Brief background
Georgia came into being (again) after the collapse of the Soviet
Union in 1991.
The states of South Ossetia and Abkhazia gained de facto independence
after the 1991-2 war, although their independence is not formally recognised in
the UN.
The majority of South Ossetians are ethnically distinct from Georgians and identify with the
people of North Ossetia. A referendum in 2006 (turnout 95%) is reported as
resulting in 99% endorsement for de facto independence. More than half
of South Ossetians are reported to have chosen a Russian passport.
Abkhazia is ethnically mixed, with only 28% Georgians.
Initiation
At present the Georgians and Ossetians accuses each other of
initiating the conflict: what is clear
that rapid escalation is taking place, and that civilians are dying and being
displaced in significant numbers.
Strategic Factors
There is an oil pipeline running through Georgia, conducting
oil from Asian wells to Europe.
The Georgian leadership has aspirations to join the EU and
NATO, which have been encouraged by those organisations.
Russia has an historical fear of encirclement, and is
opposed to having NATO bases in Georgia as well as in the Czech Republic and
Poland.
Separatist aspiration lies behind one in three of the present
conflicts happening in the world in 2008.
Implications for Policy
1
We join the calls for ceasefire and negotiations for a just
and stable peace.
2
We note again the presence of an oil interest in an area of
conflict, which underlines the urgent necessity of breaking our economies from
dependence on oil.
3
We note with regret that the expansionist policies of NATO are
one of the contributing factors.
4
We reaffirm that the will of the people is the basis of
democracy, and if it is clearly the will of the people that they should be
independent from their present state, or transfer to a different state, this
will should be allowed to be developed in a peaceful and orderly way.
5
We call on the UN to address the problem of separatism from a
systemic point of view and to draw up a legal and political framework that will
enable secessions to be negotiated peacefully.
Annexe - dealing with separatism in a rational way.
In 2008 there are some 36 wars and conflicts taking place on the planet. Their
causes are, roughly speaking: Separatist 14, Ideology 7, Dictator/political 9,
War on Terror 5, Corporations 2, Drugs 2, Warlordism 2, Ethnic/tribal 2.
Prevention is better than cure. At least two of the classes of conflicts - separatism and
dictators- given above are susceptible to UN action.
The development of dictators can be inhibited and remedied by means of the Index of
Human Rights in the UN, whereby countries that are sliding towards dictatorship
can be identified, exposed, and subjected to a set protocol of statutory
measures.
Approximately one third of current wars are “separatist”, arising from the desire of a group
of people to be independent of, or to have autonomy within, the state that they
are currently ruled by. These account for more than one in three of current
conflicts and wars.
Since separatism provides the pretext of such a significant causes of conflict, it
deserves detailed historical and political study. What is the outcome of these
movements? Are they on the increase? Wikipedia lists no less than 113
separatist movements worldwide. Are they all destined to turn into armed
struggles?
Clausewitz' famous aphorism was that “War is the continuation of politics by other means”.
This should be now updated to “War is the continuation of politics by
irrational and inhumane means”, but whatever form of words is used, it is clear
that politicians have a duty to agree some rules and protocols on separatism.
Democracy should have a bearing on the matter. If it is truly the will of the people of a
region that they should not be governed by their present rulers, then
politicians should give attention to their desires. Each case will have its
unique features, but these also are capable of being classified. Several
questions need to be asked.
Does the majority of the people truly seek independence or autonomy, or is it simply
the desire of an unrepresentative political group? This question can be
answered by referendum. In a repressive
state, the people might be able to petition the UN, or a regional body such as
the OSCE, directly to indicate their wishes.
Is the separate state economically capable of looking after itself? This can be a
matter for study, but in principle any people that afford to go to war can
surely afford to look after themselves in peacetime, given that war is such a
ruinously expensive business. It is sometimes the case that the secessionist
state is sitting on some natural resources that the main state wishes to enjoy.
For instance, Scotland was only granted its own assembly when its oil fields
had been substantially exploited.
Can the state defend itself? This question again contains its own answer in the
case of secessionist conflicts. Guarantees can be given by neighbouring states,
as in the case of Andorra, although this is an ambivalent state of affairs,
since the guaranteeing state is likely to be the state from which independence
is sought.
Can the new state rule itself? There are many options that lie between full
integration with a larger state and full independence. Regional assemblies,
cultural autonomy, and cantonisation are some of the options available.
These are all matters susceptible to study, discussion and negotiation. The
negotiations may well be difficult and protracted, but talk is always
preferable in human and financial terms than violent conflict. In the end, it
is in the interests of the main state to agree a degree of autonomy rather than
to wage a war that results in the end with alienation of territory and people.
There is clearly a case for the United Nations to set
up a framework for discussion and resolution of separatist aspiration, and also
to provide diplomatic and logistical help both for areas where separatist
conflict is ongoing, and where there is a clear separatist sentiment that has
not yet turned to violence.
You talk easily of 'Russian fear of encirclement', but surely you have forgotten to take into account the equally valid fear of all those states which were once ruled by the USSR that they are forced to kowtow to Russia or else. I think the lessons of recent events will not be lost in many Eastern European capitals. It seems Putin is very keen to re-fight the Cold War. He may think he has won, but I think he will find it was a pyrrhic victory. Europeans should take note.
Owly, I fear you have missed part of Putins reasoning.
The lessons of recent events was specifically designed for Eastern European capitals.
Putin gives a damn about South Ossetia. He showed that the US can't be relied upon to protect you if you square Russia.
You might easily agree to host a US missile shield, even though it doesn't really shield YOUR country from anybody, when it cost you nothing and makes Washington likes you. But now, when all of a sudden you need to factor in russian airborne divisions, the equation looks quite different.
The russians have tried to blame to Ukraine, for providing SAM Systems to Georgia that shot down a TU-22. Now that allegation seem to be false, and russia knows it. But it serves to drive home the point to the Ukrainians.
The painfull fact is, that there is nothing we can do about it.
Europe needs russian oil and gas, else half the continent would go dark.
The US needs russia to cooperate on Iran and keep sophisticated air defense systems out of iranian hands.
And in any case, what could we realisticly do if russia hadn't agreed on the Sarkozy Cease Fire? Russia only has because it has achieved anything it wanted. The locals can continue the ethnic cleansing and in a few years, at a politically oportune moment a referendum will declare full independence. Remember Kosovo? When Russia protested all along?
Now it gives NATO some of its own medecine.
We have to swallow it, bitter as it may be.
(P.S.
Since Russia still holds a vast nuclear arsenal, a march on Moscow is out of the question. Good luck for me, being a german reservist and considering how that went the last time.)
No, I haven't missed Putin's reasoning, if reason it be which I seriously doubt. I'm not so sure you have clearly understood what Putin has been busy doing for the last 8 years. You ought to be careful with your easy moral equivalence. There are huge differences between the actions of a very authoritarian Russia and to those of the west i.e. Nato. The Europeans have a tendency to cave in and be too submissive to Russian strong arm tactics or plain aggression. By doing so all you invite is more of same. And as a German reservist you should know that when you have made a complete and utter balls of everything it will be the British and Americans who will have to sort out your mess. We are still trying to sort out the last lot from 1933-1945.
Oh, if it's not reasoning, then what, Putin is acting on a whim? He is many things, but impulsive doesn't seem to be one of them. No, this is a long prepared and deliberate move to push back against the west, with success guaranteed and bearing virtually no immediate risk.
I have yet to hear of an incident where anyone was too submissive to Russia. We just smile while we sodomize them.
Now, please do not for a moment asume that I somehow care to legitimize the russian assault.
But in the west many have a very narrow historical horizon, and in our arrogance we often fail to question how our behaviour is received by others.
We violate the principle of national sovereignty time and again, of course only for the noblest motives (our leaders don't tire to reassure or at least distract us, least we might hold them accountable).
But the russians only see our sphere of influence move further their way, and we haven't quite gone out of our way to listen to their perspective, reassure them, or to bind them into the proccess of shaping events.
When Russia was to be given an oberservers seat at NATO Council Deliberations, Washington effectively killed that project.
When russia (along with NATO ally France I might add and the majority of non-permanent members) wouldn't sanction the invasion of Iraq in the security council, to hell with it, the US just went anyway.
We cheer color revolutions as the prevailing of democracy, they see CIA engineered coups.
We kicked russia hard in the balls for the last 15 years, yet we think we're the nicest and they would eventually come to love us.
We just can't grasp that they could think us bellingerent and expansive.
So I guess what I am saying is, we often act like a threat, even if we might not feel like we do.
Now Russia found a way to gives us check, Georgians are paying the price, and our public is outraged over russian agression, failing to see any context.
(Thanks for having patience with my sometimes 'creative' spelling.)
Not only is there immediate risk, but also immediate consequence. The US and Canada have cancelled joint exercises with Russia scheduled in the fall and Poland has accepted basing of Patriot missiles.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008115226_usruss15.html
Growing alarm spurs Poles to take missiles
The United States and Poland on Thursday reached a long-stalled deal to place a missile-defense facility on Polish soil, in the strongest reaction yet to Russia's military operation in Georgia.
By THOM SHANKER and NICHOLAS KULISH
The New York Times
WASHINGTON — The United States and Poland on Thursday reached a long-stalled deal to place a missile-defense facility on Polish soil, in the strongest reaction yet to Russia's military operation in Georgia.
Russia reacted in anger, saying the move would worsen relations already severely strained in the week since Russian troops entered separatist enclaves in Georgia, a close U.S. ally.
But the deal also reflected growing alarm in countries such as Poland, once a conquered Soviet client state, about a newly rich and powerful Russia's intentions in its former Cold War sphere of power.
Negotiations dragged on for 18 months — but were completed only as old memories and new fears surfaced in recent days.
Those fears were codified to some degree in what U.S. officials characterized as unusual aspects of the final deal: that at least temporarily U.S. soldiers would staff missile sites in Poland oriented toward Russia, and that the United States would be obliged to defend Poland in case of an attack with greater speed than required under NATO, of which Poland is a member.
Polish officials said the agreement would strengthen the mutual commitment of the United States to defend Poland, and vice versa.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk called the agreement "a step toward real security for Poland in the future."
A sense of deepened suspicions — and the more darkly drawn lines between countries in the region — also were apparent in the emotional reaction from Russia over the deal.
"It is this kind of agreement, not the split between Russia and United States over the problem of South Ossetia, that may have a greater impact on the growth in tensions in Russian-American relations," Konstantin Kosachyov, chairman of the Russian parliament's foreign-affairs committee, told the Interfax news agency Thursday night in Moscow.
Given the fact that Poland is meanwhile a NATO ally, and thus any type of armed conflict between Poland and Russia has every potential of escalating into thermonuclear holocaust and is therefore most unlikely, the stationing of SAMs in Poland seems to be a rather symbolic gesture.
Moving a few NATO corps eastward and threatening that all russian forces must leave Georgian territory within 48 hours, or else....
THAT would be a risk that would have the Kremlin worried. But since we all know that's of the table, we can shout and stomp our feet, not much else.
Russia has magnanimously agreed to a cease-fire that cements the de-facto independence of the two renegade provinces. But if it had chosen to simply annex the whole of Georgia, the west would have no immediate counter for it.
All we can do is protest, and the louder we do that, the more it will underline our lack of any meaningfull leverage.
Just listen to the comments that came out of western capitals during the last few days. We called russias armored push inappropriate, disproportionate ect... as if a little less bombing would have been acceptable. If I was Georgian I would be stunned by such newspeak.
During a EU conference, our german foreign minister advised that they shouldn't spend time deliberating who started the escalation.
Yeah, who cares, right?
There was undoubtedly some justification for Russian intervention in S Ossetia, and perhaps even more in Abhkarzia, and Putin and Medvedev were quick to recognise an opportunity to exploit this. It remains to be seen how this will turn out. It is unlikely that there will be a return to the previous state, which was hardly one of peace and harmony. The best outcome would likely be some joint peacekeeping force in these regions. This will almost certainly involve Russian and maybe a European element. If this is what happens it would show that there is some restraint within the Russian ambition because there is little doubt that they could have gone much further.
Is there a message to other ex-soviet states? Yes, certainly, and this was also likely to part of the Russian justification. But for all its military capability it is highly unlikely that Russia will take such action anywhere else. This has further strengthened Putin within Russia, if it were needed. Russian people have regained some pride, perhaps dangerously, after what was the humiliating experience of the demise of their superpower status, and they really do feel like the good guys here, however this is portrayed in the west.
Whatever the rhetoric, there is no real fear of a serious threat to Russia from the anti-missile defence system in Poland. It is also really debatable that is worth the huge expense but there is no doubt some dubious justification with a few companies benefitting from the investment. There is also some that see a political gain from further humiliating the old enemy. Putin must have been advised that the military threat to them is minimal but chooses to make it into a big issue. The 10 or so missile installation is exactly what it is supposed to be: a defence if Iran launches ballistic missiles at the USA. It would hardly have much impact on the several hundred missiles possessed by Russia and it is not an offensive system. There are other parts of the missile defence system (In Alaska for example) that would be more able to intercept Russian missiles but the Russians can't do much about those anyway. They could argue that the associated radar system could be used as a useful tool in the event of a dispute with Russia and therefore is a strengthening of a US hand in any diplomacy poker game, but this is a minor point; such a system could be employed quietly and without the fuss associated with ABM systems. The Russians are upset that these have been installed in a country that they previously controlled and Putin has made the most of this for his own political gain.
You should read your history and look at Hitler's actions in the 1930s. Seems we have all learnt very little.
It is odd that you are so dogged in your support of Russian aggression in Georgia. The South Ossetian's have been 'ethnic cleansing' for years and had been attacking Georgians, and yet of this you have no comment. But are you happy to be a cheerleader for Putin in the company of Assad and Belarus ?? And I think you need to look a little closer at what has been happening and at the message the Kremlin has been sending out. Is it so different from that given by Hitler ? The best comparison there is may be Hungary in 1956.
Thanks BigC.
"...attempts to enlist small and newly independent countries into big power alliances should be prohibited?"
I see your point, but prohibited - by whom? Russia is trying to prohibit Georgia's entry into NATO, and the US would like to prohibit the forthcoming absorbtion of South Ossetia into the Russian federation, but all the UN could do in either case it to express regret. These political maneuverings (sorry about American spelling, there should be an o in there somewhere, but I cannot be bothered to find out where it is supposed to go) will probably continue indefinitely, and it would be useless to try to stop them, just as it is useless to try to stop a dog pissing on the tree trunk of its choice. What we can do is to get the UN to set up a framework of procedures to get separatist aspirations managed by agreement, not armaments.
That's not a hope. That's a delusion! With Russia sitting as a permanent member of the security council, they are not going to allow the council to prevent their alliance with the Georgian break-away regions. They will use their veto and your hopes will be dashed. End of story.
This is exactly why the combined economic influence of the League of Democracies could add backbone to UN diplomatic decisions.
It looks very much like Russia will 'annex' these two provinces. So the question is who next ? A very good article on the whole topic in the Daily Telegraph today. Page 19, 'Putin's pipeline to power' by Edward Lucas.
In my view, Frank Wafaee understands the reality of Western impotence in Russia's backyard and englishman is poised and balanced as usual.
Possibly, owly, Iron mike and other among the colonially-inclined have not moved with the times, and are perhaps still afflicted by delusions of Western military grandeur. Clearly, jostling Russia on the assumption it would remain docile and weak forever after the collapse of the U.S.S.R. can only be the result of illusory self-agrandizement.
Under the leadership of the USA, by threatening Russia in Georgia and elsewhere, the West has opened a new front, while it is still seriously bogged down elsewhere plus facing threats from Iran and (now again) North Korea. (The Iranian leadership would celebrate with many bottles of the finest champagne, if only they were allowed alcoholic beverages).
It has taken a substantial amount of incompetence and corruption in the United States for it to dig itself in such a hole, with Europe obediently trotting along behind.
I would like the United States to behave itself and manifest its fabled self-correcting abilities, not continue to decline or - God forbid - eventually collapse like the Soviet Union. A little humility, and an undertanding that many military "solutions" are no longer within its reach or capabilities, would be helpful.
Cherif,
First welcome back. Your post is tripe ! The 'colonially-inclined' is Prime Minister Putin & Co, not IM or me. Russia has effectively annexed part of Georgia on the grounds that a % of its population is ethnically Russian. This flies in the face of what has been the accepted norm: that borders are not changed by force. So that begs the question of who next ? Estonia perhaps ? Or in the Ukraine ? There are plenty of these disputes which will keep you in anti-American copy for years to come.
I find it surprising that you are busy cheering on Mr Putin when what you ought to be doing is condeming his aggression. While today is not the 1930s there seems to be a lot of 1930s thinking in the Kermlin.
It is nothing if not a wake up call to all Western governments that they must look again at their relationship with Russia. One lesson is quite clear: we cannot allow ourselves to become dependant on Russian oil and gas.
Cherif,
What Iranian threats to Ameriaca would you be speaking about?
This Georgian fracas underlines the importance of kicking the US/Canada out of NATO and reforming or putting an end to the organization in the interests of Europe.
Good luck Eric,
You Europeans can't blow your nose without the US wiping it clean.
Hi owly,
Thanks for the welcome and hope you have been well.
"The 'colonially-inclined' is Prime Minister Putin & Co, not IM or me."
I guess it is a matter of perspective. At least Russia has a semi-plausile reason to invade parts of Georgia which originally were not part of Georgia and to protect Russian citizens. You guys had no right whatsoever to attack my old country Egypt and forcibly occupy it in 1882 or do the same to Iraq now. Perhaps it is difficult got the citiens of once mighty colonial powers to finally let go. You might not realize it, but it is obvious to me that there is a strong vestigial colonial component in your thinking.
"I find it surprising that you are busy cheering on Mr Putin when what you ought to be doing is condeming his aggression."
I might have had a little condemnation-capacity available for eorgia, had it not been completely used up condeming Western/Christian violent, overt aggression againt the Muslim World; in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Somalia, ... even Chechnya by Russia.
Besides, besides, Georgia has sent its soldiers into someone else's country, Iraq, namely the third largest contingent, to kill and plunder. Though Killing civilians is abhorent wherever and by whoever it occurs, I am embarrased that I cant can't help feeling a little Schadenfreude. Let us see how they like getting a dose of their own medicine, and see how it feels like for a vulnerable people to be attacked by big players.
Beside, by arrogantly pushing Russia over the last few years an provoking this response, a new front has opened up, which diverts military and other assets away from tormenting the Muslims. On how many fronts does the Anglo-axis wish to be engaged?
"It is nothing if not a wake up call to all Western governments that they must look again at their relationship with Russia."
Oh, really? I am sure that would terrify Russia. Here we go again with the delusions of grandeur. What if Russia denied the US and NATO a way to supply their troops in Afghaistan, through Russian controlled territory? How about if things got really bad and Russia seized and confiscated the weapons and supplies in transit? How would the west react? How does the idea of a Russian-Iranian military alliance grab you? The Russians are the bosses in the Caucuses and beyond.
Perhaps soon the western colonial mindset will fade away.
Cherif,
I see that therapy has not helped with your terrible sense of ‘victimhood’. As we are trading historical analogies, you Muslims had no right to attack Constantinople, and desecrate its holy places ! What we must recognize is the ever present danger of Muslim Imperialism and expansionism, which has done so much harm to peaceful countries and peoples.
Shall we continue or do you see how pointless your line of attack actually is ?
We are now in the 21st Century not the 19th, no matter how you might like it to be so. You seem to be all in favour of reestablishing of the empire of the USSR. Why ? Russian imperialism doesn’t seem to interest you. All you seem to be interested in is your hate of all things Western ! Not a serious post, even for you Cherif.
Hi eric,
Yes you are right to ask, Iran (and North Korea) cannot directly threaten the United States, thank goodness, which is what my text seems to be saying. I was just being brief. What I mean is that Iran can threaten the continued dominance by the United States in the vital region around Iran.
Obviously, a huge threat exists, in that it appears fairly certain that Iran can seriously inhibit or perhaps stop completely the flow of oil through Hormuz, for a period of time difficult to estimate. Also Iran can attack ports and other facilties of oil exporters in the Gulf, causing even bigger delays in resuming supplies. Given the fragile global economic situation (caused in part by American corruption relating to the mortgage meltdown) such disruption of oil suplies might be more devastating than any Iranian nuclear weapon, real or imagined. Also, a high ranking Iranian military officer has threatened to attack any or all of 32 American bases nearby (I presume in Georgia too. Or perhaps the friendly and gracious Russians might do it for them, or have already neutralized that capability.)
Alas, the simple good old days when the industrialized and powerful could intimidate the un-industrialized and vulnerable, merely by uttering dire threats, might be getting complicated.
Sorry, the last posting was for chris!
owly,
I understand your argument which makes sense from your perspective.
"We are now in the 21st Century not the 19th, ..."
It is quite understandables for wrongdoers to studiously forget the despicable actions in their history. Such memories interfere with the favourable view of themselves which is carefully cultivated, and fiercely defended. More importantly, I had quite forgotten about the colonial era. Thinking it was over, I was happy to let bygones be bygones. But you people started again, after your fear of the Soviet Union, which had kept you at bay, disappeared.
I mentioned Iraq which you attacked based on a pack of lies, not in the 19th but the 21st century. The continuity, or attempt at continuity, is glarinly obvious. You carefully neglected to mention it.
So please don't lecture me. Ruthless aggressors might decide to forget the past. Victims have their own decision to make on the matter, too. If they decide to remember, it is their choice. Particularly if you keep reminding them with your continued cruelty.
"...your hate of all things Western..."
You are quite wrong about this. I admire and have adopted and do enjoy many things Western, from the British parliamentary system, to the German music of J.S.Bach, to quantum physics.
I am anti-colonial and I despise injustice and oppression, whether by the British or the Turks, and whether the victims are Vietnamese or Palestinian or anyone else.
How do you feel about injustice and oppression?
Cherif, Seems you have a good grasp of the threat. You make a great argument in favor of the US deployment of Patriot missiles in Poland and the Ukraine. I appreciate your sensible approach to a very real threat.
Iron Mike,
Thank you. No country can or should ignore threats, though I can't see how these Patriot missiles are going to keep the Straights of Hormuz open. According to some opinions attacking oil-shipping therein can deal Western economies a serious blow. Said economies are quite shaky at this time, due to incompetence and corruption at home. That is probably what has saved Iran from a colonial-style attack thus far.
As you know, Russia believes these missiles are against them. It feels threatened and is finding ways to relaliate. One of these ways is helping Iran politically with its veto power and militarily with good shore based anti-maritime weapons.
It should be noted that the threats from Iran are about retaliation if it is attacked. It seems the Anglo-axis wants to continue its traditional aggression and keep Iran weak and backward: thus it keeps threatening to attack Iran if it does not knuckle under.
One way to reduce the counter-threat from Iran is to stop threats and back off. But that would mean leaving it alone and accepting a weakened colonial influence in the region, for which he Anglo-axis is not yet ready. By clumsily antagonizing Russia too, the West is helping it and others come together for stroger military and political cooperation, to resist a perceived comon threat. That might hasten the day when all will realize that 19th century colonial aggression is too costly to be worth it in the 21st century.
By the way, China is helping Iran too. I would have thought that one should beware of making too many enemies.
Cherif,
I would offer that you simplify the threat too much. Threats from Iran are numerous and frequently threats have been for offensive, not defensive violence. Most notably in the case of Israel and calling for its destruction. Iran is continuing to enrich uranium for what purpose...peaceful energy? Surely you are not that naive.
Patriot missiles will not keep the Straits of Hormuz open and never were intended to do so. Nor do Patriot missiles provide a credible strategic threat to Russia which could easily overwhelm the Patriot missile's defensive capability. Patriot missiles will however, provide a defensive option in the event Iran launches missiles to the west.
Owly,
Georgia is supposed to be the topic here, so I will talk about it first pour la forme.
It seems ironic that Russia is helping Iran deter the same kind of colonial attack as some say Russia itself has inflicted on Georgia. Bizarre, is it not. Russia’s help has been valuable, such as when it captured airfields put at the disposal of Israel to facilitate bombing Iran, according to UPI. Also apparently important equipment has been captured and technical details may be turned over to Iran, which is not far and has influence and connections in the region. Might it graciously reciprocate by helping Russia with its designs for Georgia, perhaps in Abkhasia with it majority Muslim population. Who the heck is responsible for U.S. strategy? As I said, I don’t want it to decline further, but this is ridiculous.
I understand your Islamophobia, and the intensely personal and highly emotional reasons behind it. I am sorry and sympathize but look, man, practically all major religions are hostile (though for example, not in pagan ancient Greece.) Just think of Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. The hostility comes and goes, waxes and wanes over the centuries and millennia. It is proportional to the degree of religiosity of peoples at certain times in certain places. At a time when Islam was at a peak of wealth and power, high quality poetry was written and recited about the phenomenon, such as by Abu Nawass and others. The stories of the One-Thousand and One Nights are replete with it. Today, religiosity is high among mainstream Muslims and the animosity is higher than it has been at other times. I dislike people living in dread or suffering, but I don’t see what, in practical terms, can be done in the current highly charged environment. Again I am sorry.
Take it easy and good luck.
Here's some chronology in dispute...
Russia invaded a sovereign nation, interfering with an internal security matter, on the pretense of "preventing genocide." The fact they were poised to invade and their failure to seek redress of their genocide concerns to the UN before invading, proves just how much of a pretense it truly was. Russia didn't ASK the UN to stop the genocide; Russia TOLD the UN it would take action.
http://www.unmultimedia.org/radio/news/detail/21051.html
Russia bombed military bases...along with civilian population centers, apartment buildings, oil distribution, bridges, and infrastructure necessary for survival. Russia claims to have withdrawn, but in fact, STILL has not withdrawn and has entrenched itself in Georgian provinces and securing oil distribution capability for itself.
Care to rationalize it some more?
Seems to me that the Georgians did give the Russians a perfect excuse to intervene, with a clumsy and heavy handed move on South Ossetia. Of course the Russians took full advantage of that excuse, but the Georgians were still pretty damned stupid to give it to them.
I still can't figure out the logic there, assuming that there was any. What on earth did Saakashvili think was going to happen? Did he really think that the US would go to war over South Ossetia? And even in the unlikely even that he thought that, surely he must have realized that the US couldn't possibly get enough force into the region to do any good before the Russians squashed him.
To me it looks like stupidity brought to the level of insanity...
I think you are well aware that this so-called threat was a concoction.
Ahminejad (fool though he is) called for the removal of Israel from the
map.
I think what he actually said was something like "the regime occupying Jerusalem should be erased from the pages of time", or something like that. I recall it was a quote from Khomeini, though cited with approval.
Regardless of the exact verbiage, it's difficult to review MA's comments on Israel without getting a certain sense of thinly veiled hostility, to say the least.
Hey Iron Mike,
Threats from Iran are numerous and frequently threats have been for offensive, not defensive violence.
I really don't think so. Iran is surrounded by awesome American military power in a number of bases, in addition to the nuclear-armed powerful fleets lurking just off shore in the Persian Gulf. They would lose badly iif they started anything. I have not heard any threats other than related to "if we are attacked..." So far their deterence seems to be working.
'Most notably in the case of Israel and calling for its destruction."
Problem is that I don't speak Farsi (Iranian) and I don't trust the mainstream media to translate accuratly what was said and meant. Steven Rogers offers a translation which is more likely to be close to the truth. The petroleum and pro Israel people have influence in the media and have an interest in keeping Iran weak. They therefore seek to mobilize public opinion to conform with their agenda. I take what someone tells me that their enemy said with a grain of salt, if I don't understand that enemy's language. It would appear Ahmadi Nejad said something like the Israeli entity in Palestine will suffer the fate of the Apatheid regime in South Africa.
Iran is continuing to enrich uranium for what purpose...peaceful energy?
It is quite plausible that Iran is enriching uranium for peaceful reasons: Any oil thay can replace by nuclear energy for domestic consumption can be exported. Besides they are proceeding in conformity with the non-proliferation treaty which they signed and which gives them certain rights.
However, they are being threatened and bullied so that, on the other hand, I would be surprised if they did not have a secret program to develop weapons somewhere in their vast mountain ranges. Stopping the enrichment we all know about would not affect this. Based on the foxy way they have managed things, the first we will ever hear about Iran having nuclear weapons, is when they have 30 to 50 weapons deployed on their missiles and reay to go. They will not use them for fear of obliterated, but they would cancel Israel's strategic advantage.
If the Russians say the missiles are directed against them, I see no solid reason to contradict them. I don't think they would be making such a fuss over Western defences against Iranian missiles. Why shoul they? Besides, why should Iran attack its good customers, who pay well for its oil?
The main point is that South Ossentia IS part of Georgia. It is NOT internationally recognized as an independent state. Occupation of South Ossentia is occupation of Georgia. This was an Georgian internal security issue in which genocide was alleged, not proven. There is a stronger argument in Darfur than South Ossentia.
And you conveniently gloss over the fact that Russia did not use the UN as the forum for addressing these alleged concerns about genocide. I find it curious that you support preemptive war in Georgia and reject it in Iraq. That smacks either of either hypocrisy or racism, which is it?
This discussion is familiar to any parent or teacher who comes in on a dispute between children:it boils down to mutual accusations of "Well, he started it" "No I didn't, he did"
The Chinese have a concept of Mutal Causation: things arise mutually. This reflects modern systems analysis. We live in biological and political systems, and simple unicausal linear analyses are unlikely to generate anything but disagreements.
I have coined the term Mutual Paranoia (paranoia Mutualis Caesarii) for this situation, and I think it gives quite a good fit for what is happening here and elsewhere. It accounts for the irrational diversion of $trillions into militarism and the arms trade every year
Not an accusation--it's a more of a tongue-in-cheek question for the reasons for your inconsistency.
Clearly you are more sympathetic to invasions of Georgia to stop "ethnic cleansing", than in Iraq (Kurds) or Darfur. If you are not consistent in your defense of ethnic cleansing, it would suggest there must be another explanation. I suppose racism is one explanation. Have you always hated Arabs...or is this a recent epiphany? And you're telling us you hate Georgians too?
Cherif,
I'm curious... you seem to think that the US, and by extension the rest of "the west", is intolerant of Islam and actively attacking Islam. Have you not noticed that some of the most rigorously Islamic regimes on the planet (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE, Oman) are long standing American allies, and that there has been no interference with their traditional ways? Not to mention other Muslim allies... Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, among others.
Saddam's regime was entirely secular; so it's hard to say that the attack on Iraq was an attack on Islam. The Taleban were overthrown not because they were Muslim, but because they were sheltering a mass murderer.
Iran is both Islamic and an antagonist of the west, but hatred of the West has been a key platform of the Iranian regime since it was formed in 1979. They chose antagonism and it has been returned in kind.
Hi Steven, just saw this post of yours. Most of it makes sense.
I wrote somewhere that the "war on terror" is a war on Islam, but not Islam per se.
It is an "impartial" war against any idea or ideaology that rallies the masses against Western neo-colonial behaviour. For example until it failed Gamal Abdel Nasser's arab nationalism was vilified.
Regimes that go along with the West are "Our moderate Arab friends), though thy might be dictatorships and their people might not agree.
The attack on Iraq was certainly not an attack on Islam. However there was a balance between secular nationalist dictatoships and Muslim fundamentalists. Elimination Saddam cleared the way for the others. President Bush senior played the colonial game better tha his son.
Iran hates the west for its malicious intrusions during the colonial era proper. Memories are long in that part of the world. Also, like in Iraq, by eliminating the democraticaly elected secularist nationalist in the 1950s, and imposing the puppet Shah, they opened he war for a religious regime a few decades later.
The western mainstream media does not explain all this, so I understand that many believe Iran hates them because it is an Islamic Republic. That suits a number of special-interest groups wvery well.
Post new comment