Because there just aren't enough hotspots

By BJ

While the competition between the US and Russia remains quite cold in the far north, things are a lot hotter in the Caucasus.

Georgian forces and South Ossetian separatists have been exchanging heavy fire just hours after agreeing to a ceasefire and Russian-mediated talks.

Fighting broke out after a brief lull in a day of heavy fighting in which 12 people were reportedly killed.

Russian media reported that hundreds of fighters from Russia and Abkhazia were heading to aid the separatist troops.

Russia, which has close ties with South Ossetia, has claimed Georgia is ready to overrun the breakaway province.

The situation between Russia and Georgia has become increasingly tense over the last few months over the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, with claims of Russian fighter jet overflights and a Georgian surveillance drone being shot down.

The US, for its part, is firmly entrenched with the Georgian government, recently sending Secretary of State Rice to Tbilisi to warn off the Russians.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has warned Russia against stoking tension in Georgia's breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Speaking in the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, Ms Rice said Russia should help resolve tensions instead of contributing to them.

. . .

"It is extremely important that the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia be resolved on the basis of principles that respect that territorial integrity of Georgia," she added.

"Territorial integrity" meaning that the pro-US, anti-Russian, Georgian central government retakes control of the regions, even though the majority population in both happens to be Russian. Though the pointed rhetoric is still a far cry from the Bush administration's attempt to have Georgia added to the NATO alliance. Wouldn't it have been lovely to see us all dragged into yet another conflict halfway around the world thanks to the fact that the Bush administration still thinks its fighting the last Cold War?

In any case, the situation there, and the potentially far-reaching consequences that could have resulted from it, allows me the opportunity to post a hefty quote from Greg Djerejian about just how narrowly focused many of the foreign policy debates in America have become.

And yet, nowhere in this discussion do we mention our tottering relations with great powers like Russia, where our policy has veered into incoherence as Putin has effectively reversed democratization there in favor of some variant of state-oligarch-driven capitalist autocracy, as we dilly-dally over missile defense systems on their western borders that are, all told, likely not even necessary, but certainly of huge concern to the Russians. Nowhere in this discussion do we broach the massive challenges posed by a rising China, whether integrating them better into the international economic system, digesting the implications of the largest rural migration into cities I think in history, the environmental challenges China presents to itself, the region and indeed the world, or even, the fact that new political and economic architecture is being cobbled together in the Pacific Rim, too often with not enough U.S. involvement (despite Chris Hill's laudable efforts on North Korea, of which the boos and hisses only crescendoed the closer he came to success, discrediting the arrayed neoconservative nomenklatura disgruntled that diplomats dare deign do their jobs).

Nowhere either is there talk of the future of our relationship with India, where even at this late hour it is far from certain, indeed likelier not, that an agreement on the nuclear issue between Delhi and Washington will be agreed. Nowhere either do we highlight the critical imperative of resuscitating the scandalously moribund Arab-Israeli peace process, which despite the cheap theater of Annapolis, seems to have been sub-contracted out of late--via a combination of gross amateurism and neglect--to countries like France, Turkey and, say, Qatar. Nor even do we mention but perhaps in passing the pressing need for something akin to a Manhattan Project on energy, for greater movement on climate change, for our neglected relations with Central and South America (notably that rising BRIC Brazil), or the devastation being wrought through Africa via ongoing chronic conflicts and disease. I could go on, but these challenges matter too, do they not?

Reading through that list gives me great pause at the extraordinary number of clearly important challenges facing the US and those closely aligned with it that are largely absent from the news shows and coverage of the Presidential race. I think the biggest issue in regards to China so far was what the candidates thought about a possible boycott of the Opening Ceremonies.

America, as Greg also points out, is still a great power, and as a result remains entangled and invested in events and areas all over the world. Bush may have failed to get the US legally obligated to fight a war over South Ossetia, but it is sobering to note how close he came to that goal without any substantive discussion about it in the US.

Of course, I suppose it would just go down as one of those things nobody realized was a possibility.

Comments

[Fred Beloit]

Gee, I wonder how many UN resolutions Russia secured before it allowed itself to attack Georgia? Seventeen or eighteen I guess. Oh no. It must be...it is the work of that dumb evil genius Bush.

You guys have got to be kidding. By the way, why hasn't Obama said in the past what he would do to prevent this from happening?

[Fred Beloit]

Personally, I blame Obama for the Russian attack (without one, single, solitary UN resolution) on Georgia. As a leading citizen of the world Obama should have been all over the intentions of the Russians, hopped over to Moscow from Berlin, and talked the Russians out of it through diplomatic negotiations. This problem is clearly of Obama's making.

[BJ Bjornson]

Fred,

Georgia is the one who launched the attack, not Russia. Not that the Russians are exactly innocent choirboys, but they aren’t the aggressors in the current round of fighting.

Also, I don’t recall placing any blame on Bush for the situation, merely pointing out that he nearly had us all stuck right in the middle of it. The situation has been brewing since 1992 when the regions broke away from Georgia after Georgia broke away from the Soviet Union. (Actually, it probably goes back much further than that. One thing I’ve learned is that for these regions, history isn’t a recent phenomenon. They can probably link the ethnic struggle back to the time of the Mongols.)

It got a lot more intense after the breakaway region of Kosovo declared its independence and was recognized by the US and other Western powers, “Territorial integrity” only being important for those who the West likes, after all. (Quick check, if the Serbs had launched an attack to bring the breakaway region of Kosovo back under its control and the US and Nato sent troops in to help the Kosovars, do you think it would be reported as, “US invades Serbia”?)

Anyway, the real test for Bush will be now to see if tries to quell the fighting or gives it an assist by hastening the delivery of the Georgian forces and equipment from Iraq and possible additional military aid.

[Fred Beloit]

"Georgia is the one who launched the attack, not Russia. Not that the Russians are exactly innocent choirboys, but they aren’t the aggressors in the current round of fighting."

Thank you for the reply. But that's odd. It seems the rest of the media world are blaming Russia. Any chance you could give us a link to demonstrate your point?

"(Actually, it probably goes back much further than that. One thing I’ve learned is that for these regions, history isn’t a recent phenomenon. They can probably link the ethnic struggle back to the time of the Mongols.)"

One hopes that Bush will not be implicated in these struggles.

[BJ Bjornson]

Any chance you could give us a link to demonstrate your point?

Not a problem, you can start with the current BBC report on the fighting:

The crisis began spiralling when Georgian forces launched a surprise attack on Thursday night to regain control of South Ossetia, which has had de facto independence since the end of a civil war in 1992.

The move followed days of exchanges of heavy fire with the Russian-backed separatists.

Pretty much all the news outlets are carrying the same basic timeline; a lot of skirmishes followed by a major assault from the Georgians. You can argue it was provoked, but the choice to escalate far beyond the skirmishing falls to the Georgians. They were probably gambling they could cut off the one and only road linking SO to Russia and thus present a fait accompli to the world community. And it appears they lost the gamble.

[Fred Beloit]

Yes, I agree, how could I not, that the BBC says: "The crisis began spiralling when Georgian forces launched a surprise attack on Thursday night to regain control of South Ossetia,..." Thank you.

The trouble is that the BBC doesn't say where/how it received this information. It simply asserts it. This is a rather strange omission, isn't it?

Marines murdered innocents in cold blood in Haditha, asserted John Murtha once. "...the choice to escalate far beyond the skirmishing falls to the Georgians." Perhaps. I'm sure sources will be revealed over time.

From your BBC link:
"The UK, the US and France, are pinpointing what they say is Russia's aggression as the key factor in the slide towards war, while Moscow insists Georgia is to blame."
For now I'll believe the West. How about you, BJ?

[BJ Bjornson]

Tell you what Fred, if you can find me a link that disputes the basic timeline the BBC, (and every other news outlet I’ve read), reports; that there were numerous skirmishes, followed by a major Georgian assault, followed by the Russians sending in the big guns, I’d love to see it. I mean, what other sources are you expecting to turn up? Even the Georgian government isn’t disputing the basic timeline here.

As for your other quote, the Western governments you mention don’t dispute the timeline either. As I said in the post, that was a link to a story about the current situation, as of a few hours ago, which includes the fact that Russia is expanding its operations well beyond South Ossetia and that appears to be continuing with another front opened on the Abhkazia frontier. I noted in another post above that I think they’re in clear danger of over-reaching themselves.

For now I'll believe the West. How about you, BJ?

I don’t believe any government, because every last one of them lies and spins to their own benefit. If you choose to believe the propaganda either side puts out you are bound to be disappointed. I’m just reading all the reports I can find and trying to piece together what the likely truth is. You’ll note I’m not running around claiming the Georgians slaughtered a couple of thousand Ossetians or took part in ethnic cleansing because there isn’t any independent verification of the Russian and Ossetian claims. Based on the fact that during the ’90-92 conflict the deaeth toll was around a thousand, double that in two days seems highly unlikely, though it is possible and I hope we’ll get a clearer picture of the actual casualty figures in the near future.