Georgia: Shaping World Opinion

At times such as this, shaping world opinion is crucial and as Georgia continues to grab the headlines, the Russian and Georgian presidents are making their voices heard through the international media. On Wednesday, for example, Medvedev had his explaination of why Russia invaded Georgia and recognized its two breakaway regions published by The Financial Times.

On Tuesday Russia recognised the independence of the territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. It was not a step taken lightly, or without full consideration of the consequences. But all possible outcomes had to be weighed against a sober understanding of the situation – the histories of the Abkhaz and Ossetian peoples, their freely expressed desire for independence, the tragic events of the past weeks and inter­national precedents for such a move.

[…]

Russia had no option but to crush the attack to save lives. This was not a war of our choice. We have no designs on Georgian territory. Our troops entered Georgia to destroy bases from which the attack was launched and then left. We restored the peace but could not calm the fears and aspirations of the South Ossetian and Abkhazian peoples – not when Mr Saakashvili continued (with the complicity and encouragement of the US and some other Nato members) to talk of rearming his forces and reclaiming “Georgian territory”. The presidents of the two republics appealed to Russia to recognise their independence

The following day, the Georgian president. Mikhail Saakashvili, responded.

Any doubts about why Russia invaded Georgia have now been erased. By illegally recog­nising the Georgian territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s president, made clear that Moscow’s goal is to redraw the map of Europe using force.

This war was never about South Ossetia or Georgia. Moscow is using its invasion, prepared over years, to rebuild its empire, seize greater control of Europe’s energy supplies and punish those who believed democracy could flourish on its borders. Europe has reason to worry. Thankfully, most of the international community has condemned the invasion and confirmed their unwavering support for Georgia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Our first duty is to highlight Russia’s Orwellian tactics. Moscow says it invaded Georgia to protect its citizens in South Ossetia. Over the past five years it cynically laid the groundwork for this pretence, by illegally distributing passports in South Ossetia and Ab­khazia, “manufacturing” Russian citizens to protect. The cynicism of Russia’s concern for ethnic minorities can be expressed in one word: Chechnya.

This cynicism has become hypocritical and criminal. Since Russia’s invasion, its forces have been “cleansing” Georgian villages in both regions – including outside the conflict zone – using arson, rape and execution. Human rights groups have documented these actions. Moscow has flipped the Kosovo precedent on its head: where the west acted to prevent ethnic cleansing, in Georgia ethnic cleansing is being used by Russia to consolidate its military annexation.

Regardless of the war of words, the international community appears mainly united in its condemnation of Russia’s actions in Georgia. Indeed, the opinion is shared even by those outside of Europe and the United States. The Financial Times reports that in former Soviet republics in Central Asia as well as China were not eager to support Moscow.

Dmitry Medvedev, Russian president, failed on Thursday to win support from China or the former Soviet republics of central Asia in his deepening dispute with the west over military action in Georgia.

At a central Asian summit in Tajikistan, Mr Medvedev was unable to persuade Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, or other regional leaders to give explicit backing to Russia’s intervention or its decision to recognise the independence of the two breakaway regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

[…]

Ivan Melnikov, deputy chairman of Russia’s Communist party, claimed Russia had received great support and he was “convinced that the endorsement of the declaration has put a stop to all this speculation about the international isolation of Russia”.

But Yevgeny Volk, an analyst in Moscow for the Heritage Foundation, a US think- tank, said the result of the summit illustrated the opposite. “The statement was very equivocal,” he said. “This shows Russia’s isolation.” Robert Wood of the US state department said: “Russia, I think you are seeing, is becoming more and more isolated: they are isolating themselves. You haven’t seen countries come forth and recognise these two parts of Georgia’s territory”.

Meanwhile, it also criticizes the former Russian president, Vladimir Putin, of redrawing national boundaries by force and calls Russia the agressor. The Financial Times also casts doubts on Medvedev’s presidential credentials.

The Georgian crisis has shown President Dmitry Medvedev’s Russia for what it is – an aggressive authoritarian power. The slim hope that he might soften the tough line set by his ex-KGB predecessor, Vladimir Putin, is gone. Prime minister Putin is the master and President Medvedev does his bidding.

The newspaper says that such actions will ultimately backfire. Where this will leave other traditionally pro-Russian countries such as Armenia is anybody’s guess.

First Russia despatched overwhelming military force to smash the tiny army of its little neighbour, Georgia, on the pretext of defending a minority group from alleged “genocide”. Now Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s president, has recognised the “independence” of the secessionist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, in defiance of United Nations resolutions and the urgent pleading of Washington and the European Union. The Kremlin is determined to demonstrate that it can behave as it will in its own backyard and call the bluff of Georgia’s western allies.

[…]

In the long term, however, this looks a dangerous Russian gamble. Mr Medvedev has turned traditional Russian opposition towards self-determination and the integrity of national borders on its head. Russia opposed the independence of Kosovo for that reason. Now it is cynically copying the Kosovo model to score diplomatic points, but the circumstances are very different.

The Abkhaz and Ossetian populations have not been threatened with anything remotely approaching “ethnic cleansing” or “genocide” by the Georgians. If anything, the danger is in the other direction, with ethnic Georgians fleeing both regions to escape the Russians and the Russian-armed secessionists.

[…]

So why did Mr Medvedev do it? Wounded Russian pride and a misguided desire to rewrite the international book of rules seem the most likely explanations. The former is a bad mentor. As for rewriting the international rules, that will not be done unilaterally, with Russia mistrusted and disliked.

One columnist for the paper, however, believes that this is the only way Russia can operate in the post-Soviet world. The former Soviet Union might have collapsed, but the only language politicians such as the former president, Vladimir Putin, understand is that which strikes fear in the hearts of their opponents.

“I am feared; therefore I am.” This is more than a restatement of Machiavelli’s celebrated advice that, for a ruler, it “is much safer to be feared than loved”. Vladimir Putin, the latest in the long line of autocratic Russian rulers, would agree with the Italian on that. But the war in Georgia is not just a re-assertion of Machiavelli’s principles of statecraft; it is a renewal of Russian national identity. It is yet again feared. In the eyes of its rulers, therefore, it exists.

What is most striking about Russia’s justifications is that they are demonstrably inconsistent with its own beliefs, except for the one that matters – the need to be feared. Nothing in the histories of the Russian or Soviet empires suggests that the principle of self-determination matters a jot. Nor has the Russian state ever cared much about the lives of its citizens. Post-Soviet Russia is no different, as the two Chechen wars, with their tens of thousands of dead, have demonstrated. Those, too, were Russian citizens. We can safely discount such hypocritical justifications for its actions. […]

[…]

So the crushing of Georgia and, if possible, the removal of its president serves a vital interest not of Russia, but of its rulers. Whatever optimists might have hoped two decades ago, Russia has not made the transition to the fundamental western principle that the possession of stable, prosperous and democratic neighbours is beneficial. Russia still lives in a conceptual world of zero-sum relations, not only because it views international relations as based on a hierarchy of power, but because it has the same view of domestic politics. Imperialism and autocracy go together. To employ a useful Islamic terminology, the new Russia, alas, still lives in the “House of War”.

Meanwhile, in a further attempt to put Russia’s case to a less than convinced public outside of its borders, Putin has given an interview to CNN. The former president, now prime minister, accuses the United States of manufacturing the war and working with Georgian troops on the ground. By his own admission, however, there is so far no evidence to back up such accusations.

We have serious reasons to believe that there were U.S. citizens right in the combat zone. If that is the case, if that is confirmed, it is very bad. It is very dangerous; it is misguided policy

But, if that is so, these events could also have a U.S. domestic politics dimension.

If my suppositions are confirmed, then there are grounds to suspect that some people in the United States created this conflict deliberately in order to aggravate the situation and create a competitive advantage for one of the candidates for the U.S. presidency. And if that is the case, this is nothing but the use of the called administrative resource in domestic politics, in the worst possible way, one that leads to bloodshed.

[…]

I have said to you that if the presence of U.S. citizens in the zone of hostilities is confirmed, it would mean only one thing: that they could be there only at the direct instruction of their leaders. And if that is so, it means that in the combat zone there are U.S. citizens who are fulfilling their duties there. They can only do that under orders from their superiors, not on their own initiative.

Ordinary specialists, even if they train military personnel, must do it in training centers or on training grounds rather than in a combat zone.

I repeat: This requires further confirmation. I am quoting to you the reports of our military. Of course, I will seek further evidence from them.

The BBC also weighs in on the continuing war of words with Russia and says that while the Georgians themselves have a lot to answer for, Moscow’s arguments are flawed to say the least.

The statements of Russian leaders reveal an underlying strategy which suggests that the West is right to see dangers ahead from the actions of a belligerent Russia.

But those same statements also show glaring inconsistencies which belie Russia’s apparently strong hand.

The Russians’ strongest argument in defence of its armed intervention is that blame for the outbreak of a shooting war is shared.

Most observers agree it is, and that Georgia’s President Mikheil Saakashvili acted rashly or wrongly in ordering his army to bombard and take the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali.

He was wrong, too, to speak of Russia “exterminating” his nation.

But in many other ways, Russia’s defence of its armed intervention has been found wanting or false.

Russia’s official charges of “genocide” by Georgian forces against the South Ossetians were quickly discredited by Human Rights Watch.

[…]

Moscow’s repeated promises to withdraw its forces as prescribed in the French-brokered ceasefire plan have been broken in many parts of Georgia.

[…]

Mr Medvedev argued that Russia had been forced to use force to protect its own nationals in South Ossetia.

But Russia has deliberately engineered that situation by handing out Russian passports to large numbers of local inhabitants.

Sweden’s normally soft-spoken Foreign Minister Carl Bildt retorted that Russia’s resort to that argument echoed that of Hitler in annexing pre-World War Two Czechoslovakia.

Finally, Russia’s claim that its motive in Georgia was purely humanitarian was exploded by this week’s decision to recognise the independence of the two breakaway regions.

This catalogue of feints and deceptions has hardened international opinion towards Russia to the point where the West is undertaking an overall review of ties with Moscow - something scarcely imaginable only a month ago.

Photo: Mikhail Saakashvili, Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2008