That Was The Week That Was
With the start of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, yet more ominous headlines about the price of energy and scandalous commentary on Jennifer Anniston’s relationship status, we have by no means had a slow news week. And in the midst of all this political wrangling we had a war. Crisis, Russia protecting their nationalists, tricky Georgian separatists, however it has been worded, it still remains to be said that we saw the opening and closing stages of a military conflict, all within seven short days.
Played out on the world stage, with Georgia calling for Western aid – and not getting much response – while Russia demonstrate that some of the Cold War buffer zone mentality still exists, this week in world politics was a one of profound familiarity, circa 1989, the last time South Ossetians called for a union with the Russian controlled North part of this autonomous region. However, one thing which this crisis highlights is the harsh reality of twenty first century warfare.
Seven days. If you are inclined to believe that the world was created in this time frame, or that Oprah Winfrey’s seven day diet plan is equally achievable, then Russia attacking the largely politically obscure area of Ossetia and consequently agreeing to peace negotiations within a week may not be a stretch of the imagination. But the signal that President Medvedev, under undoubtedly the influence of Prime Minister Putin, sent to the rest of the world is that this is how they do business.
In the twenty first century it seems as though we have come to a standstill, stuck at the point where war, the destruction and devastation of families, homes and villages, remains an acceptable tool in order to get your political point across. We are fully aware of Putin’s hard man image, contrasted by Medvedev’s as the composed lawyer, and that is why this act, especially the Russian air raids outside of the contested region on Georgian cities such as Gori and Tbilisi, smacks of Putin’s neo-imperialism directed from Moscow. Furthermore, if Putin’s involvement is a given, then we can be sure that this crisis is much more than simply protecting the rights of nationalist Russians.
The question is, is this a case of Cold War sentiment revived from its unmarked grave, or does this represent a frighteningly low political view on the cost of life, particularly where energy is concerned – namely the pipeline which bypasses Russia, providing Western nations with an alternative energy supply. Georgia’s 18,000 troops compare unfavourably to Russia’s force which is five times greater. Perhaps President Saakashvili of Georgia rushed into conflict, blindly hoping that the West would come to the rescue of his overwhelmed country. The immediacy of Russia’s counter attack and Georgia’s lack of secure planning gives the whole affair the impression of a spur of the moment decision. This leads you to wonder, have we reached the point where war can be inflicted on tens of thousands of people on Tuesday, and by Sunday be almost at an end. It is shocking that after all the lessons supposedly learnt through history, conflict has yet to be truly replaced by a wholly democratic system; it seems that the lives of terrified civilians remains the true cost of diplomacy. War is not viewed by certain world leaders as it should be - a move to be made only when every other avenue is closed.
DISCOUNT CODE - AWSSS8
In this diplomatic age, with institutions such as NATO, surely there could have been another way to resolve tensions without it escalating into something that seems unplanned and unnecessary? However, NATO is part of the problem. With the West divided, Germany with Russia against allowing Georgia to join, while the US pushes for them to complete the final stages of membership, it may be said that conflict was, in Medvedev’s eyes, to be the surest way of showing the US that they cannot be bullied into a corner. Russia is not going to be forced to admit a region they still consider to be part of their back yard into NATO – forgetting of course their right to veto as a permanent member. Two superpowers; the US acting with caution whilst protecting the rights of a minority region under the sphere of influence of Russia, who meanwhile flexes its muscles to show that it intends to take care of those states closest to its borders, without much regard for any worldwide negotiations. Does this not seem an all too familiar tale?
As Bush gave his first formal speech on the crisis last Wednesday, it was suggested that the only way for Russia to remain credible as an arbiter in negotiations would be if they keep their promise and withdraw troops as soon as possible. Again, US-Russian relations fall onto familiar ground as the two powers rely on the ‘word’ of the other, a fragile and as we know, compromising situation.
With the crisis seemingly at an end, this episode has been short, yet all too revealing. It has shown that the US is keen to uphold the rights of NATO affiliated countries, although through few words and limited action. Conversely, Russia is still held firmly in Putin’s claw, acting swiftly and without much consideration for worldwide peacekeeping, whilst again managing to send a potent message to the US. The point with history is that it should teach us where and when to tread carefully. As has been the case during past tensions, we find poignant meetings not in the closed and lavish offices of these world leaders but through sport. As we return to Beijing, the Georgian volleyball team emerge triumphant from their clash with the Russian competitors. Olympic contests have on many occasions been the foreground for political ironies. However, this time round, we should be guaranteed fair play not only in sport, but politics too.
