Monday, September 29. 2008
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
Transatlantic Relations, US Foreign Policy on Monday, September 29. 2008
Georgia’s president published a plea for continued western support in the Washington Post titled, “Answering Russian Aggression”. In it, President Mikheil Saakashvili promises an increase in Georgian transparency in exchange for continued support from and integration into the West.
Perhaps most significant to the West will be Saakashvili’s promise to increase transparency and openness of the Georgian state itself, to include reforms aimed at strengthening the opposition and liberalizing the media. Of course all good things come with a price, and for Georgia to continue its Western embrace, Saakashvili is asking for some help in return:
But the West also must respond to Russia with conviction. We cannot allow Russia's annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia to stand. Nor can Moscow be permitted to continuously flout the cease-fire to which it has repeatedly agreed.
My government welcomed the European Union's decision to accelerate Georgia's integration into European institutions. Last week, we were heartened by the first official visit to Georgia by the North Atlantic Council, and we hope that NATO will move forward with our membership application.
By making the bid of, “we will join you, if you protect us,” Saakashvili is playing academically into the Western psyche. One of the most impressive outcomes of both the EU and NATO have been their ability to act as catalysts for liberalization in nations who aspire for membership, and core members have continuously saught to capitalize on this influence. The transatlantic bubble of peace and prosperity has expanded over the past half century as formerly closed regimes underwent significant reforms in order to “join the club”.
While some Allies have tried to walk the line between supporting Georgia and not angering Moscow (Germany has been particularly shy in tussling the bear), the United States has been Georgia’s staunchest supporter, with president Bush outright accusing Russia of violating the United Nations Charter at last week's UN Summit, and also calling for sanctions against Russia’s military incursion into Georgia. Bush declared to a hall packed full of the world’s leaders:
The United Nations charter sets forth the equal rights of nations large and small. Russia's invasion of Georgia was a violation of those words.
According to the BBC:
Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, looked up startled to hear his country named alongside Syria and North Korea as another violator of the UN’s core values when it invaded Georgia last month
Of course shaming Russia like this comes with costs. The BBC article continues to report that, in a blow to transatlantic efforts to pressure Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program, Russia has “scuppered plans for talks on new sanctions on Iran in retaliation for US calls for sanctions over its military adventure in Georgia.”
“Scuppering” talks on sanctions against Iran is not the only card Russia has to play; both the US and Europe need to ask themselves if the costs are worth protecting the young democracy in Georgia.
In considering this complex question, perhaps we should frame Georgia in the context of the larger push to spread democracy globally. Currently, over 35 countries are shedding blood, gold and lollipops by the barrel to support the development of a democratic process in Afghanistan (or at least far more democratic than what would be the case without Western troops taking bullets).
Can Georgia be considered another front in the same global struggle to spread democracy and human rights values? If we are willing to go to war in Afghanistan, then why can we not manage the costs that come in supporting Georgia? Especially when it is very likely that they will be less both financially and in the number of lives lost than the ongoing war in Afghanistan.
|
or 
: