Tweet
Houston Chronicle, TX
Aug 24 2008
Give Russia respect it's due
Viewed through Moscow's eyes, the West's response to Georgia looks
hypocritical. Remember Kosovo? Russia does
By GALE STOKES Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
Western political leaders have reacted with outrage attoward the
Russian incursion into Georgia. But there is another way of looking at
the situation, especially if we compare Western policies toward Kosovo
and Russian actions in Georgia.
>From the Russian point of view, Europe and the United States first
militarily attacked Russia's ally Serbia on behalf of breakaway
Kosovo, and then helped the Kosovars obtain their current state of
independence. ButAnd yet, when Russia intervenes in South Ossetia to
establish that breakaway region's independence from Western oriented
Georgia, the United States and Europe react with shock and anger. In
Russian eyes, the position of the United States seems to be that
intervention is OK when we do it, but not when you do it.
The tensions surrounding these events are greatly increased by
America's recent agreements with the Czech Republic and Poland to
place missile monitoring radars in those countries. Despite
protestations by the United States that its intentions are purely
defensive, one only needs to consider what any American government's
reaction would be to the placement of Russian radars in Mexico to
defend against a rogue Latin American state in order to grasp why the
installations make the Russians nervous.
During the decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United
States did not take Russia seriously. Even today, we continue to
chastise the Russians for human rights abuses, for "misusing" their
oil and gas resources for political purposes and for obstructing our
wishes in various international venues.
What did we expect? That a great country with an educated work force
just starting to feel its economic oats would be content to play
second fiddle forever? It was just a matter of time before the
Russians reappeared as a strong state on the international scene. They
have now arrived, and it is in everyone's interest if we begin to deal
with them like the great power they are.
Indeed, European stability demands a stable relationship between
Russia and the West. Punishing Russia for its incursion into South
Ossetia by dropping it from G-8, for example, would only undermine
stability.
There is a reasonable solution to the situation, however. Both
Ossetians and Abkhazians, just like Kosovars, see no other solution to
their political desires than independence, as they have shown in
repeated (if flawed) referenda and elections. Ossetians constitute
about two-thirds of the population of that region, with most of the
rest being Russians. Abkhazians make up about the same proportion of
Abkhazia, with most of the rest being Georgians. In other words, if
the ethnic principle works in Kosovo (as it seems to have worked in
France, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, etc.) why not in these regions?
In fact, one of the primary threads of European history since 1850 has
been the redrawing of state borders along ethnic lines. Georgia's
position on the matter is much like Serbia's on Kosovo ' Georgians do
not want to live in these areas, which are not particularly viable
economically, but the government of Georgia cannot conceive of "giving
up" territory, despite its inability to exercise its rule there. But
just as stability will come to the Balkans as the Kosovo settlement
becomes increasingly integrated into European structures, so the
independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia would help with the
stabilization process in the Caucasus.
Such an outcome would not end ethnic strife there. Azeris and
Armenians have been talking lately under Russian auspices, but
relations remain fraught. And there is always the question of
Chechnya. But agreement on South Ossetia and Abkhazia would be a step
in the right direction.
What are the outlines of a solution? However it might be presented in
diplomatic language, it is basically this: the West accepts the
independence of the two regions including Russian "peacekeepers"; and
the Russians accept the independence of Kosovo, including a NATO and
EULEX (European Rule of Law Mission) presence. The two entities enter
the United Nations and Russia stops vetoing the Kosovo solution in the
Security Council.
The beneficiaries? Improved US/EU-Russian relations, increased
stability in the Balkans and the Caucasus, and a resolution that the
majority populations of Abkhazia and South Ossetia appear to want.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editori al/outlook/5962082.html
Aug 24 2008
Give Russia respect it's due
Viewed through Moscow's eyes, the West's response to Georgia looks
hypocritical. Remember Kosovo? Russia does
By GALE STOKES Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
Western political leaders have reacted with outrage attoward the
Russian incursion into Georgia. But there is another way of looking at
the situation, especially if we compare Western policies toward Kosovo
and Russian actions in Georgia.
>From the Russian point of view, Europe and the United States first
militarily attacked Russia's ally Serbia on behalf of breakaway
Kosovo, and then helped the Kosovars obtain their current state of
independence. ButAnd yet, when Russia intervenes in South Ossetia to
establish that breakaway region's independence from Western oriented
Georgia, the United States and Europe react with shock and anger. In
Russian eyes, the position of the United States seems to be that
intervention is OK when we do it, but not when you do it.
The tensions surrounding these events are greatly increased by
America's recent agreements with the Czech Republic and Poland to
place missile monitoring radars in those countries. Despite
protestations by the United States that its intentions are purely
defensive, one only needs to consider what any American government's
reaction would be to the placement of Russian radars in Mexico to
defend against a rogue Latin American state in order to grasp why the
installations make the Russians nervous.
During the decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United
States did not take Russia seriously. Even today, we continue to
chastise the Russians for human rights abuses, for "misusing" their
oil and gas resources for political purposes and for obstructing our
wishes in various international venues.
What did we expect? That a great country with an educated work force
just starting to feel its economic oats would be content to play
second fiddle forever? It was just a matter of time before the
Russians reappeared as a strong state on the international scene. They
have now arrived, and it is in everyone's interest if we begin to deal
with them like the great power they are.
Indeed, European stability demands a stable relationship between
Russia and the West. Punishing Russia for its incursion into South
Ossetia by dropping it from G-8, for example, would only undermine
stability.
There is a reasonable solution to the situation, however. Both
Ossetians and Abkhazians, just like Kosovars, see no other solution to
their political desires than independence, as they have shown in
repeated (if flawed) referenda and elections. Ossetians constitute
about two-thirds of the population of that region, with most of the
rest being Russians. Abkhazians make up about the same proportion of
Abkhazia, with most of the rest being Georgians. In other words, if
the ethnic principle works in Kosovo (as it seems to have worked in
France, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, etc.) why not in these regions?
In fact, one of the primary threads of European history since 1850 has
been the redrawing of state borders along ethnic lines. Georgia's
position on the matter is much like Serbia's on Kosovo ' Georgians do
not want to live in these areas, which are not particularly viable
economically, but the government of Georgia cannot conceive of "giving
up" territory, despite its inability to exercise its rule there. But
just as stability will come to the Balkans as the Kosovo settlement
becomes increasingly integrated into European structures, so the
independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia would help with the
stabilization process in the Caucasus.
Such an outcome would not end ethnic strife there. Azeris and
Armenians have been talking lately under Russian auspices, but
relations remain fraught. And there is always the question of
Chechnya. But agreement on South Ossetia and Abkhazia would be a step
in the right direction.
What are the outlines of a solution? However it might be presented in
diplomatic language, it is basically this: the West accepts the
independence of the two regions including Russian "peacekeepers"; and
the Russians accept the independence of Kosovo, including a NATO and
EULEX (European Rule of Law Mission) presence. The two entities enter
the United Nations and Russia stops vetoing the Kosovo solution in the
Security Council.
The beneficiaries? Improved US/EU-Russian relations, increased
stability in the Balkans and the Caucasus, and a resolution that the
majority populations of Abkhazia and South Ossetia appear to want.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editori al/outlook/5962082.html