George Hewitt doesn't like the way:
"the torrent of media commentary on the Georgia-Russia war has been characterised by near-obsessive geopolitical calculation, which [...] tends by default to view Georgia's "lost" territories (if they are viewed at all) as nothing more than inconsiderate and irritating pawns on a global chessboard."
Georgia has its own "near abroad", that happen to be within its UN-defined borders; Russia has Georgia in its "near abroad" ... Remember Mandelbrot's ginerbread man: whatever the scale you examined it at, you'd get those repeating patterns. Fractals of nationalism. And what about the non-Ossetian minorities in South Ossetia? Where will they go, as one of our commenters asked.
Surely there is a pattern here that we can see should be avoided: to treat the other, be it ethny, nation, or however you care to define the outsider, as a means to your political end? Shouldn't alarm bells from the Balkans be ringing in NATO's ears?
George Hewitt provides the historical background and the detail that we need to read to understand---to really sympathetically understand--- that when we take the short-cut of geopolitics, we allow ourselves to think of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as mere pawns in a new cold war, then we have already ruled out the possibility of a humane solution.
Comments
I read and try to avoid commenting this excellent comment, but could not ... Someone has said it right: "... pawns in a new cold war...". Isn't that what the "whole thing" is about, but why and with what consequences - if we care?
Was the chessboard game we thought was over only dormant to be irritated, or? For people with ears right and left, it appears a stone has been dropped into the pond and the rings seem to be growing - washing to some nearby shores - a new incentive for armament? That's what a new cold war, I guess or say might imply and we dread the idea! That is why there is something intriguingly capturing in the comments by Tony, no less on the theme "alarm ... " and rationality of not ruling out " the possibility to a humane solution" [-sustainable understandings of violent conflicts as a way of managing nations and peoples hence leading away from such conflicts].Territorial integrity and clean diplomacy are important here.
Rearmament for many implies something more than restructuring the armed forces: might even mean diverting scarce resources from most needy national sectors of development, because once again nations and its peoples are stirred-up in fear. Prioritization of armament over some social needs and justice can also be costly for politicians, which is to say in a democracy - informed civil society and movements - temporary or otherwise] are not unaware of.
Peace road would pay us more than rearmament road on the long run, no matter the logic of balancing force with peace!
Lawrence Efana [Finland]
Pawns? For the US (and Russia) surely yes.
But Georgia had a chance to create a 'federation' of nations/ethnics, and include it's minorities. Instead it chose to close down Abkhazian and Ossetian universities and cultural symbols, and to impose Georgian nationalism.
In that sense, Russia did act as a guardian for these minorities - just as the US has acted as a guarantor to the Kosovans.
Post new comment