Bush Visits Georgia

[manshimajin]

The collapse of the Soviet Union left a void where US supremacy could be asserted (i.e. it takes on this 'priviledge' of being above the law by virtue of power and strength) - this could be done without too much danger of opposition provided the US don't get too close to home with China. Now Russia is saying it's a player again. With this either the US-UK has to back down and rule of law re-established (which is difficult) or, inevitably there will be friction. Sooner or later that will ignite into serious conflict. Meanwhile we are probably entering the second cold war (which could get very cold for us if Russia shuts off our gas this winter).

 

I take it you're being sarcastic about Saddam Hussein. IMO he should have been removed.

 

The big question, which you identify, is that it is very difficult to establish the rule of law. The USA and UK attempted to manipulate intelligence to try and get UN backing for Iraq and the Russians have ignored the rule of law to stir up trouble in Georgia (a volatile place at the best of times) for their own ends. Some people talk of the US having created precedents by their behaviour in Iraq. This only becomes a precedent if other countries, such as Russia, say 'You did it so I can do it' - which indicates an abyssmal lack of logic. Indeed on this basis the US could say 'You invaded Afghanistan so why can't we invade Iraq'. On and on we slide down the slippery slope blaming one another rather than stpping and being mature. This is why I think Medvedev and Putin are worse than Bush as they imitate him when other choices are available.

 

I acknowledge that I am half sarcastic about Saddam - but what right did we actually have to remove him? When does behaviour become 'unacceptable'. He was an OK bloke when he had his army fighting the Iranians. Should we be removing the Saudi royal family? Hugo Chavez? Myanmar Generals? The UN and the so-called diplomatic community don't seem to want to deal with these issues within the rule of law.

[alph3]

Reading through the previous posts I can, in no way, contribute as thoughtfully as mollag, Skeddan or manshimajin. But surely, disregarding the pissing contest going on between the 'West' and Russia, we should be condemning Georgia for attacking South Ossetia without warning. In this respect then we should be congratulating Russia on a job well done in protecting a small breakaway region which has aligned itself with Russia anyways? The US propaganda regarding this 'skirmish', and to an extent the UK's, is only a smoke and mirrors approach to take all our minds off of how f**cked we all are anyways with regards imminent globel recession.

 

Gorra say when i look to Bush/McCain then to Putin and sincerely ask which one scares me the most, it has to be Bush.

Hear Hear! Give that man a biscuit.

[manshimajin]

Reading through the previous posts I can, in no way, contribute as thoughtfully as mollag, Skeddan or manshimajin. But surely, disregarding the pissing contest going on between the 'West' and Russia, we should be condemning Georgia for attacking South Ossetia without warning.

Yes it was folly. But don't forget that the Russians had been doing a raft of things to destabilise the South Ossetian region of Georgia for a number of years because they did not like the way Georgia was moving towards seeking EU and possibly NATO membership. As 'The Economist' put it they (the Russians) had 'orchestrated the Georgian attack on South Ossetia' - foolish of the Georgians to rise to the Russian provocation.

 

No doubt Stalin is spinning in his grave....

 

Must admit I find Putin much more scary than Bush - there seem to be very few 'checks and balances' in Russia to offset his ex-KGB paranoia. He, or his followers, seem to have a very brutal way of dealing with dissent. Whatever else about the USA there is a more open society than in Russia. Best test - if you had to choose between living in the USA or Russia which would you go for?

[Skeddan]

Some people talk of the US having created precedents by their behaviour in Iraq. This only becomes a precedent if other countries, such as Russia, say 'You did it so I can do it' - which indicates an abyssmal lack of logic. Indeed on this basis the US could say 'You invaded Afghanistan so why can't we invade Iraq'. On and on we slide down the slippery slope blaming one another rather than stpping and being mature. This is why I think Medvedev and Putin are worse than Bush as they imitate him when other choices are available.

I go with this - slippery slope and 'escalation' of the situation - which makes it increasingly harder to de-escalate. I take the point about Medvedev and Putin - and if anything it seems that they the 'might is right' principle is one which they are eager to adopt and which suits them very well (but this is partly in response to Russia's perceptions of US threat). Even so, with just a few weeks until a new US President, it is like they want to seize the opportunity before it might slip away.

 

I acknowledge that I am half sarcastic about Saddam - but what right did we actually have to remove him? When does behaviour become 'unacceptable'. He was an OK bloke when he had his army fighting the Iranians. Should we be removing the Saudi royal family? Hugo Chavez? Myanmar Generals? The UN and the so-called diplomatic community don't seem to want to deal with these issues within the rule of law.

 

Saddam committed genocide. However that wasn't the reason for removing him, but had he been convicted of this (albeit in his absence) intervention and his removal might have been justified.

 

However I agree with what you are saying - I think he was a monster, but one should be very very careful to not upset the rule of law. The 'free for all' where its up to each state to decide where to draw the line and who to 'remove' is even more dangerous.

 

I'm sure the international community are very reluctant to have anything like an 'impeachment' process. (Look at the process of getting 'aggression' to be established as an internationally criminal act - which is now further off than ever). The reality is impeachment has to start from the very very worst (acts of genocide, and most heinous crimes against humanity) - and do this in a way that requires a kind of Impeachement before General Assembly and some established legal process. Even that is unlikely. Look at France's involvement in Rwanda...

 

Basically things have moved backwards - even the pretence of conformity to the rule of law is breaking down. Maybe the only way out is for there to be some form of treaty to start to get back to rule of law in a phased approach. (won't recognise breakaways etc.). Frankly I think it's more likely that they'll be a serious flare up somewhere before that will happen - and I think that will be even more likely if Obama wins. (Maybe the Georgia equivalent of a Cuba missle crisis, or perhaps worse).

 

And yes - lack of democratic constraints on Putin does make it scarier. One might draw a parallel with Japanese and US expansionism in Asia Pacific prior to WWII. (for a pessemistic outlook).

[Skeddan]

manshimajin - this perhaps explains better:

 

Besides the great expansion in the scope of international law, another recent development that has had a profound impact on US adherence to the rule of law in international affairs is the collapse of the Soviet Union. This has left the United States as the “sole remaining superpower” and has encouraged an attitude of triumphalism that has irritated the governments of other countries and may have undermined US initiatives toward the development of international law and policy. Accompanying this triumphalism and closely related to it is an attitude of “exceptionalism,” that is, that the United States bears special burdens and is entitled to special privileges because of its status as the sole surviving superpower. The collapse of the Soviet Union has also brought about a recrudescence of US provincialism and isolationism as well as of a preference to act unilaterally rather than multilaterally. In short, certain attitudes currently characteristic of the US policy stand in the way of US support of the rule of law in international affairs.

(source: The United States and the Rule of Law in International Affairs - John F. Murphy )

 

It is this superpower right to 'exceptionalism' that Russia is now asserting that it too is entitled to. There's only room for one exceptionalist superpower (which is what enabled the US to adopt this stance after the collapse of the Soviet Union). However now there's another superpower back on the scene and adopting this attitude. Unless both back down from this it's likely to lead to tensions and possibly conflict. In that sense it doesn't matter who is right or not - but rather it is a case of what is necessary and expedient given these developments.

[mollag]

Not having a pop but i think the genocide thing is over and wrongly used.

To have commited genocide someone would have had to wiped out a clearly defined race, Saddam the bastard may have been guilty of attempting genocide but no proof has ever come forward of a concerted attempt, merely western "facts" to justify an invasion.

Even if there was proof of intent he certainly did not succeed.

I know of only 2 succesful genocides, Tasmania and South Africa, both by British administrations.

[Skeddan]

Not having a pop but i think the genocide thing is over and wrongly used.

To have commited genocide someone would have had to wiped out a clearly defined race, Saddam the bastard may have been guilty of attempting genocide but no proof has ever come forward of a concerted attempt, merely western "facts" to justify an invasion.

Even if there was proof of intent he certainly did not succeed.

I know of only 2 succesful genocides, Tasmania and South Africa, both by British administrations.

oops - yes I did say he committed genocide - I meant to say 'acts of genocide' (i.e. without the proof of intent reuqired in 'genocide'). Yes it is very hard to prove genocide - i.e. that this was done with the purpose of destroying the group rather than that this was an incidental outcome (e.g. simply a side-effect of territorial expansion).

 

The crime of genocide doesn't require that a whole race has actually been completely exterminated. It also applies to other groups, and involves acts aimed at the deliberate destruction "in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religioius group".

 

For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

 

(a) Killing members of the group;

 

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

 

© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

 

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

 

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

[manshimajin]

It is this superpower right to 'exceptionalism' that Russia is now asserting that it too is entitled to. There's only room for one exceptionalist superpower (which is what enabled the US to adopt this stance after the collapse of the Soviet Union). However now there's another superpower back on the scene and adopting this attitude. Unless both back down from this it's likely to lead to tensions and possibly conflict. In that sense it doesn't matter who is right or not - but rather it is a case of what is necessary and expedient given these developments.

 

Thanks for that quote and your comments above. Undoubtedly Russia is now trying to regain some status as a global superpower - maybe before China can reach that point too. The very act of a country trying to exert its right to respect and power through military force and territorial aggression rather than economic and political action should worry us all. I do not want to act as an apologist for the USA's foreign policy but the unpredictability of Russia concerns me even more.

 

For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

 

(a) Killing members of the group;

 

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

 

© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

 

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

 

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

It sounds like quite a few Christian and other religious organisations could top the list.

[Skeddan]

Saw this in the Sunday Times article on Putin and Georgia:

 

Vladimir Putin, ... said that Russia was frustrated because: “There’s a feeling that the West treats Russia merely as a loser in the cold war, which has to play by the winners’ rules.” The intervention in Georgia was Russia drawing a red line.

Sunday Times

 

IMO not enough attention is being given to this key point about what's behind this - it is somewhat drowned in the condemnation, fears etc. as in this article. As I see it, Putin is sending a signal that needs to be taken very seriously.

[manshimajin]

Saw this in the Sunday Times article on Putin and Georgia:

 

Vladimir Putin, ... said that Russia was frustrated because: “There’s a feeling that the West treats Russia merely as a loser in the cold war, which has to play by the winners’ rules.” The intervention in Georgia was Russia drawing a red line.

Sunday Times

 

IMO not enough attention is being given to this key point about what's behind this - it is somewhat drowned in the condemnation, fears etc. as in this article. As I see it, Putin is sending a signal that needs to be taken very seriously.

 

Reading between the lines Putin is saying he does not understand how to operate normal diplomatic relationships despite the growth of the Russian economy and its influence on the EU through its gas supplies. He sees the only way of getting respect is by rattling sabres real and metaphorical. Not altogether surprising for an ex-KGB officer. Did Russia lose the USSR Empire because of the 'cold war' or because of the moral bankruptcy of the system he represented whilst working for the KGB?

 

The question he does not seem to want to answer is 'why can't independent nations such as Georgia, decide for themselves whether or not they want to be a member of the EU or of NATO?'

[mollag]

Saw this in the Sunday Times article on Putin and Georgia:

 

Vladimir Putin, ... said that Russia was frustrated because: “There’s a feeling that the West treats Russia merely as a loser in the cold war, which has to play by the winners’ rules.” The intervention in Georgia was Russia drawing a red line.

Sunday Times

 

IMO not enough attention is being given to this key point about what's behind this - it is somewhat drowned in the condemnation, fears etc. as in this article. As I see it, Putin is sending a signal that needs to be taken very seriously.

 

Reading between the lines Putin is saying he does not understand how to operate normal diplomatic relationships despite the growth of the Russian economy and its influence on the EU through its gas supplies. He sees the only way of getting respect is by rattling sabres real and metaphorical. Not altogether surprising for an ex-KGB officer. Did Russia lose the USSR Empire because of the 'cold war' or because of the moral bankruptcy of the system he represented whilst working for the KGB?

 

The question he does not seem to want to answer is 'why can't independent nations such as Georgia, decide for themselves whether or not they want to be a member of the EU or of NATO?'

Quite right, as long as the West will respect the same for Cuba and many south American countries who wish to ally with Russia and would like a missile screen like

Polands, plus the West should respect South Ossietas wish to ally with Russia and punish the tw@ who invaded them..

 

Not likely is it really , sauce for the goose only school of politics.

[manshimajin]

plus the West should respect South Ossietas wish to ally with Russia and punish the tw@ who invaded them..

I thoroughly agree with your comment about the twat who invaded South Ossetia - you didn'y say if you meant Medvedev or Putin? I seem to recall that SO is part of the sovereign territory of Georgia and that those twats in Moscow have been trying to destabilise the place for the last 5 or more years. Bit like they did in Afghanistan....

[mollag]

plus the West should respect South Ossietas wish to ally with Russia and punish the tw@ who invaded them..

I thoroughly agree with your comment about the twat who invaded South Ossetia - you didn'y say if you meant Medvedev or Putin? I seem to recall that SO is part of the sovereign territory of Georgia and that those twats in Moscow have been trying to destabilise the place for the last 5 or more years. Bit like they did in Afghanistan....

Lets agree that Medvedev invaded first, this fact is never mentioned in EU /Nato news briefs now so lets not forget while they make it a thought crime, then trash the Georgian excuse that some big boys made us do it. FFS

As South Ossetia read Kosovo still recognised by the UN as sovereign Serbian Territory, whose sovereign teritory we bombed the shit out of.

 

But its us killing civilians in their hundreds in Afghanistan not Russia, stone me, who would accept an invite to a wedding in Western occupied countries , not me, again lest we forget.

 

The Western threats to attack Packistan and Iran are now conspicuous by their absence, may we also respect their sovereignty

 

Now for Cuba, how many years of total embargo? Bay of Pigs et al -can Russia do the same with Georgia? Organise a phoney invasion and lie constantly about it, cut them off from the outside world,perhaps a poisoned cigar?

 

Grenada

Panama

Vietnam

Loas

Afghanistan

Iraq

 

Gosh i reckon there may be a few more out there.

 

As i say time to stop and look at what we have become-----tragic , we are but a mirror image of Russia.

[Skeddan]

I came across this event being run this Friday - IMO just the kind of debate and discussion that's needed, and encouraging to see this is starting to happen in the US.

 

The Next World: How Should the United States Respond to Rising Powers?

 

The United States’ dominance of the world stage has been unrivaled since the Cold War, but this dynamic is rapidly changing. As China, India, Russia, the European Union, Japan, and others are gaining strength and influence economically, diplomatically, culturally, and militarily, how should the United States respond? The Next World conference will explore this question and others, with an eye toward how foreign policy could best be prioritized under a new administration. How should the United States navigate this new world landscape? ...

 

http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/events.cfm?id=137

 

manshimajin, you say -

[Putin] sees the only way of getting respect is by rattling sabres real and metaphorical.

Where do you think he might have got this idea from - perhaps seeing the way the US conducts its foreign policy and how 'winner's rules' are 'respected' by the international community? The US has been doing plenty of sabre rattling - threats to Iran spring to mind...

 

Reading between the lines Putin is saying he does not understand how to operate normal diplomatic relationships

One could also read it as Putin saying if gunboat diplomacy is now 'normal diplomatic relations' for a superpower, then Russia won't shy from using its gunboats to advance Russian interests in its conduct of its foreign policy.

 

I don't for a moment think Putin should be given any credit for an altruistic challenge to US dominance (aka gunboat diplomacy), and that this is really only his seeking to exploit 'exceptionalism' as a welcome addition to Russian foreign relations. However given this change in the dynamics, either gunboats are going to clash or their is going to have to be some major limitations agreed over how such exceptionalism is to be used in future (e.g. UN Security Council multilateralism rather than unilateral action). (perhaps US, Russia, China and EU being a new 'super-security council).

 

It's a big question - "how should the US navigate this new world landscape?" Equally one should ask how should the UK, EU and UN navigate this (and also whether the US should attempt to navigate this alone!).

[manshimajin]

Now for Cuba, how many years of total embargo? Bay of Pigs et al -can Russia do the same with Georgia? Organise a phoney invasion and lie constantly about it, cut them off from the outside world,perhaps a poisoned cigar?

 

Grenada

Panama

Vietnam

Loas

Afghanistan

Iraq

 

Gosh i reckon there may be a few more out there.

 

As i say time to stop and look at what we have become-----tragic , we are but a mirror image of Russia.

I don't think any of us would disagree that the West has some answering to do about its actions - but I thought we were talking about a specific situation in Georgia which Russia has been stirring up for years insead of helping to calm things down. I am sure you don't believe that Western transgressions justify USSR and Russian ones such as:

 

Finland - Winter War

Seizure of Baltic States

Liquidation of Kulaks

Theft of Eastern Poland

Katyn Massacre

Suppression of opposition in Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland etc

Invasion of Afghanistan

Interference in affairs of:

Chechnya

Dagestan

Moldova

Armenia

Ukraine

Georgia

 

It would be great if/when Russian leadership develops a sense of self-confidence and maturity that allows them to participate as a major European power within the more sophisticated political structures that now exist.