08-16-2008, 11:38 AM
Georgia a policy debacle for US
* Thomas Meaney and Harris Mylonas
* August 13, 2008
* Page 1 of 2 | Single Page View
Backing rebel movements, as in Kosovo, sets a dangerous precedent.
FOR the coolest composure while going to war, the gold medal goes to Vladimir Putin. At the Olympic opening ceremony in Beijing, the Russian leader maintained his characteristic calm â giving a firm salute to the Russian athletes marching by â while he arranged for another kind of march into the disputed territory of South Ossetia.
It's clear that Mr Putin considers this payback time, not only for Georgia, Russia's meddlesome neighbour to the south, but also for President George Bush.
In February, Mr Bush and most leaders in Europe backed the independence of Kosovo from Serbia, which Mr Putin vociferously opposed. At the time US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave the assurance that "Kosovo cannot be seen as precedent for any other situation in the world today".
But precedent is just what it set. By the same logic that led to partition of Kosovo â a region that suffered terribly under Serbian rule â Putin hopes to sever South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia and bring them back into the Russian orbit of influence. He is effectively using our own medicine against us.
To avoid conflict and carnage like this in the future, the United States and the world community need a more consistent platform when it comes to fledgling independence movements. Why does the US support movements in some places, such as Kosovo, and thwart them in others, such as South Ossetia?
Like every great power, the US chooses to support self-determination movements that destabilise its competitors (Russia, China, Iran) and oppose the ones backed by them. This has always been a central tenet of realism in foreign policy.
But it is also a Pandora's box. If the US opts not to respect the principle of sovereignty, it encourages other powers to do the same, thus undermining state sovereignty the world over.
As long as the international community continues to reward some self-determination movements and deny others, the leaders of such movements will continue to appeal to the highest bidder. Continued...
The people of South Ossetia knew that if they provoked Georgia, they would also provoke Russia to come to the rescue.
If the US wants to prolong its global influence and enhance the legitimacy of international institutions, it should send a clear message that partition is never an answer.
It must work within existing borders and encourage world leaders to make their ethnic minorities equal partners in government, rather than backing rebels who pursue states within states like a succession of Russian dolls.
In the long run, US inconsistency jeopardises the possibility of ethnic pluralism becoming a universal ideal and a workable solution for multi-ethnic societies.
As citizens of a nation that was founded on the principle of self-determination, Americans are understandably uncomfortable about depriving others of that right.
The case for preserving state sovereignty has always had less appeal for Americans than the allure of an independence movement. But while its own independence was based on a doctrine of individual rights, the vast majority of self-determination movements today are based on ethnic group rights.
Groups as divergent as the Kurds and the Tibetans have made repeated appeals for self-governance in the past decade. But the urgency of their calls relies less on any liberal principle than on the sheer fact of their ethnic preponderance in their regions and the violence they have endured.
So what do we do when ethnic minorities such as the South Ossetians, Abkhazians, Kurds, Bosnians or Kosovo Albanians are forcefully repressed by their respective host states?
The world community has an obligation to protect them, of course. But it's far from clear that backing self-determination movements and partitioning existing states is the best policy.
Ironically, history shows that insecure host states are more likely to consider ethnic cleansing as a solution whenever an internationally backed movement for a new state emerges.
The unintended consequences of ethnic partitions have typically brought more violence, more
inter-state conflict and more self-determination movements. Our best bet is therefore to work with the borders we have, not the borders we want.
Thomas Meaney is a PhD candidate in history at Columbia University. Harris Mylonas is a PhD candidate in political science at Yale.
* Thomas Meaney and Harris Mylonas
* August 13, 2008
* Page 1 of 2 | Single Page View
Backing rebel movements, as in Kosovo, sets a dangerous precedent.
FOR the coolest composure while going to war, the gold medal goes to Vladimir Putin. At the Olympic opening ceremony in Beijing, the Russian leader maintained his characteristic calm â giving a firm salute to the Russian athletes marching by â while he arranged for another kind of march into the disputed territory of South Ossetia.
It's clear that Mr Putin considers this payback time, not only for Georgia, Russia's meddlesome neighbour to the south, but also for President George Bush.
In February, Mr Bush and most leaders in Europe backed the independence of Kosovo from Serbia, which Mr Putin vociferously opposed. At the time US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave the assurance that "Kosovo cannot be seen as precedent for any other situation in the world today".
But precedent is just what it set. By the same logic that led to partition of Kosovo â a region that suffered terribly under Serbian rule â Putin hopes to sever South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia and bring them back into the Russian orbit of influence. He is effectively using our own medicine against us.
To avoid conflict and carnage like this in the future, the United States and the world community need a more consistent platform when it comes to fledgling independence movements. Why does the US support movements in some places, such as Kosovo, and thwart them in others, such as South Ossetia?
Like every great power, the US chooses to support self-determination movements that destabilise its competitors (Russia, China, Iran) and oppose the ones backed by them. This has always been a central tenet of realism in foreign policy.
But it is also a Pandora's box. If the US opts not to respect the principle of sovereignty, it encourages other powers to do the same, thus undermining state sovereignty the world over.
As long as the international community continues to reward some self-determination movements and deny others, the leaders of such movements will continue to appeal to the highest bidder. Continued...
The people of South Ossetia knew that if they provoked Georgia, they would also provoke Russia to come to the rescue.
If the US wants to prolong its global influence and enhance the legitimacy of international institutions, it should send a clear message that partition is never an answer.
It must work within existing borders and encourage world leaders to make their ethnic minorities equal partners in government, rather than backing rebels who pursue states within states like a succession of Russian dolls.
In the long run, US inconsistency jeopardises the possibility of ethnic pluralism becoming a universal ideal and a workable solution for multi-ethnic societies.
As citizens of a nation that was founded on the principle of self-determination, Americans are understandably uncomfortable about depriving others of that right.
The case for preserving state sovereignty has always had less appeal for Americans than the allure of an independence movement. But while its own independence was based on a doctrine of individual rights, the vast majority of self-determination movements today are based on ethnic group rights.
Groups as divergent as the Kurds and the Tibetans have made repeated appeals for self-governance in the past decade. But the urgency of their calls relies less on any liberal principle than on the sheer fact of their ethnic preponderance in their regions and the violence they have endured.
So what do we do when ethnic minorities such as the South Ossetians, Abkhazians, Kurds, Bosnians or Kosovo Albanians are forcefully repressed by their respective host states?
The world community has an obligation to protect them, of course. But it's far from clear that backing self-determination movements and partitioning existing states is the best policy.
Ironically, history shows that insecure host states are more likely to consider ethnic cleansing as a solution whenever an internationally backed movement for a new state emerges.
The unintended consequences of ethnic partitions have typically brought more violence, more
inter-state conflict and more self-determination movements. Our best bet is therefore to work with the borders we have, not the borders we want.
Thomas Meaney is a PhD candidate in history at Columbia University. Harris Mylonas is a PhD candidate in political science at Yale.