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)

Eric Witte October 2nd, 2008

Writing for The New Republic, Joshua Kurlantzick has a thoughtful article on a series of setbacks for democratization over the past few years, as has been documented by Freedom House.  In part Kurlantzick attributes backsliding and lack of progress in Central Asia, Africa, Latin America and East Asia to the Bush administration’s selling of the Iraq war under the banner of “democratization” (which gained prominence once weapons of mass destruction failed to materialize) and to the administration’s naked hypocrisy in dealing with countries from Azerbaijan to Equatorial Guinea:

As members of the Bush administration eye their legacies, they can be sure that their embrace of democratization has tarnished the very idea. In a 2006 report on the backlash against democracy, the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy, which funds democracy promotion around the world, admitted that some of its grantees overseas did not want to meet with NED program officers for fear of being tainted by association. The Iraq war, which was rationalized as an exercise in democratization, has also inspired new faith in authoritarian rule by linking the idea of democracy with the chaos in Baghdad. “What happened in Iraq makes the entire region afraid,” Haitham Maleh, a former president of the Committee for Human Rights in Syria, told Salon.com. “People don’t want to risk foreign occupation, chaos, and sectarian bloodshed.”

Worse, the administration has not even stuck by its guns. After having earlier emboldened some Middle Eastern democrats with promises of a “freedom agenda,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on her most recent trip to the region, barely mentioned the word “democracy.” At times, the Bush administration has gone out of its way to assist autocrats, aiding the Ethiopian regime over the past three years in exchange for promises to help fight terrorism in Somalia and welcoming the leader of Azerbaijan at the White House after he rigged a national poll. The administration has even embraced leaders like Equatorial Guinea’s Teodoro Obiang Nguema, who has been accused of abhorrent crimes, overseeing a regime under which political opponents are tortured, starved, and raped (Obiang himself has even been accused of eating the body parts of rivals). Still, in April 2006, Rice met Obiang at Foggy Bottom and–no doubt aware that Equatorial Guinea is becoming one of the largest oil exporters in West Africa–told him, “You are a good friend, and we welcome you.”

Beyond American policy failures, Kurlantzick also attributes democratic backsliding to the weakness of new democratic governments and the increasing savvy of authoritarian leaders.  China and Russia, alarmed by the color revolutions, are now offering training to authoritarians around the world in how to resist and co-opt democratic opposition.  The whole sobering article is must reading.

• Uncategorized
• Comments(1)

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)

Eric Witte September 17th, 2008

The European Council on Foreign Relations released a report today, A Global Force for Human Rights? An Audit of European Power at the UN [PDF], which finds that the influence of the European Union at the United Nations has markedly declined over the past ten years.  At 80 pages, I haven’t had time to read more than the press release and executive summary, but it looks to be well worth the read.  Authored by Richard Gowan and Franziska Brantner, the report finds that support of EU positions in the General Assembly has declined from around 70% to around 50%.  They detected a similar drop-off in EU influence on the Human Rights Council and in the Security Council.  The shift has been accompanied by corresponding increases in the influence of China and Russia, each finding their support in the General Assembly rising from around 50% to around 75% over the same period.  The authors note several reasons for this troubling dynamic, including these (from the press release): “Europe has lost ground because of a reluctance to use its leverage, and a tendency to look inwards - with 1,000 coordination meetings in New York alone each year - rather than talk to others. It is also weakened by a failure to address flaws in its reputation as a leader on human rights and multilateralism.”

• 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

In an ominous development, the Washington Post reports a Russian reaction to yesterday’s missile defense deal:

In Moscow today, Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the Russian general staff, said that a newly-signed missile defense deal between the U.S. and Poland “cannot go unpunished,” the Associated Press reported. He did not elaborate.

I’ve always thought the Bush administration’s fixation on missile defense was a bad idea, and that hasn’t changed.  But one has to wonder what sort of punishment Moscow might have in mind, seeing as the last time that word was used, it was employed by President Medvedev to describe the military operations against Georgia.

Given Moscow’s reaction, it is understandable why Poland would want bilateral assurances, on top of NATO commitments, and direct assistance from Washington as the cost for deploying the missile defense interceptors.  The New York Times reports today:

The deal reflected growing alarm in a range of countries that had been part of the Soviet sphere, about a newly rich and powerful Russia’s intentions in its former cold war sphere of power. In fact, negotiations dragged on for 18 months — but were completed only as old memories and new fears surfaced in recent days.

Those fears were codified to some degree in what Polish and American officials characterized as unusual aspects of the final deal: that at least temporarily American soldiers would staff air defense sites in Poland oriented toward Russia, and that the United States would be obliged to defend Poland in case of an attack with greater speed than required under NATO, of which Poland is a member….

The missile defense deal was announced by Polish officials and confirmed by the White House. Under it, Poland would host an American base with 10 interceptors designed to shoot down a limited number of ballistic missiles, in theory launched by a future adversary such as Iran. A tracking radar system would be based in the Czech Republic. The system is expected to be in place by 2012.

In exchange for providing the base, Poland would get what the two sides called “enhanced security cooperation,” notably a top-of-the-line Patriot air defense system that can shoot down shorter-range missiles or attacking fighters or bombers.

A senior Pentagon official described an unusual part of this quid pro quo: an American Patriot battery would be moved from Germany to Poland, where it would be operated by a crew of about 100 American military personnel members. The expenses would be shared by both nations. American troops would join the Polish military, at least temporarily, at the front lines — facing east toward Russia.

• Uncategorized
• Comments(0)

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)

Eric Witte August 11th, 2008

Proposals for stronger western action to defend Georgia from Russia’s invasion have tended to be short on specifics.  For example, Bill Kristol asks in yesterday’s New York Times:

Shouldn’t we therefore now insist that normal relations with Russia are impossible as long as the aggression continues, strongly reiterate our commitment to the territorial integrity of Georgia and Ukraine, and offer emergency military aid to Georgia?

The first proposal is a given - as long as the attack continues, western relations with Russia will be anything but normal.  That seems like weak motivation for Putin to call an end to the war while such tantalizing goals remain within his grasp. 

The second action is only a verbal commitment absent other actions.  As I wrote earlier, at least with regard to Ukraine, it could actually be helpful in defining its sovereignty as a red line for the West.  But I’m not sure it does anything for Georgia at this point. 

The third proposal - emergency military aid - is more concrete when it comes to doing something to defend Georgia now, but Russia has moved swiftly and controls Georgia’s airspace.  How would emergency military aid even be delivered?  Would Georgia still have a functioning military by the time it got there?  Then, of course, there’s the question of how Russia would respond.

• Uncategorized
• Comments(0)