|
||
The Politics of War: Treating Russia Like China, and McCain's Petulance
Over the weekend, Georgia rather than Iraq seemed set to become the dominant foreign policy issue of the 2008 election. The McCain camp sounded as if they were hoping so. On the surface, they had a point. McCain's proposal to eject Russia from the Group of 8 (G-8) looked wild and reckless six months ago. Today, it looks a lot more sensible. But a closer analysis of recent events yields a very different conclusion.
If Russia had continued its military assault all the way to Georgia's capital, Tbilisi, and overthrown the democratically elected government, as many feared a couple of days ago, this crisis would indeed have overshadowed almost everything else on the foreign policy agenda. A great power invading and occupying a neighbor over the objections of the rest of the civilized world would have been both an outrage and a world-historical event.
Instead, despite the protestations of right-wing commentators here at home, this crisis is likely to simmer down and before too long it will be just another item on the international agenda. All of this assumes that the French-led effort to establish a cease-fire holds and diplomacy starts to focus on the location of Russian and Georgian forces and possibly a new peacekeeping force established on the disputed territory of South Ossetia.
But there are still important questions that remain to be debated. Did the Bush administration mislead the Georgian government into thinking support for membership in NATO meant military support in a crisis? What should U.S. policy be toward Russia? And will John McCain be able to score political points out of this tragedy?
Complete answers to these questions may take months. But some conclusions can already be drawn. First and foremost, Georgia has become yet another example of stunning incompetence by the Bush administration. Let's remember it was Chancellor Merkel of Germany who became the power broker when leaders at the NATO summit debated the subject of Georgia this spring. The United States, which has traditionally led NATO on such subjects, failed to push through a so-called Membership Action Plan for Georgia. That failure, as much as anything, gave Moscow a crucial signal that the West could not muster a serious response should it crack down on its troublesome neighbor. And while we don't know exactly what was said by Washington to Georgia's President Saakashvilli, clearly he was not deterred from acting.
Whoever was responsible for the initial provocation, we can also conclude that Russia should pay a heavy price for its actions. The Russian government desperately wants the West to treat it as an important and respected great power. We can and should withhold that treatment. No diplomatic business as usual. And above all, we should reject as not worthy of consideration Russia's proposal last month for a new European security architecture.
In general, treat Russia like China, an important power whose policies and practices merit regular criticism. That doesn't mean cutting off relations. It just means realpolitick. Certainly, there should no more cozy Bush-Putin-soulmate treatment handed out by the next President. Some worry that a tougher policy would jeopardize cooperation from Russia on key issues like Iran's nuclear aspirations. But the truth is Russia is joining the international community in putting sanctions on Iran not as a favor to the United States. It doesn't want to see an Iranian nuclear bomb any more than we do.
As for the politics here at home, McCain may say his policy shows prescience. But what it really shows is petulance. John McCain, despite all his claims of unique experience, is just the wrong man to lead American foreign policy in the twenty-first century. Kicking Russia out of the G-8 a year ago wouldn't have made things better. It would have just caused a bigger split with our European allies. The same goes for his argument that we should have demanded that NATO give greater support for Georgia. We learned in recent weeks that when Europe and America are united, Russian opposition is neutered. On missile defense, NATO has come together and Russia's complaints have quieted. It was the split in NATO over Georgia, a split that a McCain approach would have widened, that gave Russia reason to believe the West would acquiesce in its military aggression.
Which brings us back to the politics of war. In the run-up to the Iraq debacle, John McCain was as outrageous as Donald Rumsfeld in denouncing our European allies for not supporting an early invasion. He has not been a consensus-builder in NATO. He has been a fiery defender of the neo-conservative line.
The next President must be someone who can remain calm in a crisis, not jump to conclusions, and build a consensus with our friends and allies. That is how America's interests will be best defended and promoted in the twenty-first century. McCain's record of discord with our European allies and his shoot from the hip approach on Russia demonstrate that if the phone rings at three a.m. he'll be giving the wrong answers.
James P. Rubin is now an adjunct Professor at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. He was Assistant Secretary of State and Chief Spokesman of the State Department during the Clinton Administration.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Of course Mr. Rubin will say that. Clinton/ Albright started what W continued: isolation of Russia. Back then Russia was weak and reeling, why not take advantage of the situation?
Obama must get rid of those hawkish advisers around him. If he is for the dialog with Iran why make the anti-Russian statements? The initial reaction was the correct one, should have stuck with it. McCain is one of main instigators of the conflict and the campaign should be driving this point very hard.
To claim leadership qualities one has to have the courage to take unpopular positions when it matters. Besides there are 3 million Russian speakers in the US.
"The United States, which has traditionally led NATO on such subjects, failed to push through a so-called Membership Action Plan for Georgia."
Thank God for that. If Georgia had been a member of NATO, we could now be in a Cuban missle crisis nuclear confrontation with Russia. Hopefully at least some NATO members will be sane enough to oppose Georgian membership in NATO.
The same "experts" who stampeded us into an unneccessary war with Iraq are now trying to stanpede us into an unneccesary confrontation with Russia.
The American people are so gullible.
Why doesn't someone follow the money trail from Georgia to McCain's Campaign foreign policy expert on Georgia, Shunneman (sp), who has received more than half a million dollars to lobby the U.S. (John McCain) on Georgia's behalf. Didn't Shunneman (sp) receive $100,000 from Georgia the day before McCain began his "war talk" supporting Georgia? "Inquiring Minds want to know" and all Americans need to know!
The analysis remains incomplete without the recognition that Russia is in part reacting to Washington meddling in Georgia as well as to "defense shield" missiles being planted on its doorstep. Though ethically indefensible, the attack not only signals Russia's unwillingness to allow Washington to continue its attempts to encroach on its interests, it has received plenty of sanction from the series of wars launched by the U.S. against other sovereign powers. Russia is merely showing us the hawkish face already being shown to them.
“Whoever was responsible for the initial provocation, we can also conclude that Russia should pay a heavy price for its actions.”
Prof. Rubin, this is the blatant cynisism that you profess.
If you are so evasive in presenting facts, let's educate you a little.
Russia has the UN mandate for peacekeeping in the South Ossetia.
On July 17, Russia had presented a draft resolution to the UN Security Council calling for a deal on the non-use of force in South Ossetia on Abkhazia. The UK and USA blocked the resolution.
The joint Georgian-American military exercised had been held three weeks before the conflict. In addition, Israeli military advisors trained Georgian army and provided with the modern weaponry.
On August 8, on the eve of the Olympian Games, Georgia bombarded the sleepy capital of South Ossetia, killing more than 1000 people (some sources say 2000), including a dozen of Russian (UN) peacekeepers. Russia intered S. Ossetia almost 12 hours after Georgia attacked civilian population of S. Ossetia. Many of the Tskhinvalli citizens held Russian passports. From S. Ossetia, thousands of refugees fled to Russia.
Why is it irrelevant who is responsible for the provocation? Georgia started this. Therefore Georgia should pay the heavy price.
Is it possible that the McCain lobbyists goaded Georgia into attacking South Ossetia in order to boost his poll numbers?
About McCain, I reiterate my dad's question. "Has he had thirty years' experience, or one year's experience thirty times?" A man who cheats on the wife who stayed faithful while he was living in the Hanoi Hilton and who raised his kids, then took a cute mistress when his wife was hospitalized (maybe because the mistress had a lot of cute money, and was willing to finance his entry into politics, never mind that her money was a legacy from organized crime) Then, antedating Gingrich, divorced his wife and married the money. I think the crime connection alone is enough to deny him the pResidency, but then, that's Arizona politics!
Russia could care less if Iran had the bomb. Nobody but Israel cares. It is not an exclusive club (see Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea ) only superpowers belong too. The world needs the immense resources of Russia more than Russia needs the west.
Nuclear weapons are a wonderful way to allow you to negotiate respectfully. Worked well for the US, Russia and China.
Russia is simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the western powers. If Kosovo is entitled to self determination because of the Albanian majority, than why not the Russian population in territories of Georgia?
And why not the Kurds in Iraq and Turkey?
And what about the Palestinians?
And the Mexican immigrants who will be the majority in Texas soon........
Don't be mislead by all the talk about protecting the democracy of Georgia. It has to do with protecting (or having under US control) the oil pipeline that passes through Georgia... a vital strategic matter. Russia wants to control it... we want to control it, through Georgia.
Anerican, GET OFF OIL
(have you noticed the price of oil is going down now that demand is going down. WE have the power... CONSERVE!)
Um, if you recall your history, in which you seem to take some pride, up until the Mexican War, Texas WAS part of Mexico!
Then, we took it away from them following the Battle of San Jacinto (post Alamo), and the rest as they say is history.
He who wins writes it.
Not so. We (the United States) did not take Texas away from Mexico. The Texans revolted against Mexican rule and won their independence from it. As a result the Republic of Texas was founded. Texas did not join the United States until years later.
The Boo$hies are incompetent but I think the Russians have proved you wrong in calling them "desperate." They sure didn't look desperate.
So should the US be kicked out of the G8 because of Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq? It is always easier to point to the human-rights violations of others but it should be done with at least a modicum of humility given successive American foreign policy towards Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia/Kosovo, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, Venezuela, Cuba, Chile, Vietnam...even going back to Soviet Russia when after the Boshevik Revolution it was invaded.
...and I forgot the invasion of Canada in 1812.
...and Iran, apartheid South Africa, Angola, Brazil...
Tension with Russia is advantageous to the U.S. - but not so much tension it will lead to direct conflict. Like during the cold war, this struggle will be played out by pawns. NATO membership for Georgia would mean the possibility of direct conflict. When you fight through proxy you get to keep your conventional villain should you need to drum up fear and patriotism at home, while at the same time selling arms to the smaller countries and then rebuilding them after they level each other. How long before KBR gets no bid cost plus contracts in Georgia?
A more balanced view than the cold war language from Bush can you find here:
http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/08/pjb-blowback-from-bear-baiting/
The link you presented has nothing to do with Bush. It's critical of Bush and US foreign policy generally. I usually discount what Buchanan says or writes since he's little more than a pontifical blowhard and a bully. But this piece has much to commend it; particularly Buchanan's statements to the effect that what Russian did to Georgia has parallels to what the US and the west did to Serbia and Israel did to Lebanon. Buchanan's correct: The west doesn't like looking in the mirror and Russia gave us the perfect opportunity to do it. And true to expectations, our response was hypocritical. I'm not condoning what Russia did, not for a moment. But one has to wonder what was in the mind of the Georgian government on 6 August when the tried to reoccupy their break away province. Russian overreacted but that should have been predictable and one can only suspect that the Georgian government didn't care because they expected NATO to ride to the rescue of they were country on Russia to not respond for fear of a NATO counter response. And Buchanan is right again: Bush blocked the effort to bring Georgia under the NATO umbrella and Russia probably say this as western weakness and knew he had to act and act quickly. He did that as soon as Georgia gave him an opportunity.
Russia is a player in the world market for oil. They signed a contract with Iran a short time ago and the oil pipeline runs through Georgia (connect the dots). America has a contract with India and the pipeline goes through Afghanistan (connect the dots). When you have an oil man for President its going to be about oil, if you have a military man for President it will be about War. Obama an academic/Lawyer will be in logic and reason a good combination for a President.
James Rubin about Russia's invasion of Georgia: "A great power invading and occupying a neighbour over the objections of the rest of the civilized world would have been an outrage and a world historical event." That could apply even if it were not a "neighbour" Mr. Rubin and the U.S. under the Bush admin has already set that precedent in Iraq for the great powers and other nations to follow. Russia at least is leaving Georgia.
Russia has permitted the former Soviet Republics to secede and form their own governments. She has adoped an economic system familiar to the western democracies. Should she not have been welcomed by the western powers?
Instead, missiles have been shipped to former Soviet allies Poland and Czech Republic. Georgia has been armed and trained by the U.S. Other southern border states formerly part of the Soviet Union have been enlisted to serve in Iraq and are being exploited for their oil/gas resources.
What kind of friendship is this? What kind of respect did Russia receive from the U.S.?
Bravo Elkanah. The problem with U.S. foreign policy (from both Democrats and Republicans) is that it is based on double standards. It is o.k. for the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq under false pretense. It is o.k. for the U.S and NATO to attack Serbia and aid one of its provinces Kosove to secede and become independent. I am also tired of the phrase "civilized world." There was nothing civilized about "shock and awe," or about U.S. torture of captives of U.S. invasions. Yes, Russia need to be blamed for disproportionate use of force. But since it was Georgia that started the war by invading an autonomous province, a case can be made for the legitimacy of Russian response. Compare that to r what United States did in invading a sovereign country that had done nothing to us. United States political leaders like Bush and McCain should stop telling other country to do "as we say but not as we do." Countries like Russia are not children.
One major failure of US foreign policy was to fully embrace the new Russia into the West. The time to initiate this was before Gorbachev resigned and before the 1991 coups that gave the world Yeltsin. The west couldn't accept Gorbachev because his economic politics represented a third way for nations to follow (Capitalism, Socialism, and a true blending of the two). The IMF, World Bank, and the western treasuries twisted Yeltsin's arm until he denationalized Russia creating the economic havoc that permitted the rise of the Russian oligarchs, which was so predictable I have to wonder what western experts were thinking. But then I suspect they prefer non-socialist authoritarian oligarchs to popular governments that actually serve the interests of people rather than western corporations. Western corporations wanted to embrace Russia but on western terms and they believed they could control Putin and his pals through economic means. For a while they were able to exercise control but then the Europeans cut their own throats by becoming overly reliant on Russian gas. Russian no longer needs the IMF or the WOrld Bank, or, Western approval for anything it does. The west grossly underestimated Putin, who only cares about Putin.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
