open Democracy News Analysis - Signpost - Comments

Not logged in on "Georgia: study the history"

Not logged in — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:30:35 +0000

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.

Not logged in Lawrence Efana on "Georgia: study the history"

Not logged in Lawrence Efana — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:52:30 +0000

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]

Not logged in Lawrence Efana on "Krastev: Russia's nineteenth century clothes"

Not logged in Lawrence Efana — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:58:39 +0000

Open Democracy is one of the best "media" sources we could ever introduce at present. It is timely for the century we live in!

The post-cold war lessons we are now going through on the eve of the American presidential elections show that the "new is not yet born", especially since it takes two to stage a fight! The new is woven into the idea of change. The issue could also be that America should look more internally and repair herself for the world to continue to believe in her and the practice of democracy with a moral courage.

Do we have any thing to learn for example, from a country like Finland that for years, in spite of history, is well experienced with diplomatic management of the psychology of different Russian leaders? Is political psychology anything for us to reassess so that we do not unwittingly plunge people into a 3rd world-war in which nobody will win? If by your values you psychologically feel that the other side is getting it all wrong, be first sure you are right and then use the same psychology to get them see the options you see - that is where Finland is important!

It has been good that in moving to the bigger canvas open democracy has been "cautious enough" not to jump into NATO; nevertheless, the "USA" and "geo-politics" in the 2ist century would not be too heavy an issue to put into context, especially with the growing reality of the European Union and its conflict resolution mechanisms. What about if we begin to develop new mindsets about NATO at the United Nations level to move its usefulness away from holy and unholy ally politics. Let strategic interests as a 'definitional' term be brought under the UN: perhaps even though debates would intensify, yet some better senses of trust might turn-up more manageable in the hope that suspicion might reduce as nations then fight it out more with words and not with weapon systems placed here and there for one or the other reason! I have been wondering if this is not what Galtung's "transform and transcend" implies, especially in the interest of conflict resolutions and world peace? If I am wrong I stand to be corrected not intimidated.

Lawrence Efana [Finland]