 |
Add to My Group
Stoking Tensions, Risking Confrontation: A High Stakes US Gamble with Russia
By Stephen Lendman (about the author) Page 4 of 6 page(s)
This at a time other reports hint at NATO divisions despite its outward appearance of toughness. The US, UK and most Eastern European states support harsh measures. In contrast, France, Germany, Portugal, Turkey and Italy are reluctant to break off Russian ties with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner telling The New York Times that "Russia is a great nation. Look how we have been treating it. We need firmness, not threats" that won't work "because everyone knows we are not going to war."
In another report, however, RIA Novesti indicated that "EU leaders (are) considering sanctions against Russia" after earlier averring they weren't on the agenda. Russia heard nothing about them, and so far details aren't forthcoming. Maybe no sanctions either and just verbal threats. Kouchner later confirmed that EU leaders will weigh them at an emergency September 1 summit. Convening in Brussels, they'll discuss Western relations with Russia, Georgia, and providing aid to the former Soviet republic.
Precisely what Russia fears because it will come in the form of more arms and munitions. On September 1, RIA Novesti reported that "Russia wants (an) arms embargo on Georgia and quoted Foreign Minister Lavrov saying he wants one in place until Georgia has a new leader. One Russia can trust and not the current Washington tool.
In his remarks Lavrov said: "To guarantee the region is protected against new outbreaks of violence, Russia will continue to take measures to make sure the (Saakashvili) regime is unable to commit evil deeds ever again. It would be appropriate to impose an embargo on arms supplies on that regime until different leaders have turned Georgia into a normal country." He then blamed Washington for its role in the conflict and added that he hoped EU leaders in Brussels would make "the right choice" at their summit.
Possibly so according to the August 30 - 31 Wall Street Journal's weekend edition. It reported that "the EU isn't expected to impose sanctions on Russia," and the previous day suggested that "Russia mocked talk" about them. The Journal stressed how divided EU nations are but admitted they have "few tools to deter Moscow." It quoted Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb saying: "My preference is to go carefully on concrete actions but to be sufficiently tough on the language. Whether or not we like it, Russia and Europe are mutually interdependent." And it's likely other foreign ministers and EU leaders share that view.
Yet on August 27, BBC reported that UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband (in a Kiev, Ukraine speech) called on the EU and NATO to initiate "hard-headed engagement (and the) widest possible coalition" against Russia over Georgia along with other inflammatory comments. On August 31, UK prime minister Gordon Brown threatened a "root and branch" review of relations with Russia and accused Moscow of "aggression."
So did Barak Obama, the official Democrat nominee, and also lashed out at Medvedev's decree. He "condemn(ed) Russia's decision and call(ed) upon all countries of the world not to accord (it) any legitimacy...." Said America should "further isolate Russia." Provide Georgia $1 billion in aid. Admit it to NATO. Deny Russia WTO membership. Disband the NATO - Russia Council, and even end Russia's Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) membership.
In contrast, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) member states of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan backed Russia's action. Its role in restoring peace, and expressed "support for (Russia's) active role in assisting peace and cooperation in the region." However, they stopped short of endorsing South Ossetian and Abkhazian independence in their closing statement that "express(ed) their deep concern over the recent tensions surrounding the South Ossetia question and call(ed) for the sides to peacefully resolve existing problems through dialogue."
That got the corporate media to distort their closing statement and like Reuters say "Medvedev failed to win crucial support from his Asian allies (for) Moscow's confrontation with the West over war in Georgia." The New York Times as well claimed that "China and four other (Asian) countries meeting with Russia for the annual (SCO) summit declined to back Russia's military action in a joint communique."
The Wall Street Journal echoed the same theme and then ranted about "strains" and "unease" in Russian - Chinese relations. Even hinted that Russia might be "isolated" because of its Georgian "aggression." A word it only attributes to Russia in very hostile daily op-eds. More Journal commentary below, but first an alternative Russian view.
The Post-Communist PRAVDA On-Line
Established in January 1999, it's editor is longtime Western journalist, Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey, who says "at this moment in time, I'm proud, very proud, to be writing for a Russian newspaper." On August 29, 2008, his opinion piece titled "Abkhazia, Georgia, Kosovo, South Ossetia and something called international law" presented a different view from the dominant US media's daily anti-Russian agitprop.
Straightaway aiming at George Bush and Secretary Rice he stated: They "follow the norm that laws are made to be disregarded, disrespected, ignored, manipulated or simply broken, which is patently obvious through the sheer hypocrisy of Washington's position on the territorial integrity of Georgia." From a "legal perspective," Georgia was a signatory to Soviet Russia's Constitution and bound by its provisions. One of them was "the voluntary dissolution of the Union and clause which states that minority groups (South Ossetia and Abkhazia) in other Republics (Georgia) had the statutory and constitutional right" to a (free and fair) referendum for independence.
Post-1991, Georgia broke the law by not holding them, "so just this fact makes a valid case for these two republics to decide for themselves" to be or not be part of Georgia. In addition, Moscow spent 17 years negotiating peace that aimed to satisfy Tbilisi and both breakaway provinces. Georgia's response: "manipulation, insults, insolence" and the recent slaughter of Tskhinvali civilians. By its actions, "Georgia....blew out the candles lighting any path towards its territorial integrity."
The right of South Ossestians and Abkhazians to independence is also fully justified under the UN Charter and customary international laws and norms - in contrast to Kosovo, an "integral part" of Serbia. "The question of Kosovo follows all the norms of international law regarding inviolability of frontiers whereas Abkhazia and South Ossetia do not. They have the legal right to independence. Kosovo never has, does not, and never will."
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
by Tim Potier
$216.00
Lowest New Price $210.43
Number of pages: 336
Publisher: Springer
by G. O Nodia
Number of pages: 52
Publisher: Berkeley Program in Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies, University of California, Berkeley
by Zaza Gachechiladze
Number of pages: 4
Publisher: National Defense University, Institute for National Strategic Studies
by Stuart J Kaufman
Number of pages: 3
Publisher: Program on New Approaches to Russian Security, Davis Center for Russian Studies, Harvard University
| 3 comments |
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
