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
Just came aross this older BBC report - read it, forward it. Who's fooling who??
http://www
Moral the U.S. corporate media simply cannot be believed. Just as with the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction we are again being lied to. To get the truth one has to access the BBC.
To put this in perspective:
"It’s touching how American neoconservatives who have no regard for international law when they want to invade some troublesome country have developed a sudden reverence for national sovereignt
"Apparently, context is everything. So, the United States attacking Grenada or Nicaragua or Panama or Iraq or Serbia is justified even if the reasons sometimes don’t hold water or don’t hold up before the United Nations, The Hague or other institutions of international law."
http://www
The people of the Middle East were thinking the same thing. Poor Irac, Those powerful bullys the USA are acting aggressively to do as they please and then the thumb their nose at the rest of the World. Great example we set in deplomacy! Our way or no way the President says. As the World crumbles around us we can now see what failed foreign and domestic policies the White House and the Congress have pushed us in. Now the consequences are coming home to roost. Inept and mediocre Presidential staff are in way over their heads and the results are complete failures. America cannot afford 4 to 8 more years of incompetence with McBush at the Helm. It would be suiside!!!
Oh yes, one thing to remember that discribes this administration perfectly. With two war fronts opened in Irac, and Afghanistan, soldiers dying daily, China skirting trade issues and Russia acting out and what does our fearless leader the President do? Go on anthoer vacation?? Bush makes arrogance and ignorance look respectable!
An understanding of realpolitik should help one realise that countries do not have friends, only interests. When the interests of two countries co-incide there can be agreement and amity between them. Work together when those interests co-incide and agree to disagree when they do not. Russia has an enormous role to play on the international stage, but no one should expect them only to act in America's interest, not their own.
If this is the best we can expect from a former diplomat, no wonder US foreign policy is so screwed up--a complete lack of knowledge of the facts and history of the region, and a reflexive cold-war, us vs. them mentality. Georgia could not be forced on NATO because it is NOT a stable democratic country and it has unresolved border issues with separtist territories allied with Russia. No amount of US bullying would bring Germany and France around to supporting NATO membership for it, especially with the petulant current leader at the helm. Doing so would have drawn NATO in a fight that the Georgian leadership started but could not finish. The condemnation of the international community should be on Georgia for attacking South Ossetia, this is trying to settle the score with a seperatist province by force, not by negotiation.
The RUSSIANS should pay a heavy price for defending their own citizens? I don't think so. The US thumbs its nose at the international community consistently and ignored international law by waging aggressive war in Iraq and torturing prisoners. The list is endless. The hypocrisy of the US gives it no standing to lecture other countries or demand any price when other countries choose to do what is in their own interest.
this is black humor.....
russia needs to be punished for protecting her own people?
russia just wants respect?
georgia is a democracy?
china and russia should both be treated with nonchalance as not all that important?
poland, georgia and the ukraine are the cuban missile crisis times three. the usa was fortunate the russians backed off the brink in cuba. the georgia campaign clearly telegraphs they have no intent to do so in poland or the ukraine. they message to the usa and europe is leggo my eggo....or else. are you willing to fight for poland? or the ukraine? i didn't think so.
Russia is reacting like Iran to American rhetoric!
They are not going to be dictated to by the USA or anyone!
And why should they, after all, Bush and his friends embarked on an illegal invasion and war in Iraq based on a string of falsehoods and deception of the worlds public, they have lost the moral high ground and in truth are in no position to lecture anyone!
Russia will not be bullied or told when to withdraw, this will happen when the west learn to keep their mouths firmly shut, and perhaps put their own houses in order before preaching to any nation!
This is the inevitable consequence of the Clinton-Bush Balkans doctrine coming home to roost. Those that cheered on the US meddling in the Balkans and the dismemberment of a sovereign nation under the guise of ethnic self-determination only expose their own hypocrisy by complaining about the actions of the Russians in regards to Abkhazia/South Ossetia/Georgia. World geopolitics is paradigmatic and the US established the modern day paradigm and precedent when it sided with the Bosniaks and the KLA. Those of us with some foresight predicted an event exactly like the current conflict as the eventual result. This, however, will be just the start of the ill-fated misadventure of the US in the course and scope of its meddling in the Balkans.
Yes, I agree. And, again, the world's largest crisis' are all about the U.S. securing natural resources for big business: i.e. energy.
It is not just the US. China is deeply involved in the situations in Darfur, Burma, etc. in its quest for natural resources. Russia has Europe by the proverbial scrotum, secondary to the fact that 30% of Europe's oil and 50% of their natural gas supplies come from Russia. Europe has even less leverage than does the US in the current situation. The US, however, really needs to stop its world democracy spreading/
Do some research people, if it's coming from Bush's mouth, the neo-cons or the MSM it is likely lies.
"Likely" is redundant.
You are spot on!
http://www
It's amazing what you can convince yourself of, if you just forget the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
I see! It's demographics that determine who gets to invade and keep territory otherwise part of another country. Nice if the invading country is carrying out plans to export part of its own population into such territories prior to war, for now it has more of the high moral ground, don't you know! Sounds oh so very familiar! Where have we seen this before?
Yeah,and how about condemning Poland for seeking closer military ties with the U.S.? Word is out---Russia has warned Poland not to, and if Poland does, then Russia by all means should attack Poland for provoking the bear! Right up the Hate America First crowd's alley!
I guess you would think it OK for Russia to put missiles into Cuba again, as Poland is doing with US missiles? How about if Cuba asks Russia to guarantee its territorial integrity since the US has invaded it so many times in the past? Think that Venezuela should get more Russian arms and advisors since the US has attacked them before? The US was pissed off because they got hundreds of thousands of AK-47s and were handing them out to its citizens. Think that was wrong for them to do that? As I recall that was the outrage of the day for the neo cons and an AK bullet cannot hit the US by the way from Venezuela. But of course defending oneself from attack from an attack by an imperialist country is bad if it is not a US puppet. GET REAL!
" Whoever was responsible for the initial provocation, we can also conclude that Russia should pay a heavy price for its actions."
This is neocon-type nonsense.
Russia reacted to aggression. And they're still upset over your president Clinton's idiotic action in the Balkans, which alienated Russia and set up a new Muslim state in Europe. We're still waiting for the grateful groundswell from islamic forces around the world. Has anyone told Osama?
And, it won't work. Europe depends on Russian energy. Germany and other nations do a lot of business with Russia. And more US retaliation is very likely to unleash Russia's veto in the UN. Like any more measures against Iran. Russia and China have already fired one shot like this across our bow.
Our intrepid government has also reversed the strengths and weaknesses of the US and USSR.
The USSR fell primarily because its command economy could not compete militarily with the US' robust capitalist economy, which threatened to field a missile shield the USSR could never afford to counter.
Now, the US economy is faltering, at the mercy of Chinese willingness to fund our vast debt. Russia's new capitalist order and large oil and natural gas supplies give it the economic strength to fund a large, modern military. Plus, the US is pinned down in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Additional crises -- such as Venezuela deciding to pinch down on oil or additional Mideast disasters -- will additionally limit the US range of action.
http://www
Bush decided to sever Kosovo from Serbia, a close ally of Russia, and Putin was furious.
Why shouldn't Ossetia and Abkhazia be allowed to seceed from dear Georgia, and join Russia? If the US can invade multiple countries, sever Kosovo from Serbia, and Kurdistan, effectively, from greater Iraq, why can't Russia defend Ossetia from a brutal sneak attack from a Georgia armed and trained by the US and Israel, and grant these mini-states some formal status in Russia?
When the dust settles, I suspect there will be far more Ossetia casualties than Georgian, as well as far more refugees, despite the neo-con hysteria. Georgia had been engaged in provacative incidents for weeks leading up to the invasion, and Ossetians had begun fleeing their villages before the actual invasion.
Lastly, if Russia should be sanctioned for over-reacting, what about precious Israel, which relentlessly bombed a Lebanon that had no anti-aircraft defenses whatsoever, and invaded it, over a trivial border skermish, one that isn't remotely as violent or extreme as Georgia's attack on Ossetia.
Good post!
Blame America First always plays well here.
The truth hurts, doesn't it? Pretty hard to get over all that exceptionalist propaganda you've been flooded with, isn't it? How many lies have to be exposed before you give up your cognitive dissonance?
The liberation of Kosovo from Serbia was a NATO mission - not a US invasion. As a matter of fact there was little to no US ground force throughout.
Here's a link to refresh your memory.
http://www
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
