In case you've been living in a cave for the past week or so, Russia invaded Georgia. No, not our Georgia. This Georgia is a former Soviet republic. Previously and currently, it's own sovereign nation. A bit of trivia for you. The Georgians were one of the earliest civilizations on the planet that gained wealth and made jewelry out of gold. In fact, they invented wine making, so the next time you are enjoying that glass of burgundy, raise a glass to the nation of Georgia. Especially since we're not quite sure how much longer there will be a Georgia.
Some background. Georgia, in 2003 elected Mikheil Saakashvili president. He was re-elected again last year. This election marked a marked turn toward not only democracy, but also the west. Saakashvili was educated in the west and was outwardly open toward his intentions on trying to join the E.U. and NATO. Incidentally, his election was known as the Rose Revolution, which deposed the semi-despotic rule of former Soviet Foreign Minister Edvard Shevardnadze. A second bit of trivia for you; I was actually on the same flight as Edvard Shevardnaze once, so I can honestly say that we are like brothers.
I digress. With Georgia turning toward the west, following Ukraine's Orange Revolution and turn toward the west with E.U. and NATO aspirations, this did not sit too well with Stalin, I mean Putin. Third bit of trivia, Stalin was born in Gori, Georgia, which the Russians were bombing for the last few days. He was the one that actually divided the Ossetians into North Ossetia, a republic of Russia and South Ossetia, a republic of Georgia. OK, I promise the last bit of trivia. I was reading a timeline of events and it started in the 13th century when Genghis Khan drove the Ossetians over the Caucasian Mountains and divided them. (And we wonder why some people in this country in the south refer to the Civil War as "the recent unpleasantness). Ill deeds in history are never forgotten or forgiven in the Old World or the Middle East.
Russia has apparently been operating as "peacekeepers" since the Rose Revolution and been handing out Russian passports to not only South Ossetia, but also the other break away province of Abkhazia. Russia is all for break away provinces, as long as their not named Chechnya, oh, and not actually in Russia. If you get the sense that I am dripping with irony, you are correct. I just bathed in it. I didn't really mean to turn this into a history lesson, though it is fascinating and I do after all have a degree in International Affairs, with a focus on Russia, so you will have to indulge me.
On August 8th, the Georgian army overplayed its hand by entering South Ossetia and trying to retake its capital by force. The Russian's contend that it was naked aggression by Georgia, attacking civilians and those poor defenseless Russian
"peacekeepers". The only problem with that story is that there are reports that the Russians started shelling Georgia first and that Georgia responded. As I stated, they overplayed their hand. On top of that, some U.S. internet security firms have uncovered the fact that Russian servers started a cyber-attack against Georgia on August 4th. They used their servers to command denial of service attacks against Georgia's parliament website, the president's website, and completely flooded the internet within Georgia to render it unusable. Now if this is too technical, suffice it to say, it shut down the internet which mean no email, no chat, no nothing. You can't work in 2008 without the internet. So Russia can claim that Georgia started this war, but the evidence points to other conclusions. Even if Russia did, it doesn't excuse their actions since that time. Did I mention that Russia just happened to have about 120 tanks sitting on the border waiting for something to happen. How convenient.
So now, France has taken the lead on negotiating a cease fire. They hold the current presidency of the E.U. President Sarkozy has been shuttling between Moscow and Tbilisi and has brokered, on paper a cease fire. The problem is, that while Russia tells the world that it accepts the cease fire agreement, which requires them to pull back to their August 6th positions, they are in reality pressing on further into Georgia. As of right now, it appears from reports that they are not only occupying the aforementioned Gori, but also the port town of Poti. They are cutting off the main east-west highway in the country.
The question remains; what does Russia want? Do they want to re-absorb Georgia, just destabilize it, overthrow the democratically elected government, or what? In my mind, this is about oil. The only pipeline from Kazakhstan to Europe that doesn't run through and controlled by Russia is the one that runs through southern Georgia. This is about the control of energy to Europe. Russia wants all the leverage. It is also about sphere of influence in the former Soviet republics. Russia can't stand western leaning governments on their border. The Baltic states and Ukraine should be peeing in their collective pants right now. They have all been the victim of destabilization efforts from Russia, in the past few years.
Yesterday, the Bush administration potentially upped the ante. He announced that we are fully committed to standing by the democratically elected government of Georgia and that we were immediately going to be sending humanitarian aid to the region. Oh and by the way, we're going to have it personally delivered by our military and we expect the ports, roads, and airports open to receive it. Now, nobody thinks the United States is going to go head to head with Russia militarily. It is not going to happen. But the idea of the Russians blockading our warships from entering Poti would make for some interesting drama.
Some commentators have argued that Russia's actions and interests are the equivalent of our Monroe Doctrine, which for over a hundred years we have used to justify U.S. action in "our" hemisphere. I'm sure Latin America and the Canadians are thrilled. My position is that the Monroe Doctrine is wrong and misguided, therefore Russia's similar actions are equally misguided and wrong. The U.S. has partaken in covert actions to destabilize or outright overthrow (excuse me, I suppose inflict regime change is the current vogue) more governments in the western hemisphere than we can shake a stick at. To what end? Castro retired a sick and old man. Some of our allies in Latin America are beset by drug lords. I just read of how in the 50's we overthrew the democratically elected government in Guatemala because the newly elected president, who himself was very wealthy, had a plan to redistribute land, a lot of which was at the time not being used for farming, in order to prop up crop prices. He was even willing to pitch in his own land into the bargain. United Fruit, an American company that controlled 85% of the farming in Guatemala at the time, complained to the American government, and I suppose, under the pretext of the Monroe Doctrine, sent in the CIA.
The bottom line is bad behavior does not justify bad behavior. Norms evolve. We cannot in the 21st century sanction illegal invasions and ethnic cleansing. No matter who is perpetrating the cause.
Which brings me to a larger point, though, and one that I am not admittedly altogether comfortable with. I think the U.N. is broken. Normally, this is a position taken by Neo-cons and Libertarians that see the U.N. as some step toward World Government, which I don't really buy into. The U.N. is way too ineffective to ever achieve something that lofty. No, my problem is it doesn't really work. With China and Russia as permanent members of the Security Council, you have two countries that while trying to exercise their global muscle. Frankly, the same holds true when we want to do something stupid, like invade Iraq. The U.N. is powerless to prevent anything. I'm not sure what the U.N. is good for except for perhaps, humanitarian purposes, which they can do well, when the Secretary General's family isn't skimming off the top.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a unilateralist. I do believe, however, that we should be working within a framework of a community of nations with common principles, goals, and aspirations. Right now, the only one I can think of is NATO. We should put our energies and resources into NATO instead of the U.N.. We should also open it up to other countries that share our democratic principles. I must say, I find it a bit ironic, personally, that I have come to this conclusion. In my last year of college, the Soviet Union had disbanded and nobody knew what was going to happen. I was wondering, at the time, if NATO even had a future. The consensus at the time was that NATO would fade into irrelevance. I now could not imagine a more different outcome. I do not envision this organization to be dominated by the United States. I think that by working with countries that share common values, we will be able to come together more frequently.
In the meantime, many, especially on the right, such as Charles Krauthammer, Robert Kagan, and George Will, have called for direct consequences for Russia, should they not back down and honor their cease fire agreement. Some have called for the dissolution of the G-8 and ultimate reconstitution of the G-7 without Russian participation. Another idea is for the U.S. to block Russian entry into the WTO. I believe that while our options are limited, we must take these steps if Russia absorbs Georgia or part of its territory back into Mother Russia or overthrow the democratically elected government of Georgia. (Yes, it makes me nervous when I agree with these folks.) Beyond that, there's not much we can do except make it painful for them. Russia controlling all of the oil and gas pipelines to Europe will give them a huge strategic advantage.
Another reason to fast track alternative sources of energy. It is a case of not only national, but global security.
