As I mentioned in a previous post, Georgia first attacked South Ossetia ten years ago after South Ossetians expressed a stronger desire to be part of the Russian Federation than part of Georgia. Since then South Ossetia has been recognised as virtually independant, with Georgian and Russian peacekeepers. When Georgia attacked South Ossetia a few days ago, a number of these Russian peacekeepers were killed in the attack. The reaction of the Russians to Georgia's war in South Ossetia seems understandable. But why are the US and UK papers discussing the re-opening of the cold war, rather than recognising how the situation was created, and the justified grievance on the Russian side?
Today John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate for American President said these words about his Democratic opponent Barack Obama: "Behind all of these claims and positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president. What’s less apparent is the judgment to be commander in chief. And in matters of national security, good judgment will be at a premium in the term of the next president — as we were all reminded ten days ago by events in the nation of Georgia."
So McCain gets to say could once again that he would make a better commander in chief than Obama, only this time in between footage of Russian tanks rolling across American screens. The effect has been predictable. After weeks of Obama leading McCain by several points in the race, the two candidates within the past few days have become tied in the opinion polls. The Republican Presidential administration of George Bush must given the Georgians the green light to move against the Russians as they would not have acted without first getting US suppost.
In his first statement after the invasion, McCain took a uniquely agressive stance towards Russia. Obama took a more cautious view. Even George Bush, a man not known for his caution, called on both sides to negotiate. Meanwhile a McCain adviser suggested that Obama’s initial statement constituted appeasement.
John McCain may have encouraged the Georgians to invade South Ossetia through his chief foreign policy advisor, who was also a strategic adviser for the Georgia government.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The obvious situation to compare Ossetia/Georgia to is Kosovo/Serbia: if a country controversially wants independence from its neighbour, allegations of ethnic cleaning and a super-power helps.
Even Russia's military attacks on Georgia are reminiscent of NATO boms on Belgrade (remember when the surgical strikes detroyed the TV station & killed journalists? Or accidentally destroyed Chinese embassy?
But I was just rewading a book review which brought a slightly different parallel to mind...
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article4522162.ece
Has a good review of what sounds a decent book on a complex area.
It mentions in passing:
"The initial connivance of the Russians at the Rose Revolution, which got rid of the Ajarian warlord Aslan Abashidze as well as of Shevardnadze, two figures particularly hated by Putin, is unmentioned, and the mysterious sequence of murders and unexplained deaths of Saakashvili’s rivals and opponents needs to be discussed "
Made me wonder maybe Panama is a better precedent: Noriega was created & funded by USA, but they then invaded.
I guess Grenada, Panama and other countries in USA "near abroad" do not merit the same independence as countrioes in the Eastern hemisphere.
Post a Comment