Left Flank

Dominique Moisi argues that Russia's recent invasion of Georgia is imperialistic, not cold war, behavior.

The current crisis in the Caucasus does not mark the return of the Cold War, nor is it likely to mark the start of open warfare between Russia and the West; it is, more simply, the return of the traditional imperialism practiced by the Russian Empire more than a century ago.

China is, with the exception of Tibet, a satisfied and confident status-quo empire. Russia by contrast is a revisionist imperialist power, whose lack of self-confidence is returning to haunt the world.

Powered by ScribeFire.

And, nominations for top prize for inconsiderateness: Moscow, after marring the opening of the Olympics, asks for Beijing's blessing in the Caucasus.

«Russia's main aim is to get support from the [Shanghai Cooperation O]rganization for its military action and approval in one form or another for recognizing South Ossetian independence,» an analyst in Moscow for the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, Yevgeny Volk, said. «It is clear that Russia is using it as a counterweight to the West in the conflict and its recognition of South Ossetia.»

While Russia wants diplomatic recognition from members of the group, Mr. Volk said such a decision for countries like China and India, which have separatist regions of their own, would amount to «chopping the branch they sit on.»

The Shanghai organization in recent months has condemned an attempt by Taiwan to seek greater international recognition and unrest in Tibet.

Powered by ScribeFire.

by teldedavid

Arthur Goldhammer has cracked the Kouchner diplomatic code.

France's position regarding South Ossetia is now as crystal-clear as its position regarding Tibet: both will be exploited for their publicity potential, but nothing will be done to alter the regional rapport des forces.

I'm beginning to think Kosovo is where first Muslims conquered southeastern Europe, and then Europeans defeated themselves.

Kishore Mahbubani points out Washington's flawed strategic thinking, arguably not a strong aspect of American foreign policy, in the wake of the Caucasus crisis.

It is therefore critical for the west to learn the right lessons from Georgia. It needs to think strategically about the limited options it has. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, western thinkers assumed the west would never need to make geopolitical compromises. It could dictate terms. Now it must recognise reality. The combined western population in North America, the European Union and Australasia is 700m, about 10 per cent of the world’s population. The remaining 90 per cent have gone from being objects of world history to subjects. The Financial Times headline of August 18 2008 proclaimed: «West in united front over Georgia». It should have read: «Rest of the world faults west on Georgia». Why? A lack of strategic thinking.

Mao Zedong, for all his flaws, was a great strategic thinker. He said China always had to deal with its primary contradiction and compromise with its secondary contradiction. When the Soviet Union became the primary contradiction, Mao settled with the US, even though it involved the humiliation of dealing with a power that then recognised Chiang Kai-shek as the legitimate ruler. The west must emulate Mao’s pragmatism and focus on its primary contradiction.

Russia is not even close to becoming the primary contradiction the west faces. The real strategic choice is whether its primary challenge comes from the Islamic world or China. Since September 11 2001, the west has acted as though the Islamic world is the primary challenge. Yet rather than devise a long-term strategy to win over 1.2bn Muslims, the west has jumped into the Islamic world with no strategy. Hence there are looming failures in Afghanistan and Iraq and an even more hostile environment in the Islamic world.

Many European thinkers are acutely aware of the folly of many US policies. But they are reluctant to confront the dangers of outsourcing their security to US power. In security, geography trumps culture. Because of geography, Europe has to worry about Islamic anger. Because of the Atlantic Ocean, the US has less reason to do so.

In the US, leading neo-conservative thinkers see China as their primary contradiction. Yet they also support Is­rael with a passion, without realising this stance is a geopolitical gift to China. It guarantees the US faces a hostile Islamic universe, distracting it from focusing on China. There is no doubt China was the bigger winner of 9/11. It has stabilised its neighbourhood, while the US has been distracted.

Western thinkers must decide where the real long-term challenge is. If it is the Islamic world, the US should stop intruding into Russia’s geopolitical space and work out a long-term engagement with China. If it is China, the US must win over Russia and the Islamic world and resolve the Israel-Palestine issue. This will enable Islamic governments to work more closely with the west in the battle against al-Qaeda.

The biggest paradox facing the west is that it is at last possible to create a safer world order. The number of countries wanting to become «responsible stakeholders» has never been higher. Most, including China and India, want to work with the US and the west. But the absence of a long-term coherent western strategy towards the world and the inability to make geopolitical compromises are the biggest obstacles to a stable world order. Western leaders say the world is becoming a more dangerous place, yet few admit that their flawed thinking is bringing this about. Georgia illustrates the results of a lack of strategic thinking.

Image via Wikipedia

«Why did fate have to throw me into the peaceful lives of honest smugglers Like a stone hurled into the placid surface of a pond I had disturbed their tranquility, and like a stone had nearly gone to the bottom myself!»i Like Mikhail Lermontov's fictional account of Pechorin's encounter with smugglers in «Taman» in A Hero of Our Time, I am not certain if one could legitimately label Robert D. Kaplan in Eastward to Tartary: Travels in the Balkans, the Middle East, and the Caucasus, or any number of politicians, border guards, and professors he interviews, a victim. In Lermontov's «Taman», the seducer, Pechorin, unwittingly becomes the pawn and victim of a «supple», singing smuggler, and then a boy thief steals his saber and dagger. Kaplan might lose a little cash obtaining a visa on his running interview from Hungary to Armenia, but his interviewees always steal an opportunity to tell their respective tales. I would like to believe Kaplan orchestrated his interviews as cunningly as he organized his itinerary from one storied city to another, but like Lermontov, whose realistic portrait of the depraved Pechorin is nearly lost among his sordidly colorful characters and the enchanting Caucasus itself, Kaplan reveals a cramped world full of crooks and despots.

Pechorin's Ghost: A Critique of Kaplan's Eastward To Tartary - Get more documents