Drawing the Line in the Sand

August 20, 2008 by Adam Hailstone 

How the West Should Respond to the Russian/Georgian Conflict

The recent aggressions and inflammatory language from Russia may have come as a surprise to you, as it did for President Bush. He and Vladimir Putin were sitting together in the same stands watching the Olympics when hostilities broke out. This clash has sent analysts, diplomats and both presidential campaigns scrambling on what to do about it and an array of suggestions has come from all over the political landscape.

I believe we should make our response simple, non-nuanced, and bold. We must stand up to Russia and make the proclamation that all peaceful, freedom loving nations have the right to defend themselves, and be defended, when another nation, unprovoked, seeks to get gain by conquest.

By drawing this line in the sand, in no uncertain terms, I believe the West will once again be clear and unwavering in its position in the world. No one will have to guess what we will do. No nation will want to, or need to, test us because they will know where we stand.

Now let’s dig a little deeper.

Two Catalysts that Sparked the Conflict

You might remember last February seeing video of thousands of ethnic-Albanians chanting “we are free, we are free, we are finally free.” On the 17th of that month Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia. This self-determination sparked a civil-war within Serbia, which killed over ten thousand people a decade ago. Independence has been the hope of many ethnic-Albanians (who occupy Kosovo) for decades and this little nation’s dream was finally legitimized by the United Nations and the West through official statements of recognition.

This declaration was the next chapter in the breakup of former Yugoslavia. It infuriated Serbia (also a part of the former Yugoslavia) who had dominated the ethnic Albanian majority in Kosovo for some time. Serbia’s favorite ally, Russia, went straight to the United Nations to contend the declaration “null and void,” but the motion fell flat.

In the end Russia was extremely upset that the West would allow such a change in the Balkans against their will. In reaction, Moscow started leveling blows against a nearby Caucus state and major US ally, Georgia. First they recognized South Ossetia (where the current conflict began) and Abkhazia as breakaway provinces from Georgia. They issued thousands of passports to pro-Russian Ossetians and Abkhazians and sent in so-called peacekeepers to “protect” them. However these provinces were never threatened by the Georgian government and had the same liberties and voting rights of all Georgian citizens.

In April a second thorn was stuck into Russia’s side, furthering the Russian U.S./Euro enmity. At NATO’s Bucharest Conference the alliance declined an immediate Membership Action Plan, or M.A.P., for Ukraine and Georgia. They did so in order to please Russia, but suggested that they might begin their membership process by December of this year, almost as a warning to Russia. Needless to say, Moscow did not like this and reacted by further stepping up its ties to the two Provinces, increasing aid to South Ossetia and Abkhazia and “strong arming” Russian companies not to do business with Georgia or the Ukraine — a sort of unofficial embargo.

Between the arrival of Russian “peacekeepers” and Moscow’s determination to not allow Georgia into NATO, which guarantees, among other things, the military protection of its members, the Caucus State became very uneasy. Yet it should be pointed out that Ossetians are not ethnically-Georgian and do not speak Georgian as a first language, most speak Ossetian or Russian; as it is with Abkhazian’s, who speak their own native language. Both provinces have never felt completely Georgian and have been against the Georgian President, Mikhail Saakashvili, since he ran for President in 2003 against the former pro-Russian President Eduard Shevardnadze. Over the summer there were many reports that South Ossetians had been provoking the Georgian government and military into this fight by killing many ethnic-Georgians and rioting against government buildings. Most of those reports included speculations and accusations that Russia was fueling tensions.

The Georgian Government responded on August 8th by attacking South Ossetia. In hindsight this was maybe not the best move, because it is exactly what Russia wanted. To the surprise of Georgia though, Russia then overwhelmingly flooded in to South Ossetia and further into Tbilisi, the Georgian Capital, bombing ethnic-Georgian cities and towns along the way.

Russia: The Global Wild Card

During the tenure of the Soviet Union, Moscow’s feelings toward us were generally simple. To put it plainly, we knew they hated us. Whether it was an arms race, a space race, the Olympics or their ties to other red-states like Cuba, they would do anything to affront the west, especially the United States. Although their hatred was simple, our policy toward them was more nuanced, commonly known as “containment of communism.” They had influence in certain parts of the world, we had our influence in other parts. They had their Warsaw Pact, we had NATO.

Then came the fall of the Soviet Union and we gloried in our victory, “Capitalism has won the day and Russia, like the rest of the world, wants to be like us.” Right? But old habits die hard and our foreign policy toward them remained nuanced. Even with the election of pro-western Boris Yeltsin, we just never fully trusted Moscow and our policies reflected our hesitance.

Then, when Russia held its elections in 1999, America held its collective breath. Vladimir Putin replaced Yeltsin and our President looked into Vlad’s eyes and “liked what he saw there”; we collectively had a sigh relief.

However, what President Bush failed to see in Mr. Putin’s eyes is he is very unlike any of his predecessors; neither a liberal/pro-western politician nor a hardliner communist. What he believes in, as he says, is “Mother Russia”; and he will do anything to make her great again. That means he will open up his nation to Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), much of which comes from the west; seek to join (heavily western) international organizations, like the G-8 and the World Trade Organization; and be pro-business and development inside Russia. But it also means he will take over all media outlets, major conglomerate industries — like oil and electric companies, and throw political enemies into jail.

Although Putin was replaced as President by Dmitry Medvedev, he also instituted a constitutional change, allowing him to stay in power as the Prime Minister, and it is widely believed that he is still at the heart of power in Russian politics.

A Reactionist Foreign Policy

With each year of Putin’s Presidency, and now as Prime Minister, we have been guessing “what is going on in Russia.” We have had a reactionist foreign policy toward them, i.e. we wait for their next move and react accordingly.

Back to the conflict at hand: Russia has signed a ceasefire agreement but most reports on the ground are saying that they are just digging-in and repositioning. On the 18th of August the Pentagon announced to reporters that, pending Turkish approval, the US will send Naval War Ships into the Black Sea. Officially these will be there to accommodate U.S. humanitarian aid. But war ships of any kind definitely send a message; the U.S. is positioning itself too. Washington continues to send diplomats and is working vigorously for Russia to stand down. But in the end we are waiting for Russia to put down its next card. And we continue our reactionist foreign policy.

What’s Next?

Most American diplomats and analysts are making one or more of the following recommendations:

  1. Get a cease fire agreement out of Russia and put as much pressure diplomatically on them to return to August 6th (pre-conflict) positions.
  2. Replace Russian peacekeepers with U.N. peacekeepers.
  3. Rally support for Georgia and the Ukraine and make sure that they are not relegated to, what Ronald D. Asmus and Richard Holbrooke (former Clinton Administration advisors) call a “gray zone,” where the west will not go.
  4. Use economic and political power to let Russia know that her standing in the world has changed (this one is the most vague).
  5. Lastly and probably the most severe, kick Russia out of the G-8.

In the end all of these may make the West feel good that it is doing something, but none of them will actually do much to persuade Russia. Russia does not need the West; her economy is booming. FDI may slow down from the U.S. and its allies but much of Russia’s recent investments are coming from billionaire princes in the middle-east and China. Furthermore, Russia is the world’s largest oil producer and billions of dollars, pounds, and Euros are flowing out of western economies and into Moscow every day. We are not just financing Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the bankroll of Hezbollah with our gas money, but we are also funding a Russian power renaissance.

Now I know how this sounds — you are guessing I am going to say we should get off foreign oil; it seems to be the antidote to everything these days. Although I do believe it would be a good thing if domestic entrepreneurs can get us using newer forms of energy and off foreign dependence, I do not believe that is plausible in the next six-months and therefore is not an effective solution.

As stated above, my policy suggestion is simple, but unlike U.S. policies before it is also bold and non-nuanced. Just like I personally have the obligation to help my neighbor if he or she is being robbed or beaten, I believe we in the free world have the obligation to go to bat for other nations when being attacked and occupied. That does not mean I think we should put troops in every part of the world and police it. That does not mean that we should leave troops behind everywhere we go so other nations never build up proper defenses.

And that does not mean we fight battles where the people have not done their part to fight for their own freedom, civil liberties and the rule of law. In many volatile parts of the world where one regime or political party replaces another, the cycle of violence and pillaging that was part of the former regime continues. These nations are not ready for freedom (which I know can be a difficult judgment-call to make — but it is one we must make). If we are going to fight for any nation they must have matured politically enough to govern themselves and have demonstrated such.

In the case of Georgia and its bloodless Rose Revolution, the people have stood up and created their own freedom, civil liberties, and the rule of law. If we defend Georgia we will not be propping up a dictator, nor a blood hungry people. We will be standing up for Liberty.

Resources:

In Russia-Georgia Conflict, Balkan Shadows from the Council on Foreign Relations
Between the Lines by Quentin Peel of the Financial Times
Black Sea Watershed by Ronald Asmus & Richard Holbrooke of the Washington Post

Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.

Email This Post Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.

Filed under: Foreign Affairs, Politics
Tagged:

Comments

7 Responses to “Drawing the Line in the Sand”

  1. Ammon Nelson on August 20th, 2008 12:55 pm

    A couple of questions:

    1. The tone of your article leads me to believe you are against “reactionary foreign policy.” I could be mistaken, but what would be the alternative? Isn’t that what the ideal is, to have free commerce with all and no entangling allliances, such as NATO, U.N., etc.?

    2. You explain what “go to bat for other nations when being attacked and occupied” is not, but I’m left uncertain what you believe it is.

    You also give a lot of history of the conflict which seems very biased by your view and values. If you give references to help people in their research, the article would gain credibility in my mind (given that your interpretation is not much of an exageration of the facts).

  2. Stephen Palmer on August 20th, 2008 1:21 pm

    Ammon, I’ve just inserted a few resources at the bottom of the article. That was my bad; I posted the article and Adam had given these to me, but I failed to get them in when I initially posted.

  3. Shane Schulthies on August 20th, 2008 1:58 pm

    Adam or Steve,

    I haven’t been following this one real close so I have a couple of questions. You seem to be saying the Kosovo’s self determination was good and that we where justified in defending Kosovo against Serbia, but that South Ossetia’s self determination is not justified and that Russia has no right to come to her defense against Georgia. I think what we first have to do is establish criteria on when is self determination (succession) is justified. Until we get a handle on this one it is hard to come down to hard on Russia. This is especially pertinent since I believe the movement toward self-determination is a wave of the near future, and much of it is going to occur in that part of the world. Second, I believe that Russia is expansionist and is seeking to play a major roll in regional if not geo-politics. The 1990s were terrible for Russia and she is just getting back to her 1990 GDP levels. Now that she is experiencing real GDP growth, we cannot expect her to act like she did in the 1990s. The situation is worsened by the extremely high oil and natural gas prices that heavily subsidize her economy and Russia has already shown her willingness to play political hardball with her natural resources. I guess what I’m saying is that I see the need to check Russia. But I don’t feel that I have the ammo without clear criteria of when self-determination is justified. Let’s get one soon because this senario is going to be repeated.

  4. adamthailstone on August 20th, 2008 4:38 pm

    Thanks for the comments. First, I want to respond to what Ammon Nelson wrote:

    “The tone of your article leads me to believe you are against “reactionary foreign policy.” I could be mistaken, but what would be the alternative? Isn’t that what the ideal is, to have free commerce with all and no entangling allliances, such as NATO, U.N., etc.?”

    The alternative is a clear cut statement that if one nation attacks another free nation we will defend them. This is in essence what the NATO treaty is all about (since 1991), but it has not been extended to Georgia. However since her bloodless Rose Revolution Georgia has been as free politically as Poland or Estonia, who are guarunteed the preotection of NATO.
    Now I am not a fan of International Organizations such as “NATO, the U.N., etc.” But even if we were not a part of them I would still be against a nuanced, reactionist foreign policy. In the early days of our nation we had the Monroe Doctrine. It was a clear cut statement that we would not get involved in the wars of Europe (we can have a discussion on whether we should go back to the Monroe Doctrine, but that is a diferent argument for a different time). It wasn’t a series of diplomatic/economic steps and wait to see what the other guy will do. We should make it clear what our stand is. Otherwise nations like Russia and Iran will always test us.

    You also asked what “go to bat means”. I mean defend them militarily.

  5. adamthailstone on August 20th, 2008 5:05 pm

    Shane,
    I can understand the contradiction you see between the US defending Kosovo and my being against Russia defending South Oseetia. However, I feel there is a clear difference. The ethnic-Albanian’s in Kosovo were second-class citizens and had very little freedom. Further the Serbian governemnt had been commiting acts of genocide against Kosovo for some time. The war in 1998 was Kosovo’s retaliation.
    In the case of South Ossetia, although the people did not like the pro-western government of Saakashvili, they were not second class citizens and had the same voting rights of all Georgians. The only slight I have been able to find is that the Georgian Government mandated that all public-school kids be taught Georgian; to me that is not that big of a deal.
    We afford (not that US foreign policy is perfect, far from it) Russia to do the same thing within its nation, that Georgia has done; to quell a violent uprising. Case in-point Chechnya, we do not love it but we do not attack them over it.
    Furthermore, there have been many reports that Russia insited this uprising in South-Ossetia (as I show inthe article above), and Ossetians have been killing ethnic-Georgians and rioting against governemtn building all summer long. Again I see a clear difference, but judgement calls are never easy in that part of the world.

  6. Taylor Earl on August 22nd, 2008 5:39 pm

    I commend Mr. Hailstone for a well-researched and persuasive article. I have one question that I’d like Mr. Hailstone to clarify the general principle he’s stating in his article. You say “Just like I personally have the obligation to help my neighbor if he or she is being robbed or beaten, I believe we in the free world have the obligation to go to bat for other nations when being attacked and occupied.” This sounds like you’re justifying the U.S.’s involvement in this conflict on moral grounds. And I don’t necessarily disagree. But then you qualify the universal maxim of “help your neighbor” by drawing a line between those we should help and those we shouldn’t. You say that we should only help those neighbors that have “matured politically enough to govern themselves and have demonstrated such.” But can a political qualifier limit a universal moral maxim? Can you say we should help everyone who is in need because it’s the moral thing to do, only then to say that we shouldn’t help some people because they haven’t done X,Y, and Z?

    I suppose you could say that we do this all the time when we decide whether to help the poor. You could say, well look, I’d much rather give money to a homeless person who is looking for work than a homeless person who is making no such efforts. And I would agree that that’s an acceptable moral principle.

    But I see a distinction between withholding assistance from a homeless person who isn’t trying to help themselves first and withholding U.S. military aid from thousands of suffering individuals because their government has not yet been able to self govern or at least the people have not been able to mount a legitimate effort to “fight for their own freedom, civil liberties and the rule of law.” Self-governance is not always within the immediate control of a country’s government or its citizens in the same way that a homeless person has control over looking for a job. The former seems to be intricate and involved with many practical and policy factors, the second seems to be about pure effort, and little else.

    And so, given this distinction, I wonder whether it’s appropriate to justify the U.S.’s involvement by saying we have a moral duty, only then to cap that moral duty with a political or at least policy-based qualifier that may not always be within the immediate control of those thousands of suffering individuals we might otherwise aid.

  7. adamthailstone on August 23rd, 2008 9:38 am

    What a fantastic question? Thanks for your input Taylor; you lawyers do not miss anything.
    I agree that we have the personal and national responsibility to help anyone in need. However, the way we help is the key. Let me use an analogy to illustrate why helping nations that have not matured politically, or in other words nations where the cycle of violence continues no matter who is in power, may do more harm than good.
    Let’s say you see a gang being beaten up by another gang and you go into to the fight to break it up. Subsequently you equip the first gang to defend themselves and then walk away. Then the first gang goes on the offense and hurts the second gang even worse. What have you accomplished then? This is something in the inner city no authority would ever do. You break up the fight but do not try to empower anyone in the process.
    Yet the US government has done it many times. Case in point, Chile; Richard Nixon ordered the CIA to overthrow the socialist government of Salvador Allende in 1973, under what was called Project FUBELT, because he was worried about the spread if the Socialist ideology in the western hemisphere. With CIA help General Augusto Pinochet and consequently started killing the socialist opposition throughout the nation. It was a bloodbath and a deep scar on American foreign policy. There are many other examples also, but I will not belabor the point.
    Now I am not against breaking up fights, with hopes that eventually cooler heads will prevail. But it is a major risk. In the case of Rwanda in 1994 it could have helped, and possibly in Sudan today. However, in the case of Georgia, the Saakashvili government was democratically elected and demonstrated a position of civil liberties and the rule of law; the Georgian people, including those in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, are a free people, not perfect but free. If it came to defending Georgia militarily, we would not be propping up a dictator.
    Furthermore, Democracies throughout history have needed help from the outside to get off the ground. Small democracies are usually weaker than small dictatorships. We needed the help of France; and later France needed ours. A more recent example is West Germany and consequently East Germany.

Feel free to leave a comment...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!