POLITICS SEPTEMBER 8, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Impose sanctions or not? Europe is clearly hesitating, seemingly frightened by its own potential daring. And, as always, when the troubling spirit of appeasement and fear is in the air, Europe is looking for any plausible reason to do nothing at all.
We keep hearing, for example, that Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili is an unpredictable, even irresponsible and dangerous character. Who's being made fun of here? How can anyone say these things when looking at the man Saakashvili is up against, Vladimir Putin, who has, among other exploits, razed Grozny, wiped out a fifth of the population of Chechnya, allied himself with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, rearmed Syria, and also decided--just like that, one fine day--to resume flights of strategic bombers armed with nuclear payloads? Now that is irresponsible. That is the definition of an unpredictable character. To characterize as dangerous the president of a small nation who dares to resist such a man, while giving a pass to the ex-KGB official who now specializes in mass murder; to show no mercy to the weaker side, while coming up with any number of excuses for the stronger one, which nearly every day gives the West the finger: That is indeed a singular notion of power relations and fairness.
People say, "We knew this war was going to happen. We should have foreseen it and prevented it." That's true. But what exactly did we know was going to happen? And once again, how dare reverse the roles in this way? On one side there is the Georgian whose only mistake may have been to overestimate our willingness to support him. On the other is the Russian who is pursuing the program he laid out in April 2005, when, in an address to the Federal Assembly, he said the collapse of the Soviet Union had been "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century." Yes, you read that correctly: the greatest catastrophe. Greater than the world wars. Greater than Hiroshima, Auschwitz, Cambodia or Rwanda.
If we must choose a date, it was then that a new era began in our relationship with Russia. It was at that moment, when those terrible words were uttered, that we should have been alerted to the early warning signs of a new Cold War. We should not fail to recognize this, nor to fixate on Georgia's possible tactical error while overlooking Russia's strategic plan. We should not overlook, in other words, Putin's desire to undo the "catastrophe" of the transition to democracy by a part of the former Soviet empire--which is clearly his way of thumbing his nose at the rest of the world.
People say, "The mistake, the real mistake, was to taunt the Russian bear by bringing up Georgia's entry into NATO; why couldn't Georgia be satisfied with a nice little partnership with the European Union?" What nerve! And what an expression of bad faith! The truth is that if Georgia asked to enter NATO, it was only because we, the Europeans, had slammed the door to the European Union in its face. The sad reality is that even if a number of us, including my friend and fellow writer Andre Glucksmann, spoke in favor of Georgia's joining NATO, the young Ukrainian and Georgian democracies were later told that this would not be appropriate, the moment was not quite right, the expansion of NATO would be seen as too rapid and difficult to accept, and so forth. To overlook this shameless ditching of Georgia, to close our eyes to it, to criticize Saakashvili for making a choice that we quietly but firmly pushed, is to add insult to injury and flippancy to cowardice.
In the end, people say, "But even if we admit that they are right, what can we do about it? What great country wants to go and die for Tbilisi?" The truth is that it is not about dying, but about being firm and conditioning our relationship with Russia on its minimal respect for the rules in its dealings with its neighbors. And the truth is that in this particular situation, it is not only about those neighbors but about us, we Europeans. Why? Because what is at stake are Europe's energy needs. If Georgia holds its ground and retains its sovereignty and territorial integrity, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline will remain an alternative to Russia's Gazprom and its partners. But if Georgia gives in and returns to the post-Soviet bosom, Russia's hand will be at the switch, leaving the French, Germans and other Europeans almost entirely dependent on it for their heat. Only by openly acknowledging the possibility of blackmail or an interruption in oil or gas supplies can we be realistic and pragmatic. By closing our eyes--by haggling over Georgia's future, when its survival is necessary for our own prosperity and, indirectly, for our democracy--now that's what is unrealistic, impractical and truly irresponsible.
That Russia is a great country, no one can deny. That it is inevitably a partner is obvious. But a partner can sometimes be an adversary. And maintaining normal relations with Russia does not exclude speaking clearly to it about truth and principles.
Bernard-Henri Levy's new book, Left in Dark Times: A Stand Against The New Barbarism, will be published in September by Random House. This piece was translated from the French by Sara Sugihara.
13 comments
Core of problematic relationship between West and Russia is undefined purpose of NATO.During Cold war, NATO and Warsaw pact each consisted of countries with population of about 500 million people, which were more or less on equal technological level but with sharp ideological division. Nowadays NATO consists of countries with population over 750 million, while Russia (with population less then 159 million)stand more or less alone. So manpower ratio is 5:1. And Communists are largest opposition party, not part of government. NATO and Russia are separated by Ukraine, Belarus and countries on south of Caucasus. Because Russia controls rather large piece of "real estate" with so small population, I am not surprised they are bit worried of surprise attacks. So, if people leading NATO want friendly relationship with Russia, they should call them to join in. Of course, there should be set of rules respected by all current members too. But look at benefits: reach to all of Asia from land bases and no drama if any ex-Soviet state wish to join, too. There is only one nasty question; can NATO survive without worthy adversary? And then, if all countries capable of producing top class military technology are suddenly friends, how much of new and extremely expensive military hardware is needed? Do you need F-22 to slam Al-Quaida when much cheaper F-16 does the job? How many tanks you need? And so on...
- Mladen Matosevic
September 8, 2008 at 8:37am
Just a few words about South Ossetian conflict. First, let's put it clear that ethnic conflicts around Caucasus make Balkan wars of 1990's look simple. There are lot more tiny ethnic groups and they are more fiercely nationalistic, for start. At time when Soviet Union collapsed, nascent Georgian government tried to create culturally unitaristic state. However, people in South Ossetia and Abkhazia didn't like the idea so they managed to kick out Georgian forces and become de facto (if not de iure) independent. After Edward Shevardnadze (former Soviet Foreign Minister under Gorbachov) took over as president conflict was frozen. Being old diplomat, he preferred peaceful resolution to Chechnya - style war which could ended either way. After Saakashvli took over, he promised to reintegrate those regions by force if necessary. So force it was. Attack started with large artillery barrage. Had Russians not intervened, there would be many thousands of Ossetian refugees. However, Russians clearly had military plan for such attack so they efficiently crushed Georgian military in no time. Basically, they did same what Israel tried to do in Lebanon, only with much better success; less civilian victims, less environmental damage and enemy armed forces are disarmed. However, that creates problem for both sides. In general, Russians like principle of territorial integrity as they have many itches in that respect. However, they promised to protect those people so there is no way they will deliver Ossetians now to Saakashvili's mercy. As for Saakashvilli, consider this; he reopened frozen conflict by using excessive force, despite good chance he will cause war with vastly superior enemy. There is over 1000 dead, and material damage is in excess of 1 billion. What is worse, chance that Georgia will regain sovereignty over breakaway regions is smaller then ever and ethnic relationship are worse then ever, too. I won't suggest what would be moral decision after such blunder. As for each country joining EU, somebody have to put it clear that NATO membership might help a bit, but it is not precondition for joining EU. However, decent level of GDP is required. Nobody wants tsunami of migrant workers which would dwarf wave of "Polish plumbers" few years ago.
- Mladen Matosevic
September 8, 2008 at 9:32am
What is to be done? Here are five ideas: ////// 1. Push Merkel and Sarko to support fast-tracking EU membership for Ukraine. ////// 2. Go after Putin-Mobutuand his 40 Thieves' money, albeit not directly, not yet. First, freeze the assets of one or more of the Ukrainian bandit-stooges of the Kremlin who are now trying to overthrow Yushchenko. The FBI went after Lazarenko (?), the former PM IIRC, of Ukraine who had laundered millions into California real estate, at the end of the 1990s. The FBI can go after a few other Ukrainians now-- the pseudo-reformer and quisling Yulia Tymoshenko, who's stolen over a billion, will get the message. ////// 3. If there's another deep water port on the Black Sea in Turrkey or Bulgaria, start negotiating with that country about a US naval base there. In any case keep sending warships through the straits. Show the flag. ////// 4. Stop US political bickering at the water's edge. Brzezinski and McFaul should prevail upon Young Obama to come out, strongly, in favor of Yushchenko and Ukrainian sovereignty. Demonstrate to Putin there can be no divide and conquer strategy in the US, that both parties will vigorously contest his fascist thuggery and attempts to roll back 1989's achievements. ////// 4. McCain (and Obama if he ever develops any cojones) should announce a 21st EU-US Energy Marshall Plan to invest #200b * * * EACH YEAR * * * in joint development of alt energy fuels and related technologies. Poll our massive scientific, financial and market resources into this project. Create many 000s of greencollar jobs, pronto, on both sides of the Atlantic. Invite the Japanese. ////// Stalin's Czechoslovakian coup in 1948 persuaded the US Congress to drop its hostility to the original Marshall Plan; let's not wait for Putin's thugs to assassinate Yushchenko and finish their coup in Ukraine to pass this century's Energy Marshall Plan. Both McCain and Obama should endorse it, now. (ANd, no, Obama's US-only, $15b/year is chump change; nowhere near sufficient. It neeeds to be transatlantic and =>$200b/year.)
- teplukhin2you
September 8, 2008 at 10:37am
If you talk about Russia without mentioning George Bush's plans to develop new nuclear weapons and his abrogation of the ABM treaty, stationing rockets in Poland and the threat this implies to Russian security, you aren't really taking part in the debate that Europe needs. There are any number of East European "Curveballs" who want to pull the U.S. and EUrope into a war with Russia. Who really thinks the Poles are afraid of an attack by Iran?
- Roger Evans
September 8, 2008 at 10:51am
It is the continued fallacy of the "left" that there can ever be an accomodation; a partnership with Russia. When John McCain said that he looked into Putin's eyes and saw three letters "K G and B," he was the only U.S. politician to openly acknowledge the truth. Putin (Ras for short, as in Ras-Putin) is the personification of Reagan's "evil empire." There is little doubt that he orderd and was complicit in the murder of at least one Russian dissident in London, and there is no doubt that, because of our focus on terrorism, he will continue to author actions as we have just witnessed in Georgia. Ukraine is probably next. You and the rest of Russia's apologists refuse to understand and accept that Russia has only exchanged one despot for another. We must prepare ourselves for the inevitable with Russia, it can end only one way.
- Ron Adolph
September 8, 2008 at 11:48am
Mr.Levy, Your are right in many ways. But how do you respond to those who say that Kosovo's independence is what ultimately caused Russia to invade Georgia? An act of retribution or expansionism or both? Also, ethnicity is a question here. Russia is giving russian passports to ethnic Russians living in Georgia's 2 disputed regions. The Baltic countries have known similar problems with ethnic Russians born in their countries during Stalin's time and who are now opposed in some ways to the governments as well as the native non-Russian populations: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
- James in Paris, France
September 8, 2008 at 1:57pm
Partner my ass. Russia wants its cake and to eat it too. They want to dominate their sphere of influence in their region with "special privileges" all the while being considered a democratic western nation (to remain in the G8). It's amazing that Putin's dog told the West that it must choose whether to be partners with them or Georgia. That's really not a difficult choice (only fear would cloud anyone's judgment here.). Especially since, Russia decided to send ships and aircraft to participate in military exercises with the mad dog of South America - Chavez.
- jwl2672
September 8, 2008 at 2:22pm
One of the many problems with multi-lateralism is that even among allied countries, each have varying degrees of conviction. The hesitance of some European countries to sanction Russia confirms Putin's worldview that the West is weak and that there are no prices to be paid for his actions in Georgia. Russia is not a partner. This is the double-speak that the USSR was famous for. Shake the gullible idiots' hands while slitting their throats with the other.
- jwl2672
September 8, 2008 at 3:02pm
Waaaah. Waaaah. Russia is a mean bully. We may not be able to toast our baguettes and have 8 weeks of pleasant vacation, while sipping our cabernet. Don't worry about getting mentally ready to stand your ground with sanctions or harsh words. Grow some gonads and realize that the world has always been a tug of war for land, resources, and wealth. How long is Europe going to be satisfied being pawns in the battle between whichever superpowers are really setting the rules? How does it feel to fall from the most important to feeblest? It is nice to sit in the shade and ponder, while others sweat in the sun to advance their geopolitical position. I am sure Europe will continue along the same path as the last 60+ years...play the middle and live off of competing sides' peace offerings. Maybe you can blast Russia with a few sanctions, then close your eyes and hope they don't get mad at you. That will certainly send them scurrying. HA! Europe doesn't mind be a little frightened if the alternative is making the huge efforts required to become meaningful again. Looking at Europe today is like watching your grandfather dozing off in his comfortable chair. Every hour or two he startles himself awake, wipes his drool, and shakes his fist at a few ghosts.
- Bernard-Henri Cry-Bebe
September 8, 2008 at 3:05pm
In spite of, or perhaps because of, the angry tone, this is one of the first sensible articles I've read on this conflict. The portrayals of President Saakashvili as an unpredictable violent nationalist are made by interested parties on the Russian side, and utterly ignorant hacks on the side of our media. I've lived and worked in Tbilisi, and despite the extreme poverty and economic insecurity, the place works, and works shockingly cleanly, for a nation that had so much trouble with corruption. Even border crossings have become normal and bribe-free. The Georgian retaking of Ajara from its thuggish Russian-sponsored dictator was near bloodless and quite restrained. The accusations of Georgian atrocities are just as disgusting. There undoubtedly were provocations on the Georgian side, as a triumphant nationalism poured scorn on the nation's ethnic minorities, the Ossetes and Abkhaz, but the retaliation was far more sinister. With aid from North Caucasian tribes in the Russian Federation, and possibly with support from the Russian national government, the Abkhaz waged ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia, resulting in what was a Georgian-majority region being an Abkhaz-only region. The resulting IDP problem is still horrific, as the country simply does not have the funds to help the refugees get back on their feet. In Ossetia, which was always majority-Ossete, the situation was more ambiguous, and individual villages, rather than the entire region, became cleansed of either Ossetes or Georgians. I disagree with the implication that Western sanctions against Russia are a useful response. First, Russia has a clear means of retaliation in terms of "sanctions" of its own--it can manipulate international energy prices by disrupting the flow of Russian & Central Asian natural gas and oil to Europe. Second, sanctions are a blunt instrument, which have no bearing on Russia's ability to invade its neighbors. Russia's actions in Georgia are a hand overplayed, and the U.S. can and should secure basing rights and defensive alliances with now frightened Central Asian and Eastern European nations, including, obviously, Georgia. It's shameful that Turkey has beaten the Bush Administration to the punch on this issue, seeking rapprochement with Armenia and pushing a regional Caucasian security partnership. Bases and defensive alliances cut at the issue at hand--Russia's ability to intimidate and even annihilate its neighbors. The U.S. has considerable latitude in this issue, because the Russian army would melt in a limited war versus the modern U.S. military.
- Peter Fitzgerald
September 8, 2008 at 5:17pm
Question for you experts: How much leverage does the Iran card give Russia? What if Russia threatens to help Iran get nuclear weapons, as opposed to helping the West prevent that from happening?
- bulbman1066
September 8, 2008 at 11:21pm
The collapse of Soviet Union caused more deaths than genocide in Rwanda and more persons were ethnically cleansed than in Yugoslavia. Up to 150 thousands died in cvil war in Tajikistan 100 thousand died during two wars in Chechnya and some 10 thousands died during "peace" between two wars Some 30,000 died in Nagorno Karabakh and pogroms against Armenians in Baku 15,000 died in civil war in Abhazia 5,000 died in civil war in Southern Ossetia 1,000 in Transdnistria 1,000 in Ossetia-Ingushetia conflict More than a million of Armenians and Azeris fled each others country. Over 5 million Russians fled from ex Soviet Union republics. 200 thousand Georgians fled from Abhazia. The list goes on. It is in this context that Putin remark has to be considered. The collapse of Soviet Union has been the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of the 2nd part of the 20th century.
- Andrey
September 9, 2008 at 4:15am
There is no doubt that the recognition of Kosovo gave Russians an "excuse" to do whatever they have been doing in Georgia for past 4 weeks. Although situation in Ossetia and Abkhazia are quite different from Kosovo, this is an ultimate payback to the West in an absurd attempt by Russia to earn so called "respect" on the World arena. Let's not forget that the first time in the history of the country Russia has virtually no foreign debt, thanks to steadily record high prices of oil and metals. So perhaps they felt they could afford to be this arrogant! It is about time for the world to wake up and smell the coffee. While we have preoccupied with tabloids, reality shows and chasing Taliban/Al Quida, our next door neighbor has been growing increasingly dangerous, arrogant and violent. We can’t partner with the leader who openly reminisces about the glory days of USSR. So called ethnic conflicts that exist now are the brain-childs of that Soviet Regime that Mr.Putin misses so much!
- Guruli
September 11, 2008 at 7:39pm