Georgia and the 'new Cold War'

When Russian forces moved across Georgian borders August 7th of this year, it was easy for many in the West to jump to the conclusion that Russia was the “bad” guy and Georgia was the “good” guy. Zip, bang, boom, put it in the headline. But in the weeks since, the lines between the aggressor and the victim have been blurred.

Moscow accused Tbilisi of “genocide”. Tbilisi accused Moscow of “ethnic cleansing.” And since Russia’s acknowledgement of the independent status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the borders that Russia crossed and their motivations for taking these actions have been muddled into a gray area. The international community joins Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili in renouncing Russia’s action, but it was reported that the power structures of the already semi-autonomous regions actually thanked Russian President Dmitri Medvedev for his help and recognition. It could be said that Saakashvili moved his troops into the region first, and in his attempt to take them back under full control of his administration, he provoked Russia into a defensive response to protect the large number of Russian citizens that reside in the regions. But then Russia’s response has been called a “disproportionate reaction” by European leaders who met earlier this week to discuss possible sanctions (BBC News article, “EU suspends talks on Russia Pact”). The European Union ultimately decided against sanctions but threatened to delay talks on a new partnership agreement if Moscow doesn’t remove its troops from Georgian territory. This lack of sanctions has given Russia one reason to be happy, but they are still alone in their recognition of the break-away regions as independent entities and have furthered their international isolation with provocative comments like Medvedev’s recent description of Saakashvili as a “political corpse” (BBC News article, “Saakashvili a ‘political corpse’”).

Now, I won’t debate here whether the sovereignty of a country, or its right to an independent existence, is reliant on the recognition of one other nation alone, or whether an agreement needs to be reached among a majority of UN members, or whether de facto control over a territory is enough. The entire issue of the human right to self-determination is complex and would require much more space for debate. But I would like to discuss one issue I find interesting in the political discussion of the crisis as it is portrayed in the media.

In a September 2nd article from the BBC, Medvedev brought to light U.S. involvement in the crisis. Though the U.S. has sent no troops, nor imposed any sanctions, President Bush’s support of Saakashvili would seem enough for Russia to accuse Washington of provoking the crisis. Medvedev may be just flexing his muscles now in an attempt to prove that his strength matches that of his predecessor, Vladimir Putin. But with such direct jabs at the West that have become fairly regular, especially since the U.S. finally locked the agreement with Poland to place anti-missile defense systems in their borders, many have considered the idea of a “new Cold War.” But what does that mean, really? What would a new Cold War entail? And shouldn’t we give it a new name? Granted, Prime Minister Putin is ex-KGB, but Russia is not the Soviet Union. Medvedev hasn’t proved himself to be Stalin. He doesn’t seem to be Mahatma Gandhi either, but it must difficult to be the successor of a man like Putin, a leader who is revered in Russia as the one who brought the country back from the dead and into her own.

Looking specifically at the conflict in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, I can understand why so many would question the reemergence of the Cold War. If we defined that time by the actions of two major powers who prodded each other politically by using other, perhaps smaller or lesser developed nations for their battlefields, then this example might be perfect. The possibility is open that Russia’s actions in Georgia was partially backlash from the Western recognition of the Serbian break-away region of Kosovo in February, making Kosovo and Georgia the proxy wars of the new millennium.

I’m sure it also doesn’t help that Saakashvili seems to be egging on this Cold War mentality with inflammatory remarks, broadening the situation to frame it as a war between the West and Russia. Between good and evil. Between freedom and tyranny. But what I want to know is, in the very specific case of the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, minus all the Cold War rhetoric, which government really represents good and which government really represents evil? The government that sent troops to keep control over the regions? Or the government that sent troops to keeps those troops from keeping control over the regions? Do they have a right to independence, as Georgia did from the Soviet Union? Maybe. But does Russia have a right to decide? Or the Georgian government? The UN?



News articles:

BBC News, "EU suspends talks on Russia Pact” 1 Sept 2008

BBC News, "Saakashvili a ‘political corpse'” 2 Sept 2008