Georgia, Russia And The Candidates’ Diplomatic Style
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Foreign Policy, McCain, Russia, The WorldGiven the recent flare up in Georgia yesterday and into today, it was expected that the candidates would have to take a position. Both don’t view Russia’s actions as justified, but as Politico points out this represents one of the campaign’s first “3 a.m.” moments and could give us a glimpse into how the candidates will handle matters in the future.
Obama sides with Georgia, but takes a more diplomatic stance and is carefully to not vilify Russia…
“I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict,†Obama said in a written statement. “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war. Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected.â€Obama added briefly that the international community should get involved. More than an hour later, as more details of Russia’s incursion into Georgia emerged, he cited Russia more directly: “What is clear is that Russia [...] has encroached on Georgia’s sovereignty,†he told reporters in Sacramento.
McCain is much more pointed and has no problem making Russia the bad guy…
“[T]he news reports indicate that Russian military forces crossed an internationally recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia. Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory.“The government of Georgia has called for a ceasefire and for a resumption of direct talks on South Ossetia with international mediators. The U.S. should immediately work with the EU and the OSCE to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to reverse this perilous course that it has chosen.â€
Personally, I’m in favor of the Obama approach, because Georgia’s hands certainly aren’t clean in all of this, and even the Bush administration has stated as much…
Still, Georgia bears some of the blame for the fighting over South Ossetia, the official said. Recently, the United States has had “very blunt exchanges with” Georgia, telling its leaders that they have no chance of winning a war with Russia and that they should stick to a path of diplomacy.
Also, McCain may run into a problem with this issue since one of his top foreign policy advisors has very close ties to the Georgian government and has lobbied extensively for its sovereignty…
The conflict in Georgia also brought attention to another complicating feature of McCain’s campaign: His ties to Republican operatives with extensive lobbying practices. [John McCain’s top foreign policy adviser, Randy] Scheunemann was, until earlier this year, registered to lobby for the government of Georgia. [...]Scheunemann dismissed the criticism, saying he severed his ties to his firm and to his client on March 1 and noting that McCain has been a firm supporter of Georgia’s move toward the West, and away from Russia, since the Arizona senator’s first visit there in 1997.
Sure, he may have severed his ties, but has his opinion really changed? And again, we’re talking about McCain’s top foreign policy advisor, not some fly-by-nighter who’s offering a little advice.
Long story short, Obama’s approach gives us more flexibility to negotiate with Russia, while McCain’s draws a line in the sand with empty threats that Russia could easily ignore. Why? Because there’s virtually no chance we’ll stick our necks out for a country like Georgia…not when they tried to capture the capital of South Ossetia, but have since been pushed back by Russia’s overwhelming military might. This is a VERY local skirmish, and I can guarantee you that Americans want absolutely NO part of it.
More as it develops…
This entry was posted on Saturday, August 9th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Foreign Policy, McCain, Russia, The World. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 9th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Can you imagine McCain as president. He is really dangerous. Even more of a loose cannon than his idol, W.
Hopefully, the media and electorate will start to wake up to the reality that he is not fit for the job.
August 9th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Since George Bush recognised the independence of Kosovo, he ought to be consistent and recognise the independence of South Ossetia, but will he? And will McCain follow suit? Not likely, in the light of what you’ve said.
August 10th, 2008 at 1:17 am
I don’t know that you are right on this Justin. While I agree with you on the fact that Georgia’s hands are not clean in this matter, Moscow bears the larger blame, as does the US and EU. First, it is clear that Georgia planned and timed this offensive to coincide with the Olympic ceremony in Beijing. However, given Russia’s massive and effective response, not to mention that they had forces in the area, i.e. the 58th, who were conducting “exercises” in the region, it also looks like they were goading Georgia for a fight. Add to this Russia’s recent provocative actions in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and you get a picture of a Kremlin pushing buttons in Saakashvili knowing they’d get a response.
Russia has been trying to send the US, NATO, and the EU a message, and Georgia is merely a pawn in the larger contest for Eastern Europe. In other words, by flexing their muscle, they are not only warning the US away from pursuing Georgian entry into NATO, but also regarding the missile shield, and the Europeans about any further expansion eastward. Additionally, given that Moscow’s provocations not only intensified after Kosovo’s independence and more so following NATO’s promise that Georgia would eventually join the organization, it will be necessary for the US to take a tougher stance than that taken by Sen. Obama. I heard both statements, and given Sen. Obama’s lack of foreign policy credentials, his sounded irresolute and noncommittal, at a time when Russia is trying to demonstrate that it is powerful once again. The massive response by Russia is intended to send the West a message, just when it is sensing weakness. A strong response by the US and the EU will be necessary to make it clear that while we recognize Russia’s interests we will not allow it to do as it pleases in Eastern Europe. While that does not mean that we will intervene militarily, it does mean we will have to involve ourselves fully in the crisis. As a side note, most former Soviet Republics that have moved westward are looking to see what sort of response the US will muster, and indeed are calling for a more forceful line against Russia. This, as they are also suffering from Russia’s involvement with their internal politics, and are being pressured through the use of Russia’s control of vast energy resources.
That said, I don’t agree with Sen. McCain’s approach to Russia generally, particularly his view of Putin and the Siloviki as nothing more than a reincarnation of the KGB, but do believe that in this instance his comments were more appropriate than Sen. Obama’s.
Russia is likely to press its campaign as far as it is allowed, including the overthrow of Saakashvili’s administration. McCain, for all his faults and very real problems in terms of worldview got this one right, and Sen. Obama left himself open to charges of failing to rise to the challenge of the 3 am call. This is particularly true given that Russia will now judge him the weaker opponent, and if elected will seek to challenge him to see just how far he’d allow them to go. It also adds to the perception that many of our Eastern European allies have that an Obama administration would not be as likely to guard their interests with enough force to protect them from the already encroaching push by Moscow to bring them back under its sphere of influence. In some reports, it seems as if Georgia decided to act now, partly because they fear that an Obama administration would be less willing to push their case, and so gambled that the Bush administration would get more involved and press that case before it left office.
p.s. I remain undecided, but continue to lean in favor of Sen. Obama. In this instance, however, i disagree with his approach, if only because he is already viewed by the Kremlin and others as weaker that Sen. McCain, a perception he needs to correct before assuming office in 2009, if he can in November.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:12 am
[...] also sides with Obama. Obama sides with Georgia, but takes a more diplomatic stance and is carefully to not vilify [...]
August 10th, 2008 at 8:12 am
[...] also sides with Obama. Obama sides with Georgia, but takes a more diplomatic stance and is carefully to not vilify [...]
August 10th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Obama initially took a non-committal, neutral position that merely condemned the violence without making any moral choices on the conflict, McCain who has experience with foreign affairs in the region takes a more succinct position and puts blame where it is due.
Obama hears about McCain’s position on this, then reads the wikipedia entry about Georgia, looks it up on google maps, looks at some poll numbers and then decides to adopt a similar position after consulting with his campaign staff.
hear hear.
again, hear hear; however, its not because of anything Georgia did. Its because the rest of the world just doesn’t have the gaul to get involved.
militant sepratist groups backed by Russia have been in violent clashes with the Georgian authorities for years. Ossetia is recognized as part of Georgia. When Georgian forces respond to these sepratists forcefully, Russia bombs the shit out of areas south of the conflict zone, and hitting Georgian military and civilian infrastructure in and around the capitol Tbilisi.
Russia seems to be up to no good on this one Justin, I don’t know how much “cleaner” Georgia’s hands have to be to meet your standards, other than allowing militant separatist groups to achieve their goal of breaking Ossetia off from Georgia completely by force.
August 10th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
@Jimmy – It’s not because of anything Georgia did?
Umm, as mentioned in the story, Georgia had been warned repeatedly by the US to not take action. They did. Obviously that’s their prerogative, but you certainly can’t characterize their actions as completely unavoidable. Especially when you consider the timing.
What’s more, in 2006 South Ossetians overwhelmingly voted in internationally monitored elections to become their own state. Before that they’ve operated as as independent state since the early 90s anyway.
Frankly, you “exceptionalists” scare the s**t out of me because you’ll use any excuse to get into a fight. If people want “freedom” you’ll call on the US to invade. If a country like Georgia wants to prevent a historically independent region from declaring their “freedom,” it sounds like you’ll call on the US to act tough and possibly even get involved?
And no, I’m not talking about isolationism, but how about we start by not having the sabre already out of its sheath because we’re itching to rattle it? You think that would be a good first step right out of the gate? I do, and that was Obama’s approach.
Concerning the Russia problem as a whole, it won’t help the next President convince Putin and his gang that we’re their friends and the missile shield is no threat to them by characterizing their support of the Ossetians as a criminal action. And if our first priority is indeed our own national security, we’d do well to keep that top of mind and take a more neutral stance instead of immediately and forcefully backing the Georgians who seemingly have nothing to offer us except getting involved in their own local skirmishes with the Ossetians that have been going on for decades.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:55 am
Obama the neocon “exceptionalist.”
August 11th, 2008 at 9:12 am
I hate to agree with McCain on this one, but frankly, he’s right. Russia is clearly up to no good. Their claim to be protecting “peacekeeping forces” from the possibility of a “genocide by Georgian forces” is beyond ridiculous. Georgia claims that Russia attempted to bomb the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, far south of the conflict region. The claim has yet to be verified, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s true. That pipeline is the primary reason Georgia is strategically relevant. It should be noted that this is a pipeline that is operated and largely owned by British Petroleum. Western oil firms have used the route to bypass Russia’s pipelines when transporting oil from the Caspian region.
Georgia was being sponsored by us for membership in NATO. They have been the best ally we have among the ex-soviet bloc nations. They even sent 2,000 troops to Iraq.
Russia doesn’t care about South Ossetia, it wants to annex Georgia, and if we let them, we will be engaging in appeasement. If Russia’s aggression isn’t checked, Russia will effectively gain control of the entire output of the Caspian sea. Azerbaijan has already halted all oil transport through Georgia, leaving only Russia as the sole benefactor of the Caspian oil fields. Russia wants to know how much it can get away with. If we permit Russia to invade an allied sovereign nation, with nothing more than a sternly worded objection, we will be making the same mistake that was made when the West allowed Germany and Italy to invade Czechoslovakia and Ethiopia. Russia isn’t ever going to offer us help with the situation in Iran, and it would be an epic error in judgment to assume that leniency on the Georgian issue would buy us Russia’s favor with regard to Iran.
Did Georgia make a grave error by beginning their offensive? Undoubtedly. However, Russia has been trying to provoke this conflict for quite some time. It offered passports to South Ossetians, effectively converting Georgian citizens into Russian ones. And it is now using this as leverage to justify its current actions. This war was premeditated.
Russia increased its military spending by 16% this year.
August 15th, 2008 at 7:39 am
While Russia is clearly up to no good, rarely does anyone act without feeling they are justified somehow. Both sides have had a hard time adhering to the cease-fire…and while Russia may be “more wrong,” try telling that to Russia. Who, in the midst of a battle, is open to hearing that they are 100% wrong? This is why, despite some people’s desire to see this as black and white, diplomacy is still the best option — especially while the US has its own unjustifiable invasion to deal with, and has little military force to back up the threats that McCain seems so comfortable making. It is no wonder that Russia blows off our threats….what are we actually gonna do? We can’t even handle the Iraq insurgency and are too busy trying to set up a “little US” in the middle east, to be making empty threats to a rejuvenated Russia.
August 16th, 2008 at 2:33 am
GEORGIA ON MY MIND
The United States initiated a war in Iraq for various professed reasons, none of which were valid, considering we were not attacked, or were about to be attacked. The only reasons that the government still clings to are: “regime changeâ€, and “democratizationâ€. Another more mercenary reason seems to be about oil, and a U.S. company that wanted it. “Shock and Awe†is a callous term coined by the government, an unprovoked attack on Iraq that killed thousands of men, women, and children, and as a result led to the killing of thousands of American soldiers. Our government has lied to us repeatedly in order to start and to further the war. The war has tied up our armed forces so that we are in a compromised condition as to defense from other nations.
As Will Rogers once said, “All I know is what I read in the newspapers.†For anyone
today, it has expanded to television, computers, as well as a few other sources, all of which provide second-hand information, even if it comes from government sources.
The reliability of these sources can be highly suspect, and politically motivated.
From what I can put together in an objective way from these sources is that those in charge of our government have done some pretty bad things. I also think that other countries are not so pure, either. It is difficult to sort out, but there are various degrees of
“sin†(for want of a better word), and no country is entirely innocent, or entirely guilty.
Russia, like the United States, initiated a war, only on its next-door neighbor, Georgia, which was once a part of the late Soviet Union. Georgia had been victim of several of its neighbors in the past. It’s leader now is a friend of the United States, and wants to be part of NATO. In one of its breakaway provinces, Ossetia, there is a very valuable oil pipeline. Oil seems to be a constant reason for wars lately. The U.S. has backed Georgia in its desire to join NATO, and has been training Georgian military troops. Russia must feel about the same as the U.S. felt during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when Russia was allied with our neighbors, Cuba, and was sending missiles that could be aimed at the United States. The Russian invasion of its neighbor, Georgia, may be barbaric, but perhaps no more than the United States in its “Shock and Awe†in Iraq (a country far removed from the U.S.). Georgia is now feeling let down by the West, especially the United States, for not defending it actively. We are in a tough spot.
Georgia, according to what we hear, attacked its province, Ossetia, where the oil pipeline is, and which Russia may want to control. I’m sick of oil and what governments and corporations are doing to control it. We don’t know the full story, or at least I don’t, about what the Russians may have been doing to cause Ossetia to break away from Georgia.
What seems evident, though, is that many innocent people are dying all over the world, the stability of nations is weakening, the “Cold War†is again looming, and worldwide economy is failing seriously.
The war in Iraq has tied up our armed forces, so that any reaction we have to the actions of other countries is just a big balloon of hot air that can be punctured easily. Our Republican candidate for President is taking a hard line, politically posturing, and being advised by his chief foreign advisor, who has been taking hundreds of thousands of dollars for himself and another man, given to them by Georgia. They now advise the Republican candidate to castigate Russia and it’s leaders, fomenting the possibility of another “Cold Warâ€, for which we are less prepared than during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Of course, it is political posturing. It is propaganda designed to make this man seem like a strong leader in foreign affairs. It is just crap talking. He is also trying to distance himself from our unpopular President, who probably regrets the statement he once made that he can see Putin’s soul through his eyes, and liked him. The Republican candidate says he can see only three letters in the Russian leader’s eyes: KGB. How clever and brave a phrase, and how stupid to throw around insults just to get some votes. How irresponsible! We needn’t praise nor condemn, but form a policy which will lessen the tensions that lead to larger conflicts.
We haven’t heard a great deal from the Democratic candidate, from whom many people are waiting to make a stand on the issue of Russia and Georgia. Maybe this week we will hear from him, but he’s taking too long. The Democrats say in defense that it is our President who must deal with this, as he got us into our present weakened state. They say it isn’t up to the Democratic candidate. No, it isn’t, but the candidate should have something to say about it, as muddled as the situation is. Who is going to be the first to cast stones? Upon whom will the stones be cast? Is everyone too stoned to solve the problem? Currently, our President and his Secretary of State are full of sound and fury, and they signify only that.
Russia has been sitting in the background for some time in recent years, and evidently feels like it needs to flex its muscles, and it seems to say, in effect: “Hey, we’re still here! You better pay attention to us, we are a force to be reckoned with!†This may be their attitude, and I see an oil pipeline as one of their ways to make us reckon with them. I see the U.S. and Russia as both invading countries, in part at least, because of oil. With the U.S. is seems to be about oil and regime change, and with Russia, it seems similar. Russia, of course, is invading a neighbor country that has been like Cuba has been to us. It’s somewhat complex to figure out all of the motivations. Some say that all the countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union are now fearful that Russia is out to get them again. We just don’t know what Russia is up to in that respect. Is it to their advantage to expand now?
How to handle the situation with the invasion of Georgia is a problem for the United States government to deal with in a way that makes things better, not worse. We’ve backed Georgia, now what do we do?
Who will be the first to know what to do? I remember when John Kennedy stood up to Khruschev during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and how frightened we all were that nuclear war was about to destroy the world. I hope I never again see such a confrontation, especially one from which we have to back down. The Soviet Union was destroyed partly as a result of backing down. I don’t want the United States put in a position to
find it necessary to back down, or to have the world destroyed by greed and ignorance, either. This is not a poker game. Political lies and bluffs are rotten, and they catch up with those who spew them. We are in dire need of an intelligent and conscientious leader.
Barack Obama…Let us hear from you.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
[...] affianca Obama. Obama affianca la Georgia, ma prende una posizione più diplomatica e cerca di non diffamere la [...]
September 16th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
[...] also sides with Obama. Obama sides with Georgia, but takes a more diplomatic stance and is carefully to not vilify [...]