Georgia Commentary
Writing by abuhatem on Friday, 15 of August , 2008 at 10:41 pm
There have been numerous foreign policy intellectuals who have written about the Georgian crisis in the past few days. I do not agree with all of them, but here is a good sampling of approaches given by those who have made their study history and international relations:
Francis Fukayama, neocon, suggests Russia’s invasion is analogous to America’s invasion of Iraq, and likes Obama’s shunning of a reliance on hard power:
The Bush administration this week rebuked Russia for its disproportionate military intervention in Georgia; many rightly suspect Moscow’s real goal is regime change of the pro-Western, democratic government in Tbilisi. But who set the most recent precedent for a big power intervening to change a regime it didn’t like, without the sanction of the U.N. Security Council or any other legitimating international body?
Of course, there is no moral equivalence between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Mikheil Saakashvili’s Georgia. But the U.S. is scarcely in a position today to rally opposition to Russia on the basis of international law and norms constraining the strong from using force against the weak…
Mr. Obama does not share McCain’s instinctive reliance on hard power as the primary instrument for dealing with messy questions of terrorism and proliferation in the broader Middle East. This is one reason I support him for president.
Paul Kennedy, author of The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, writes that a multipolar world is emerging:
This brings us to the larger geopolitical meaning of the Georgian scrap - namely, the measure of US power in today’s fast-changing world. It could be better. It has been brought lower during the past eight years by inconsiderate and sometimes arrogant diplomacy, by an obsession with “the war on terror” and reckless fiscal policies. The post-1991 decade of the US’s position as unchallenged number one - in Charles Krauthammer’s memorable phrase, “the unipolar moment” - is over. To later historians, the pace of this shift will seem astounding. In the early 1990s, the elder George Bush, James Baker and other foreign policy veterans were wondering how to prevent Russia collapsing. Now the concern is about excessive Russian power.
Andrew Bacevich, antiwar conservative, writes of Russia’s payback:
The chief lesson of the Georgian crisis is this: The post-cold war holiday from history during which Europe took its security for granted has now ended. NATO’s eastward march at Russia’s expense has reached its limits. Enlarging the alliance further by incorporating Georgia or even Ukraine as member states will entail costs likely to be prohibitive.
Zbigniew Brzezinski on putting pressure on Russia, which I don’t agree with:
The West has to respond carefully but with a moral and strategic focus. Its objective has to be a democratic Russia that is a constructive participant in a global system based on respect for sovereignty, law and democracy. But that objective can be achieved only if the world makes clear to Moscow that a stridently nationalistic Russia will not succeed in any effort to create a new empire in our postimperial age.
Category: International Relations
- Add this post to
- Del.icio.us -
- Meneame -
- Digg
No comments yet.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
