An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

In South Ossetia, ‘Kosovo Backfires’: From France’s Le Figaro

So how did the crisis in Georgia really come about? Many Europeans believe that the events of the past week can be traced back to the recognition of Kosovo – which was also a clear violation of international law – and which the Russians have skillfully turned to their own advatage.

For France’s Le Figaro newspaper, Renaud Girard writes in part:

“Twenty years after being eclipsed by what was called the American ‘hyper power,’ we are witnessing the Russian Bear’s big comeback to the international scene. The Western diplomatic ballet now trying to temper the violence of the Russian reaction to Georgian President Saakachvili’s forceful blow against Southern Ossetia last Thursday will change nothing. … Naively, Saakachvili believed that having international law on his side was enough to enable him to use force. The problem is that his Western friends have just precisely violated these very rules, by unilaterally recognizing Kosovo’s independence … In Brussels earlier this year, Russian Foreign minister Lavrov solemnly warned his American counterpart Condi Rice: the recognition of Kosovo would set a precedent for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The Americans and their major European allies were mistaken not take him seriously.”

By Renaud Girard

Translated By Nicolas Dagher

August 12, 2008

France – French – Original Article (French)

Twenty years after being eclipsed by what was called the American “hyper power,” we are seeing the big comeback of the Russian Bear to the international scene. The Western diplomatic ballet now trying to temper the violence of the Russian reaction to Georgian President Saakachvili’s forceful blow against Southern Ossetia last Thursday will change nothing. As Vladimir Putin clearly hinted, Georgia seems to have definitively lost its rebel provinces of Ossetia and Abkhazia.

When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991 and Georgia obtained its independence, the tiny autonomous region of South Ossetia (72,000 inhabitants), which wished to remain under Moscow’s authority, immediately rebelled against the new central government in Tbilisi. Under communism, no one ever took the delineation of internal borders seriously. The problem is that both in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, they remained in force when practically at the same time, the communist federal systems collapsed.

The Ossetians, who speak a language similar to Persian, never felt close to the Georgians, whose language is Caucasian. In 1921, the Ossetians sided with the Bolsheviks against the Georgian separatists. Many Ossetian villages were burned by Georgian secessionists before the Red Army finally got the upper hand. In his policy on nationalities, Joseph Stalin, although of Georgian origin, was always more Russian than the Russians themselves.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continung translated and untranslated foreign press coverage of the unfolding crisis in the Caucasus as it impinges on our nation.

  • pacatrue
    The problem, of course, with these "they did it so we can, too" arguments is that they work both ways. Russia wants to say that if the West can support a break-away area, then Russia can, too. The problem is that the West can use the same argument: "how can you say we acted inappropriately in Kosovo, when you acted even more vehemently in South Ossetia?" Russia undermines their own legal and moral position with these actions, because it de facto corroborates NATO's earlier decisions.
  • JSpencer
    This is what happens when amateurs run our foreign policy.
  • DLS
    This was Russia's decision, not ours. [scowl]
  • greenschemes
    This was also a European decision and not an exclusively American one. EU was pressing hard for Kosovo's independence because they wanted to end their mission in the republic and bring their forces home.
  • peggyb
    The west cannot use the same argument because they are the ones who broke international law. Once the law is broken by one, why should anyone else adhere to it?
    Russia would've adhered to the law if the people who broke the law were going to suffer consequences of that. Since nobody had any intention of policing the law Russia knew that the only way was to play the same game.
    The only people responsible are the original law breakers. You cannot put the two in the same basket. What good is a law which is not enforcable.
  • pacatrue
    Hi, peggyb, I think I disagree, though I know the "you did it first so it's your fault" argument is possible. I think of it sort of like this:

    Johnny kicks his little brother in the stomach, even though his friend Tommy says not to. Tommy then kicks his own little brother in the stomach. "Why did you do that?!" asks Tommy's mom. "Because Johnny did it first," responds Tommy. Tommy's mother of course thinks this is a dumb argument.

    If Russia actually thinks it is wrong to interfere in the matters of other nations by recognizing break away republics, then they broke their own moral code by doing it in South Ossetia. Either that, or they don't actually think it's wrong.

    What I think is going on is that neither "the West" nor Russia believes it is wrong morally or legally. They simply each get upset when it is their friends or allies being hurt. Russia didn't like it in Kosovo because Serbia was their ally. NATO doesn't like it in Georgia because Georgia is its ally. The international law argument is just a rationalization of supporting one's friends.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC