The last two weeks have been nuts, what with the Clinton and Obama speeches, Hurricane Sarah, and all other things political.  And things are unlikely to slow down anytime soon, given the fact that the election is only sixty days away.

While Americans focused on the conventions (and Hurricane Gustav), world events didn’t just grind to a halt.  Over the past two weeks, there have been a number of important developments that are not only important in their own right but also may have a significant impact on the next President’s ability to govern.

Over the next few days, I’m going to try to highlight someJ of them.  Let’s start with Russia-Georgia.

In the past two weeks, the Russia-Georgia conflict has increasingly turned into a proxy (cold) war between the United States and the Russian Federation.  Russian President Medvedev has demonstrated a particular affection for Bushian bluster, making grandiose nationalistic statements about reestablishing a Russian sphere of influence that were meant as much for internal consumption as for global politics.  Meanwhile, the Bush Administration has taken several steps to bind the United States even more closely to the fate of Georgia — including a pledge of more than $1 billion in new (non-military) foreign assistance and a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney.

John McCain’s protestations notwithstanding, most Americans still do not understand what is going on or why the conflict is relevant to their lives.

For all the jokes about Cheney being sent out of the country during the Convention, the reality is that his trip was deadly serious, designed to show the Russians that the United States would not be cowed in the face of its aggression.  But it also showed Cheney’s unbelievably blinkered view of the world:  in the end, the reason the U.S. is backing Georgia is because of the latter’s decision to send troops to Iraq.

The Administration’s actions are going to make it much harder for the next President to pursue a more rational, interests-based policy while at the same time defending Georgian sovereignty.  Of course, if McCain is President, that will not be a problem.

The bottom line:  this has become a game of low-intensity chicken, with both sides acting like 12-year-old boys.  And neither side really cares to behave like adults.  Georgia, which is largely (though not entirely) the victim here, is stuck in the middle, with little hope of serious support from the West or complete withdrawal of Russian forces.  The real fear is that some further incident will cause one side or the other to ratchet up the rhetoric in a way that we’re suddenly looking at Bosnia 1914 all over again — except this time, it will be with thousands upon thousands of nukes on both sides.

For those interested in the specifics, you can find a straightforward report on the events of the past two weeks after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

Related posts

• Russia: Anything You Can Do I Can Make Worse
• Russia-Georgia: The Other Shoe Drops
• One of These Things is Exactly Like the Other
• Diplospeak Translator: The Condi in Crawford
• So Much for Mars

Pop quiz:  Kosovo is to Iraq as Iraq is to. . .

Georgia.

As Matthew Yglesias and other analysts have noted, the Kosovo conflict set a dangerous precedent because the United States (with the backing of most of Europe) intervened without getting authorization from the Security Council under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.  At the time, liberal internationalists cheered the move, believing that the danger of ethnic cleansing and perhaps genocide took precedence over a Security Council resolution.

The only problem was that it created a precedent for other unilateral intervention.  Four years later, when the Bush Administration invaded Iraq, many of the same folks who defended the U.S. action in Kosovo found the neocons making the exact same arguments.

Now, the Bush Administration is getting a taste of the same medicine it so gleefully dished out back in 2003.  The Administration finds itself  trying to explain why Russian action in Georgia is somehow not the same as what the United States did in Iraq.

Let’s face facts here, folks.  There is no difference.  Well there’s one difference:  Georgia has a democratically elected government.  But in the context of contemporary international politics, that clearly doesn’t mean much.

Time to play compare and contrast.  Today, Dubya said the following [emphasis added]:

I am deeply concerned by reports that Russian troops have moved beyond the zone of conflict, attacked the Georgian town of Gori, and are threatening the Georgia’s — Georgia’s capital of Tbilisi. There’s evidence that Russian forces may soon begin bombing the civilian airport in the capital city.

If these reports are accurate, these Russian actions would represent a dramatic and brutal escalation of the conflict in Georgia. And these actions would be inconsistent with assurances we have received from Russia that its objectives were limited to restoring the status quo in South Ossetia that existed before fighting began on August the 6th.

It now appears that an effort may be underway to depose Russia’s* duly elected government. Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century.

[snip]

Russia’s actions this week have raised serious questions about its intentions in Georgia and the region. These actions have substantially damaged Russia’s standing in the world. And these actions jeopardize Russians’ relations — Russia’s relations with the United States and Europe. It is time for Russia to be true to its word and to act to end this crisis.

Now here’s what then-Russian President Vladimir Putin said at the time of the invasion of Iraq [emphasis added]:

Today the United States started a military action against Iraq. Already there are human victims and destruction. . . . Let me stress from the beginning that military actions are taking place contrary to the world public opinion, contrary to the principles and norms of international law and the Charter of the UN.

Nothing can justify this military action — neither accusations of Iraq of supporting international terrorism (we have never had and do not have information of this kind) nor the desire to change the political regime in that country which is in direct contradiction to international law and should be determined only by the citizens of this or that state.

[snip]

The military action against Iraq is a big political mistake. I have already referred to the humanitarian aspect. But the threat of the disintegration of the established system of international security causes at least as much concern.

If we allow international law to be replaced by “the law of the fist” whereby the strong is always right and has the right to do anything and in choosing methods to achieve his goals is not constrained by anything, then one of the basic principles of international law will be put into question, and that is the principle of immutable sovereignty of a state. And then no one, not a single country in the world will feel secure. And the vast area of instability that has arisen will grow and cause negative consequences in other regions of the world.

It is for these reasons that Russia insists on early termination of military actions. And we are still confident that the central role in resolving the crisis situations in the world, including the situation around Iraq, must belong to the UN Security Council.

I would like to stress that Russia is committed to trying to bring this situation back to a peaceful course and to achieve genuine solution of the issue of Iraq on the basis of UN Security Council resolutions, a solution that would take into account the legitimate interests of the Iraqi people, respect of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of that country.

Pot, meet kettle.  Kettle, meet pot.  The only fundamental difference here is that Putin framed things in terms of international law and the role of the UN, while Bush framed things in terms of Russia’s place in the world and its relationship with the United States and Europe. (Leave it to our distinguished President to allow his soul brutha to come up with the stronger argument.)

That said, somebody needs to throw these words back in Putin’s face.  And Medvedev’s too.  What hypocrites.

Sadly, as a result of our Iraq adventure, it can’t be the United States.

Related posts

• While You Were Away: Russia-Georgia
• So Much for Mars
• Russia: Anything You Can Do I Can Make Worse
• Russia-Georgia: The Other Shoe Drops
• Russia-Georgia: The Big Winner