Georgia is nervously calling “for an independent investigation into who started the war between Russia and Georgia…after the New York Times and BBC's Newsnight programme raised serious doubts about Georgia's claim that its attack on the breakaway Georgian enclave of South Ossetia on August 7/8 was in response to Russian aggression”.
But it was the Amnesty International report comdemning both sides that is really significant, due to Amnesty's reputation as an impartial and respected source that rarely sides with Russia.
“The rights group said the use of notoriously inaccurate Grad rockets in the Georgian assault on Tskhinvali resulted in “scores of civilian deaths” and violated international law on the conduct of war.
Amnesty also took Moscow to task for failing to stop killings, torture and abuses against civilians perpetrated by Russia's allies ‚ the South Ossetian militias ‚ in ethnic Georgian enclaves inside the breakaway region”.
Now, in light of this joint culpability (if anything, Georgia's was active - shelling civilians 0 and Russia's passive -failing to rein in allies), the question that I asked in August remains:
Why [did] CNN care more about Russian violence in Gori than Georgian violence in Tskhinvali?
Mark Ames has some excellent hunches over at his zine Exiledonline.
This is also a perfect time to remember Barack Obama's original declaration at the start of the crisis, for which he was roundly ridiculed for being a wimp and even, in McCain's words, “bizarrely in synch with Moscow”:
“I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict,” Obama said in a statement. “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint”.
At that time, McCain responded with these now embarassing histrionics:
"That's kind of like saying after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, that Kuwait and Iraq need to show restraint, or like saying in 1968 [when the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia] … that the Czechoslovaks should show restraint," he said.
We can only hope that Americans hawks, of all political stripes, learn some lessons about the wisdom of reflexive, ill-informed bellicosity, and that Obama feels vindicated enough in his moderation to ward off similar attacks at the future US president.
3 Comments So Far»
The authors happy trumpeting of Russia's "innocence" in the Georgian crisis (which he has talked about or indicated several times in the past few weeks) is quickly becoming tiresome. The question of who fired first is of little importance in the grand scheme of things. Who you decide to support in a conflict has nothing to do with who fired first and everything to do with the moral, ethical and philosophical paradigms supported by the competing factions of the conflict. Regardless of whether George fired first or Russia fired first we all know that Russia has had its eye set on disrupting the emerging democracy of Georgia for some time.
Furthermore we all know which state is more likely to offer free and fair elections, which state is more likely to increase freedom and recognize the right of individuals to private property. While free market capitalism and democracy may be out of vogue these days because of President Bush and the economic crisis it is still the surest and quickest path to freedom and prosperity. Georgia embraced these ideas, Russia has only ever made a half hearted attempt at it. It does not matter who fired first, what does matter is do you support freedom and democracy or do you support Putin style authoritarianism?
In everyone's rush to placate the Russians in the wake of a deteriorating relationship (especially the Europeans) people have forgotten these facts, in addition people have forgotten that Russia has been adding fuel to the fire between Georgia and its break away states since 2005. Finally and perhaps most importantly people seem to forget that these are Georgian break away states, GEORGIAN BREAK AWAY STATES. These are not independent states, these are states of Georgia and are recognized as such by all major nations the world over except for Russia and Nicaragua.
Even if the Georgians fired first are they not entitled to deal with separatists in their own country? If Florida decided to break away from the United States and form its own nation would any one stop and ask the US what it was doing when it invaded in order to take the state back, the answer is no. What about if Chechnya again decided that it wanted to be its own country? Would Russia offer them assistance in the process of separation from the Russia Federation, would they take the states desire for independence in stride or would they, as history would suggest, violently suppress the separatists? A state and its boarders are held by arms and arms alone after all, the legitimate use of force is a right of the state.
The question of who fired first is not important, what is important is who you stand with and what they represent. For better or for worse Russia does not stand for freedom, they never have and they probably never will. Georgia might not be the glowing beacon of Democracy and freedom we hoped for (few countries are though, even old democracies like US, Great Britain, France have their many flaws) but they were trying in good faith and that's the reason to stand with Georgia on this issue. You either believe in freedom and democracy and are ready to defend it or you don't, it is not a two way street.
War is never pretty and never goes as planned, both sides always commit atrocities, both sides always kill civilians, both sides always damage property, but that does not mean both sides are equally bad. The world is not as simple as "who fired first", there are ideas worth fighting for. I only hope, as Garry Kasprove stated in a WSJ Op-Ed today, that Obama will look at Putin's record and appropriately label his regime and its actions what they arethe actions of a authoritarian state.
The problem is, William, that the US in particular is being highly hypocritical on this issue. As soon as Kosovo unilaterally seceded from Serbia (without even a referendum like in the case of Montenegro), the US immediately recognized the separatist area, and more or less said “They don't want to be part of Serbia anyways - why force them in?”
It's the same type of thing with South Ossetia and Abkhazia - they want absolutely nothing to do with Georgia, and haven't since Georgia actually emerged as an independent country in 1991 (particularly since Georgia in the early 1990s was led by a corrupt, incompetent autocrat who so mismanaged the South Ossetian issue that they revolted after their self-autonomy guarantee was revoked). Realistically, they’ve been independent since 1994, with the Joint Treaty.
As for shooting first, it matters a lot. If Russia shot first (and the western media was desperate to believe as such), then Russia gets rightfully labeled as an aggressor, and suddenly we’re awash in “Red Revanchism!” fantasies again on America's part. But, as the OSCE report makes clear, Georgia hatched this ugly chicken, firing the first shots. That makes Georgia either foolish (if you think the Russians were spoiling to beat the crap out of them), or idiotic (if you think the Russians were just ready to beat the crap out of them). I’m inclined to the latter; Saakashvili made no secret of his desire to take back separatist territories - he's a Georgian nationalist, first and foremost.
interesting blog
Leave Comments Below»