a full investigation.  Who would dare oppose it?  Georgia is a signatory to the Rome Statute, the ICC prosecutor has said that the situation is “under analysis”, and both the Georgian and Russian governments have sent information to The Hague.  But why not raise the stakes and have the Security Council formally refer the Georgia conflict to the ICC?  It may not be legally necessary, but it would be useful to put Russia on the spot to formally sign on to an independent investigation through the Security Council.  Such an investigation may well find that Georgia did commit war crimes, but is likely to find at least as much evidence of Russian culpability. 

• Uncategorized
• Comments(0)

Kurt Bassuener October 3rd, 2008

Soon after Eric posted the link below to the excellent Joshua Kurlantzick article, “Monster’s Ball,” the two of us discussed some of the themes therein.  The reliance on particular leaders seems a constant and repeated error throughout American statecraft, nearly always ending in tears.

One factor seems very clear to me - that the Bush administration was far more concerned with having talking points to buttress the assertion that “freedom (was) on the march,” even before his second inaugural address, than it was with the adherence to democratic principles. Furthermore, it conflates “democratic” with “pro-Western,” or “pro-American,” and these don’t always go hand in hand.  And when a regime is undemocratic and aligned with the US, it’s a safe bet the population will rightly see the US as complicit in their oppression.  The primary concern, despite all discussion of the paradigm shift away from backing “our SOBs” that came with Bush’s 2003 NED address, has been to have governments aligned with the US.

Post-Rose Revolutionary Georgia in particular came at an opportune time for the Bush administration, which was scrambling to find another rationale for the invasion of Iraq.  So the Saakashvili administration and the Bush administration were in a symbiosis, with Washington not wanting to point to Georgia’s increasing bellicosity or democratic transgressions, both of which might have been reined-in with a bit of friendly pressure early on.  The fact that they were not helped lead to the debacle of August’s “five day war” with Russia, which saw the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia leave Georgia’s orbit - even before the war legally Georgian territory but not under physical control - probably for good.  But Bush was happy to adopt and keep Georgia as a poster child - never mind the more complicated reality.  Georgia of course deserved support, but not uncritical support.

Yet the sorts of blatant hypocritical mistakes that gutted the credibility of the “freedom agenda” from the start were, as Kurlantzick notes, the relationships with such “friendly dictators” as Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, recipient of $2 billion a year in guaranteed aid.  That massive potential US leverage has never been employed to press Mubarak’s brutal and sclerotic regime to open up, and is the subject of a fascinating new book, Inside Egypt - The Land of the Pharoahs on the Brink of a Revolution, by John R. Bradley (recently banned in Egypt, natch).

Near the close of his angry book, Bradley cites the bizarre position of Egypt’s beleagured liberal democrats with a recounting of the experience of Hisham Kassem, winner of the National Endowment for Democracy’s Democracy Award a year ago:

These conflicting goals (democracy and transparency along with stability) were captured in the rather bizarre experience of one Hisham Kassem, an Egyptian human rights activist who, in October 2007, was one of four international activists given the prestigious Democracy Award of the National Endowment for Democracy.  Kassem found the experience woefully depressing. “To see the president of the United States in person and his more or less lack of interest in what is happening politically in Egypt left me without any doubt that this whole [democracy] program was over,” he told Reuters after collecting his award.  Kassem said that although the president asked about reformers in the ruling NDP (to which he replied “Sorry, there are no reformers in the NDP”), Bush was mainly interested in the position of Islamists in Egypt.  Kassem made clear that the government had made it impossible for secular movements to operate, leaving the field open to the Islamists: “There is no alternative now for the people, given that that Islamists operate out of mosques while secular parties are not allowed to operate at all.” With the difficult economic situation, he added, “I am worried Egypt will become a theocracy by 2010.” Apparently that comment finally got Bush’s full attention, and he seemed rather perplexed that American policy was not working, noting: “We give your country $2 billion a year in order to keep it stable and prevent it from turning into a theocracy.”  He looked, Kassem said, quite dismayed.

Some would argue Kassem did himself no favors in meeting with Bush and his top advisors.  For the unfortunate reality is that the American push for democracy is now perceived as having been insincere at best, hypocritical at worst.  Which is hardly surprising, when for the president the purpose of the payoff to Mubarak’s regime is stability rather than reform.

Bradley further quotes another Egyptian human rights activist, Ahmed Said al-Islam, as saying:

The war on terror is undermining democracy advocates and strengthening Arab dictatorships…The latter are using it to put off reforms and arguing that being pro-reform means siding with the enemies of the state.

American credibility in democracy promotion is so denuded after the Bush years that respected Carnegie Endowment scholar Tom Carothers says it needs to be ”decontaminated” to regain credibility in a new administration.  Harsh words, but apropos, I believe. 

The US, having beat the democracy drum so loudly, is front and center in being cited for hypocrisy, but sadly not alone. In the case of Egypt, French President Sarkozy asked Mubarak to co-chair the Mediterranean Union summit last summer - though it’s fair to note that none of the potential members from the southern littoral of the Mediterranean really fits the bill as a democracy.  The larger point to be made is that the democratic world has no clear strategy to employ the leverage it has to promote its values.  The US and EU remain divided on democracy support largely because the Bush administration has shot its credibility on the subject.

No matter what the result of the US presidential election, the bottom line is that the EU and the US have to collaborate in that endeavor if it is to bear fruit and help reverse authoriarian capitalism’s increasing appeal.

• Uncategorized
• Comments(0)

Kurt Bassuener September 21st, 2008

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin today met with French Prime Minister Francois Fillon, and was adamant that only the “states” of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, together with Russia, would determine Russian force levels in the two breakaway regions of Georgia.

“As you know, we recognised South Ossetia’s and Abkhazia’s independence in the same way as many European countries recognized Kosovo’s independence,” he told Russian TV.

“The question of our armed forces’ presence on these territories will be agreed on bilateral basis, in line with international law and on the basis of agreements between Russia and the states in question.”

This was another humiliation for France, as it directly contravened a six-point ceasefire deal hammered out by President Sarkozy between Georgia and Russia. 

As part of the deal Russia agreed that its troops should return to pre-conflict positions.

Moscow has already announced plans to keep about 8,000 troops in the regions - far more than were there previously.

Today South Ossetian forces paraded in captured Georgian military equipment, including US-manufactured Humvees, in commemoration of its independence day.

Aside from Russia, only Nicaragua recognizes South Ossetian or Abkhazian independence.  An effort last month by President Medvedev to get the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which includes Russia, China, and Central Asian states to endorse Russia’s action did not achieve the desired result for Russia.  Even Belarus, which was chastised by Russian diplomats for being insufficiently supportive of Moscow’s invasion, has yet to recognize the two regions as independent, though it claims it intends to do so.  One wonders where Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who just hosted a pair of Russian Tupolev “Blackjack” bombers, and Cuban leader Raul Castro are on this…

• Uncategorized
• Comments(0)

Eric Witte September 21st, 2008

Douglas Muir makes a good point regarding the war in Georgia over at A Fistful of Euros:

What’s interesting - and sort of depressing - is that the war seems to have damaged the prospects for liberal democracy for all four parties. Not that those prospects were bright in Russia or South Ossetia anyhow, but still: all the participants are seeing a tightening of press controls, a strengthening of the nationalist line, and a general boost to the authoritarian pretensions of the current ruling class. And this is likely to get worse before it gets better… if it ever does get better.

Indeed, the prospects for democracy in Russia, South Ossestia and Abkhazia have long looked bleak.  And Muir is right that Georgia has undergone democratic setbacks as well, dating to before the Russian invasion. 

With the West hoping to stave-off Russian control of Georgia, President Mikheil Saakashvili is probably much less likely to come under western pressure with regard to his own democratic shortcomings.  That seems to be a natural reaction to increased polarization and tension between the West and Russia.  But does it make sense?  With Saakashvili’s dependence on the EU and US greater than ever, Washington, Brussels, and European capitals have greater theoretical leverage to insist that he consistently adhere to democratic ideals.  In the end, ensuring that the moral divide between Tbilisi and Moscow is not muddied by Saakashvili’s authoritarian streak would help Georgia to sustain greater sympathy in the West.

• Uncategorized
• Comments(0)

Kurt Bassuener August 27th, 2008

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband spoke in Kyiv today - the BBC gives a good capsule on his remarks here.  Miliband met with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko:

Victor Yushchenko told Mr Miliband that the brief conflict between Georgia and Russia earlier this month had exposed serious weaknesses in the powers of the UN and other international bodies.

He called for Ukraine’s defences to be strengthened and said his country would consider increasing the amount of money Russia pays for the lease of the port of Sevastopol, where it stations its Black Sea Fleet.

In his remarks to students later, Miliband said:

…the Georgia crisis had “provided a rude awakening”…Moscow’s “unilateral attempt to redraw the map marks a moment of real significance”.

The Russian president, he said, had a “big responsibility not to start” a new Cold War.

The foreign secretary said the response of the EU and Nato to such “aggression” should be one of “hard-headed engagement”.

“That means bolstering our allies, rebalancing the energy relationship with Russia, defending the rules of international institutions, and renewing efforts to tackle ‘unresolved conflicts’,” he explained.

Mr Miliband again rejected calls for Russia to be expelled from the G8, but did suggest the EU and Nato needed to review relations with it.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner also had strong words for Moscow, referencing Crimea, among other potential future flashpoints:

Asked on Europe 1 radio whether Russia would now regularly choose to confront the West rather than cooperate with it, Kouchner said: “That is not impossible.”

“I repeat that it is very dangerous, and there are other objectives that one can suppose are objectives for Russia, in particular the Crimea, Ukraine and Moldova.” Like Georgia, Ukraine has a pro-Western president who wants his country to join NATO, a move away from Moscow’s sphere of influence which has angered the Kremlin. It also has a large Russian-speaking population, but is much bigger than Georgia…

Kouchner repeated his call on Russia to comply with international commitments, including a French-backed peace plan under which Russia agreed to pull back its forces to the positions they held before the crisis. “We cannot accept these violations of all international law, of agreements on security and cooperation in Europe, of United Nations resolutions, and the seizing for the first time in a long time of one territory by the army of a neighbouring country,” Kouchner said.

“It (Russia) is an international outlaw. That is not just the opinion of the European Union,” he added. The leaders of the European Union’s member states are due to hold an emergency meeting on Monday to discuss their response to Russia’s actions, but Kouchner would not be drawn on what decisions they might take.

“The 27 heads of state will obviously react,” Kouchner said. “The European Union, the 27 countries, 500 million people, Europe’s economic power, must manifest themselves in this crisis to stop it and negotiate a political solution,” he added.

• Uncategorized
• Comments(0)

Kurt Bassuener August 26th, 2008

Following an overwhelming vote in the Russian Duma yesterday to recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, two separatist regions in Georgia that came under total Russian military control earlier this month, Russia’s President Dmitri Medvedev today announced in a televised address his decision to recognize their independence.  He added:“Russia calls on other states to follow its example.” This is a signal to CIS members to do so.

In his speech, given from Sochi, he accused Georgia of perpetrating “genocide” in its bombardment and seizure of the South Ossetia’s main city, Tskhinvali:

“I have signed decrees on the recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia,” Medvedev said in a pre-recorded address broadcast on national television.

“This is not an easy choice but this is the only chance to save people’s lives,” he said a day after Russia’s Kremlin-controlled parliament voted unanimously to support the diplomatic recognition.…Medvedev said Mikhail Saakashvili, the Georgian president, had forced Russia’s hand by launching an August 7 attack to seize control of South Ossetia by force.“Saakashvili chose genocide to fulfill his political plans,” Medvedev said.“Georgia chose the least human way to achieve its goal - to absorb South Ossetia by eliminating a whole nation.”Al Jazeera English correspondent Jonah Hull, reporting from Sochi, noted that the recognition was a direct contravention of the six-point peace plan that Medvedev agreed to, point six of which was to enter into some international dialogue on the issue of the two separatist regions.  Hull, who has proved a precient and perceptive on-the-ground analyst since before the August 7 Georgian effort to retake Tskhinvali, opined that this was a direct challenge to the West.  Georgians believe the recognition is only a brief stop to the territories being absorbed by Russia formally; they are already integrated economically:

“Russia has legalized what it was threatening to do for a long time now,” Kakha Lomaia, head of Georgia’s Security Council, said by phone. “This means these two regions are about to join Russia. Make no mistake about it.”

As of yet, there has been no collective European Union reaction, nor a formal US reaction.  US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is on the Middle East, and has yet to comment.  Yesterday, US President George Bush criticized the Duma vote, calling on Moscow not to recognize the regions and to accept Georgian territorial integrity. 

Both Britain and France registered their objections:

Britain accused Russia of acting against UN security council resolutions. “We reject this categorically and reaffirm Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” said a Foreign Office spokeswoman. “This is contrary to obligations that Russia has repeatedly taken on in [UN] security council resolutions. It does nothing to improve the prospects for peace in the Caucasus.”

France said it regretted Russia’s decision and the French foreign ministry reiterated France’s commitment to Georgia’s territorial integrity. France, the current holder of the rotating presidency of the EU, has called a meeting of EU leaders to discuss the crisis next Monday.

Just before Medvedev’s announcement, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated today that the EU will maintain recognition of Georgia’s current borders, including South Ossetia and Abkhazia:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that the European Union will back maintaining Georgia’s borders when members meet to discuss the fallout from Russia’s incursion and decision to recognize two breakaway Georgian regions.

“The principle of territorial integrity is one of the basic principles that international cooperation has to be based on and the EU will very clearly stand by this principle,” Merkel said during a joint press briefing with Estonian Prime Minister Andrus Ansip in Tallinn today. The recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia “is something that we don’t consider to be part of international law,” she said.

The EU is set to meet next Monday to discuss the Georgia-Russia crisis:

Merkel said she was “relatively optimistic” that the emergency EU summit called for Sept. 1 in Brussels will find a common voice in addressing the aftermath of the five-day conflict in Georgia.

“Georgia must be supported,” Merkel said. “We have a lot of options there, with one instrument being the EU neighborhood policy under its eastern dimension.” That may mean rallying support for “the economic rebuilding of Georgia,” she added.

Her Estonian counterpart, Prime Minister Ansip, advocates opening the door to membership to Georgia and fellow “European neighborhood” member Ukraine:

The chancellor’s hopes for a unified EU stance were dulled by Ansip’s comments that Georgia should be offered an action plan for membership of both the EU and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Merkel, who led opposition to fast-track NATO membership for Georgia in April, said two days ago that she hadn’t changed her mind. NATO leaders at the Bucharest summit declined to give Georgia and Ukraine a timetable for membership.

“What is happening in Georgia is a turning point” that should allow the Caucasus nation “to speedily accede to the EU and NATO,” Ansip said. “At this moment it is especially appropriate to stress increased activity of the European Union in this region. Estonia considers it important to decide on awarding a membership action plan to Georgia and Ukraine as soon as possible.”

OSCE Chair and Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb condemned the Russian move in rather strong terms for the consensus organization, and demanded that Russia live up to its commitments made just over a week ago:

OSCE
Press Release

HELSINKI, 26 August 2008 - The OSCE Chairman-in-Office, Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb, today condemned the decision by Russia to recognize the independence of the breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

“The recognition of independence for South Ossetia and Abkhazia violates fundamental OSCE principles. As all OSCE participating States, Russia is committed to respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of others.”

“Russia should follow OSCE principles by respecting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia. Russia should immediately withdraw all troops from Georgia and implement the ceasefire agreement, including the modalities defined in the 16 August letter of French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The international community cannot accept unilaterally established buffer zones,” said Stubb.

The OSCE will continue to monitor the implementation of the ceasefire agreement. It stands ready to further assist in stabilizing the situation.

It will be interesting to see how French President Nicolas Sarkozy will react to his six-point plan being so openly violated by Russia.

It will also be quite tense when a US Navy ship, the USS McFaul, comes to the Georgian port of Poti tomorrow with relief supplies - Russia has said it will search all supplies that come through the port.  That visit had seemed solid until just minutes ago, when according to one wire report, the Navy began refusing to confirm where the vessel would dock.

Meanwhile, Russia’s emissary to NATO, Dmitri Rogozin, seemed bizarrely to hint at World War Three with an absurd analogy:

Russia’s envoy to Nato, Dmitry Rogozin, compared the tension between Russia and the west to the eve of the first world war, saying a new freeze in relations was inevitable.

“The current atmosphere reminds me of the situation in Europe in 1914 … when because of one terrorist leading world powers clashed,” Rogozin told the RBK Daily business newspaper. “I hope Mikheil Saakashvili [the president of Georgia] will not go down in history as a new Gavrilo Princip.” He was referring to the assassin of the Austro-Hungarian archduke Franz Ferdinand.

What is clear is that Russia is not at all intimidated by the Western and international reaction to its aggression in Georgia so far.

• Uncategorized
• Comments(3)

Kurt Bassuener August 19th, 2008

At the special meeting called for NATO foreign ministers in Brussels today to discuss Russia’s invasion of Georgia, an unnamed German diplomat said Georgia should not be on the agenda at all:

A German diplomat said his government did not consider NATO the proper place to discuss a global response to the Georgian crisis, suggesting that the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) were more appropriate venues.

“There were different perspectives” in Tuesday morning’s closed-door meeting, the diplomat said. “Georgia is not a member of NATO. . . . What can NATO do?”

So Germany wants to divert the issue to two organizations in which Russia has a veto, the UN and OSCE, and threby give it in one in NATO as well?

Might the quoted diplomat be…German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier?  He criticized Chancellor Angela Merkel yesterday on Bavarian news radio Bayern 5 for not being more neutral on the Georgia issue.  And yesterday, the BBC reported:

The German Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said that Nato should not suspend the Nato-Russia Council, which exists to encourage dialogue - nor should the West, he went on, exclude Russia from the G8 group of industrial countries or the World Trade Organisation.

“We need open channels for talks,” he said.

As if these venues are the main channels for crisis communications between Russia and the West.  Get real. 

Meanwhile, Deutsche Welle reports that the right and center of Germany’s political spectrum is lambasting former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, now working in the NordStream gas pipeline consortium which is tied with Russian gas giant Gazprom, for blaming the war on Georgia - an assertion that has some basis in Saakashvili’s recklessness, but gives Russia a free pass on occupying Abkhazia or its attacks deep into Georgia. 

The free-market liberal FPD party secretary general Dirk Niebel told the station he thought Schroeder was willing to do anything his employer asked.

 

“[Schroeder’s] one-sided attribution of blame is in line with the motto: He who pays the piper calls the tune,” Niebel said.

Ahem.

Earlier this year, Eric blogged on Steinmeier’s absurd quote that it took “courage not to meet with the Dalai Lama these days,” and avoid annoying a major German trading partner, China.  This seems yet another display of such “courage,” if not by Steinmeier himself, then by someone in the Ministry who is emulating him.

• Uncategorized
• Comments(1)

Kurt Bassuener August 15th, 2008

US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and French President Nicolas Sarkozy met to discuss the tense situation and continuing violence in Georgia, and Dr Rice has since travelled to Georgia to meet with President Saakashvili.  She aims to get him to sign a ceasefire deal that was negotiated in shuttle diplomacy by President Sarkozy and Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, between Saakashvili and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.  The major tenets of the deal remain as they were some days ago - end to all fighting and military action, mutual withdrawal to pre-conflict positions, full humanitarian access, and international talks on the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.  Sarkozy said the deal would be integral to a UN Security Council resolution France would table.

President Saakashvili has concerns about the deal, since he believes it could undermine Gerogia’s territorial integrity.  On their visit to the region, the leaders of Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic states also expressed their misgivings on that score.

“We feel that, in the documents presented last night both in Moscow and in Tbilisi, the principal element, the respect of the territorial integrity of Georgia, is missing,” Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus said, reading a joint statement alongside the leaders of Poland, Latvia and Estonia.

The statement underlined their “full support for the territorial integrity of Georgia within internationally-recognised borders.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov gave ample reason for worry yesterday when he said: “One can forget about any talk about Georgia’s territorial integrity because, I believe, it is impossible to persuade South Ossetia and Abkhazia to agree with the logic that they can be forced back into the Georgian state.”  For those that might remember, this is another conscious parallel adopted by Russia to the Western reaction to Kosovo in this conflict - first in justifying the war itself, and now in justifying the separation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia.  While there are numerous differences between these cases, Russia will use Kosovo as a rhetorical shield for its current actions in Georgia, deep into the country’s interior.  President Medvedev met with the leaders of the two breakaway regions yesterday in Moscow, to get their signatures on the ceasefire deal.  At the meeting, Medvedev told the leaders, South Ossetia’s Eduard Kokoity and Abkhaz Sergei Bagapsh, that Russia would support their independence aspirations, though ostensibly in line with the Helsinki Final Act, which insists all changes to borders be consensual:

“I’d like you to know,” Medvedev told the two leaders, “that we support any decision taken by the peoples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. We will not only support them, but guarantee them in the Caucasus and in the whole world … Right is on your side.”

It also appears that Russian forces intend to stay in both regions as “peacekeepers” for the foreseeable future - which is hardly consonant with the deal’s stipulation that forces withdraw to prewar positions. 

US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates noted in a press conference yesterday that US-Russia relations “could be adversely affected for years to come” if Russia “does not step back from its aggressive posture and actions in Georgia.”  A long excerpt from the press conference ran on PBS’ NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, followed by a worthy discussion including Heritage’s Ariel Cohen, who I think captured the gravity for the neighborhood of the Russian action.  The US now landing flights of humanitarian assistance in Tbilisi, though Russia’s deputy military chief cast doubt on whether the aid was strictly humanitarian.  Clearly, the US involvement is chafing Russia, and Al Jazeera’s Jonah Hull speculated that the armored feint from Gori toward Tbilisi might have been motivated by this.

Meanwhile, Poland signed a hard-negotiated deal with the US to allow deployment of missile defense interceptors, in exchange for US military assistance and bilateral guarantees.  Foreign Minister Radislaw Sikorski said the timing of the deal had nothing to do with what was happening in Georgia.  Yet Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s remarks at the announcement certainly referenced current events, and expressed doubts about NATO’s Article 5 guarantees for members.

“Poland and the Poles do not want to be in alliances in which assistance comes at some point later — it is no good when assistance comes to dead people,” Tusk said. “Poland wants to be in alliances where assistance comes in the very first hours of — knock on wood — any possible conflict.

“This is a step toward real security for Poland in the future.”

A number of new NATO allies have expressed dismay at what they see as a feeble reaction to the Russian attack on Georgia.  Though it must be noted Georgia is not a NATO member, these countries - especially Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia - strongly pushed Georgian membership and feel Russian pressures most acutely.

The most imeediate threat, however, is probably felt by Ukraine, which has approved a presidential order to control the deployment of Russian Black Sea Fleet vessels from the Crimean port of Sevastopol and their return - a move Russia scoffed at immediately.  The current arrangement, under which Russia can use the base, expires in 2017.  President Viktor Yushchenko has unambiguously supported Georgia and its leader Saakashvili, who was very supportive during Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution.

Russian nationalists have long decried what they see as the historical injustice of Crimea being made part of Ukraine, and some, like Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, called for its return, and was barred from entering the country as a result.  Luzhkov, some may recall, acted as Putin’s hatchet man in late 2004, when he spoke a conference of eastern and southern Ukrainian local leaders disaffected by the Orange Revolution and pushing for “autonomy,” or even separation from Ukraine.  This was quickly quashed, and there was little appetite among Russophone Ukrainians for such a move.  Crimea, however, is probably the only place in Ukraine with a large concentration of citizens who feel Russian.  Luzhkov’s moves in the future on this issue deserve close scrutiny, for he has acted in a provocative way for the Kremlin in the past.

Presidents Yushchenko and Bush spoke yesterday about Georgia, and Bush thanked Yushchenko for his role.  No doubt Ukraine wants as much insurance as it can get for its territorial integrity and independence.  The question is, will the US and European Union rise to the occasion? 

• Uncategorized
• Comments(0)

Kurt Bassuener August 12th, 2008

The BBC is now reporting that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has accepted the six-point plan brokered by French President Nicholas Sarkozy, and accepted by Russian President Dmitri Medvedev earlier today.  Yet apparently there are details agreed by Russia that Saakashvili would not accept - including talks on the future status of Abkhazia - and “deleted.”  Sarkozy says the current deal will be reviewed by the EU, of which France currenty holds the presidency, and the UN. 

• Uncategorized
• Comments(1)

Kurt Bassuener August 12th, 2008

Earlier today, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev announced a halt to Russian operations in Georgia just before the arrival of French President Nicholas Sarkozy in Moscow. “The security of our peacekeepers and civilians has been restored. The aggressor has been punished and suffered very significant losses. Its military has been disorganised…You know, the difference between lunatics and other people is that when they smell blood it is very difficult to stop them. So you have to use surgery.”

The Russian and French Presidents announced a six-point plan to end the hostilities, withdraw forces to prewar positions, and open international talks on the status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.  Of the deal, French President Sarkozy said:

“We don’t yet have peace. But we have a provisional cessation of hostilities. And everyone should be aware that this is considerable progress. There is still much work to be done….What we want is to secure the best result.”

Sarkozy is to present the plan in person in Tbilisi. 

Russia had already made clear that it wanted Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili out.  Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said today, before the Medvedev announcement: “It would be best if he left…I don’t think Russia will feel like talking with Mr. Saakashvili after what he did to our citizens.”

On the actual effect in Tskhinvali, which was Russia’s cited reason for its massive attack, it does appear that the damage was severe, but casualties could not be confirmed.

Georgia claimed that aerial bombardment and artillery shelling continued after Medvedev’s order was delivered. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili in a press conference this afternoon also claimed that he was receiving reports of civilians being interned at camps in Kurta and Vladikavkaz, and of summary executions of ethnic Georgians.  Georgia has also announced it will leave the Commonwealth of Independent States, a group of former Soviet republics dominated by Moscow.  Georgia has also initiated a case against Russia at the International Criminal Court.  At a rally today attended by an estimated 150,000, Saakashvili vowed that Russia would someday pay:

“I promise you today, that I’ll remind them of everything they have done and one day we will win”

Interestingly, Slovene Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel spotlighted the difficulty of arriving at a common EU position on the war. 

“The old EU members have rather moderate positions (towards Russia) while the younger ones, having had experiences with Russia in the past, feel more strongly.”

Reports today state that the President of Ukraine - Viktor Yushchenko, Poland - Lech Kaczynski, and their Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian colleagues were en route to Tbilisi.  President Kaczynski, who initiated the flight, said:

“This means the solidarity of five states with the nation that has fallen victim to aggression…We may say that the Russian state has once again shown its face, its true face…We are saddened by that but we must accept the facts of life.”

Even more worthy of note is the long list of assessments on the American position before the current war began - Dan Froomkin’s web column on the Washington Post site covers this in detail, referencing a report by Jonathan Landay of McClatchy papers that the US had discouraged action by Georgia, but thought it had a tacit understanding with Moscow that any reaction would be focused solely on South Ossetia:

“Bush administration officials, worried by what they saw as a series of provocative Russian actions, repeatedly warned Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili to avoid giving the Kremlin an excuse to intervene in his country militarily, U.S. officials said Monday…”

“But in the end, the warnings failed to stop the Georgian president — a Bush favorite — from launching an attack last week. . . .

“Pentagon officials said that despite having 130 trainers assigned to Georgia, they had no advance notice of Georgia’s sudden move last Thursday to send thousands of Georgian troops into South Ossetia to capture that province’s capital, Tskhinvali…”

“At the same time, U.S. officials said that they believed they had an understanding with Russia that any response to Georgian military action would be limited to South Ossetia.

“‘We knew they were going to go crack heads. We told them again and again not to do this,’ [a] State Department official said. ‘We thought we had an understanding with the Russians that any response would be South Ossetia-focused. Clearly it’s not.”

The Institute for War and Peace Reporting’s Tom de Waal gives a plausible litany of the rapied downward spiral in his article: “South Ossetia - an Avoidable Catastrophe.”

It remains to be see whether Georgia accepts the terms of the cease fire deal arrived at by Medvedev and Sarkozy, but it seems given the correlation of forces, he has little alternative.

NATO ambassaadors met today in Brussels with Georgia’s representative to the alliance, and according the US Ambassador Kurt Volker, “Given the events in Georgia, many allies expressed the  sentiments that there cannot be business as usual with Russia.”  Yet NATO’s Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer stated that the “Bucharest communique” from the April NATO summit remains valid.  At that meeting, German and France shot down and effort by the US to formally invite Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, though it stated that one day they would be members.

• Uncategorized
• Comments(0)