McCain’s Georgia Editorial Makes Some Good Points
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in NewsJustin feels John McCain’s editorial on the Russian/Georgian conflict is not helpful. However, outside the ridiculous title of “We’re All Georgians,” McCain’s editorial is measured and absent of the kind of disturbing bellicosity McCain’s been known for in the past.
First, McCain is right that we must condemn Russian aggression – a stance Barack Obama has also taken. Certainly we can’t simply sit back and let Russia invade and perhaps occupy a sovereign nation (please leave your Iraq analogies at the door, if you can’t see the major differences between the two conflicts at least admit that, if you thought invading Iraq was wrong, you have to think Russia is also wrong).
So, if we can’t just stand around and watch Russia play neo-imperialist, we have to act in some manner. I think most of us can agree that military action would be ridiculous. But in no way does McCain suggest we send troops. In fact, he lays out a diplomatic course.
With our allies, we now must stand in united purpose to persuade the Russian government to end violence permanently and withdraw its troops from Georgia. International monitors must gain immediate access to war-torn areas in order to avert an even greater humanitarian disaster, and we should ensure that emergency aid lifted by air and sea is delivered.
We should work toward the establishment of an independent, international peacekeeping force in the separatist regions, and stand ready to help our Georgian partners put their country back together. This will entail reviewing anew our relations with both Georgia and Russia. As the NATO secretary general has said, Georgia remains in line for alliance membership, and I hope NATO will move ahead with a membership track for both Georgia and Ukraine.
At the same time, we must make clear to Russia’s leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world. The U.S. has cancelled a planned joint military exercise with Russia, an important step in this direction.
Whether or not Georgia would make a useful member of NATO is an issue worthy of debate, but is what McCain suggesting so bad? Should we not send humanitarian aid and international monitors? Would not an international peacekeeping force be preferable to the Russian “peacekeeping” forces previously stationed in the separatist regions? And should we not use diplomatic and economic pressures to convince Russia they can’t just invade sovereign nations and violate cease fires? Russia’s international activities, such as the nation’s inclusion in the G8, are the exact kinds of bargaining chips that make diplomacy a very possible means to ending this conflict.
McCain clearly states we should take action with our allies by our side and is, by all appearances, pushing only for diplomatic responses. Yes, he seems unwilling to hold Georgia accountable for its initial assault on Ossetia (and that is a significant problem with this editorial) but the path he lays out for dealing with Russia is not “hard line.”
This entry was posted on Thursday, August 14th, 2008 and is filed under News. 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 14th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
First of all, John McCain is not president. So I have a major problem with him injecting himself into such a sensitive issue. He is trying to portray himself as strong on foreign policy, but if this was Obama, sending emissaries (Lieberman and Graham) to Georgia, the media and the right would be in a meltdown over Obama’s presumptuousness.
Second, anything McCain says or does in regards to Georgia has to be looked at through the prism of his conflict of interest, with his campaign advisor being on the Georgian government’s payroll.
Third, we have no way to take action, because we have no standing with Russian after our own war of aggression. You can say don’t mention Iraq, but that’s not being realistic, because McCain and his neocon cronies put us in this position, where we acted unilaterally against a sovereign nation, and now we are hypocritically calling out Russian for doing the same, despite Georgia initiating the conflict. Also, we have no cards to play in this game. Telling Russia that they are damaging their “standing in the world” as Bush is saying, is as easily rejected by Putin, as saying that to us after Iraq is to the neocons.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Ed, I think both presidential candidates not only have a right but a responsbility to speak and act on this crisis. How else are we supposed to judge them? I for one would have no problem if Obama sent emissaries (Biden maybe?).
Plus, Russia’s attempts to assert authority over a not-too-long-ago piece of their empire is different than our coalition-led invasion of Iraq. Like it our not, our actions had the backing of numerous world nations and was not a unilateral action. I’m not defending the Iraq invasion which I’ve always thought was unjustified, I’m just pointing out that it’s not an exact analogy and that it’s a MAJOR cop-out to say “well, we did it so I guess we just have to sit on our hands and let Russia do whatever the hell it pleases.” Besides, no one is saying we need to pressure Russia alone. In fact, without the EU, we can’t do much of anything.
As for McCain’s conflicts of interest — that worries me a lot and, as I said, the big weakness in his argument is his refusal to admit that Georgia has some culpability in all of this.
August 14th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Alan,
To me, not saying that Georgia had a part in this is a very hard line to draw in the sand. Especially when it’s so obvious that both parties played a role in this.
Also, basically stating outright that regime change is Russia’s aim is hardline. I’m not saying everything he’s suggesting is hardline, but in two very important ways, McCain’s immediate stances fall outside of where even the Bush administration has gone.
One note about Obama. His first response was to condemn both Russian and Georgian aggression, then his second response was to condemn the continued overreaching by Russia. Many are saying Obama got tougher. He didn’t. He merely made two statements in succession that dealt with the facts as they were coming in. It was McCain that immediately viewed the situation as all Russia’s fault.
August 14th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Hi Alan,
McCain is a realist and ignoring Russia’s past history coupled with Putin’s plan to disenfranchise its neighboring. border countries that are Pro-Western seems apparent. It was just a question of time before Putin was able to initiate his policies of fear, force and intimidation as Medevev, the puppet fulfills his bidding.
August 14th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
The United States and Russia have engaged in a collaborative effort on many issues including nuclear weapons agreements, economic opportunities, counter-terrorism, North Korea, international crime, space exploration, energy and health since George W. Bush’s Administration. There is no doubt that things have improved significantly especially in light of Russia’s past historical record. It is a fact and it cannot be ignored that the United States and Russian relations are better than ever before the Bush Administration.
This is not in any attributable to George Bush, but to the resilient economic force in this Era of Globalization. The faltering economy of the Soviet Union and pressure from the West brought the former superpower to its knees and they knew that changes had to occur economically for their survival. Many communist party leaders disagreed with these abrupt changes and of these men, stands the former head of the KGB, Vladimir Putin clinging to a dying and bankrupt ideology based more on fear, force and control than anything else. There can be no doubt that Dmitry Medvedev is just a puppet fulfilling Putin’s ideological agenda sending chills throughout the international arena and the Georgian conflict may just be the beginning in thwarting their neighboring, democratic, separatists regimes. The support of Iran, refusal of the European missile defense systems, hesitancy with North Korea dilemma, and more recently the claim of withdrawal from Georgia should all have be sufficient evidence and a clue that the Russians vehemently refuse to cooperate with Western ideas and change. It is a question of ideology and anti-Western sediment that has little if nothing to do with United States foreign relations or for that matter the particular Presidential Administrations?
The Bush Administration has dramatically improved relations with Russia, but the events transpiring today in Georgia signifies that Russia has finally asserted itself in regard to this separatist regime while the Ukraine and Belarus look on with fear with as the Russian army flexes its muscles. The United States has not experienced anything quite like this since the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 when Jimmy Carter’s response was to place a trade embargo on the Soviet Union and a boycott of the Summer Olympics in Moscow. War is out of the question because there is no real recourse other than diplomacy with a nuclear-packing country. Ultimately, Russia is going to do what it wants to do fulfilling a long-awaited agenda as the Western countries watch, wait and hope that escalation of hostilities does not occur.
August 15th, 2008 at 10:51 am
The same thing troubles me Alan. So much of the talk concerns what our relationship with Georgia ought to imply, and how we must carry ourselves in relation to the threat that Russia’s actions represent.
And while such concerns certainly have merit, I can’t help but wonder about the pawns in Ossetia. If it’s true that the Ossetes generally feel no sense of conection to the entity now called Georgia, what does that suggest?
It strikes me as unsatisfactory to imply that we ought to require Ossetes to remain part of Georgia primarily because we can’t allow Russia to succeed with whatever neo-imperialist designs they are harboring.
So if it’s in fact true that Ossetia and Georgia represent no strategic interest for the United States beyond geography and cold-war political considerations (which, granted, may still make modern sense), I think I’d prefer the US’s position to be that we won’t allow Russia to take over Georgia, but the Ossetes can do what they want. And that if they do, then they are on their own.
What I don’t want to do is back Georgia to the extent that are supporting their desire to force Ossetia to remain part of Georgia. I don’t think we ought to be that involved. I’d prefer if we did our best to make Russia and Georgia as unhappy as we can without putting more of our own citizens directly in harm’s way. Like if we fast-tracked them into NATO.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:20 am
(Sorry but my Iraq analogy made it through the door with me).
Whether or not there is a difference between the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Russian invasion of Georgia, it is still hypocritical of McCain, Rice, Bush, and Khalilzad (at least he added “in Europe”) to condemn other nations for invading another sovereign nation. Russia and the U.S. are both in the wrong and the first wrongdoer should keep their collective mouths shut and not lecture others.