"Iraq fair game, Georgia certainly not", say politicians

As a student of Political Science, I often get comments such as "ah, politicians are all rotten anyway" or "it's just a big pile of corruption" and "I don't trust politics". People then look at me expecting me to defend myself. Often, I disappoint them by pointing out that politicians are even more rotten than they think.

A lot has been made of Russia's invasion of Georgia recently. For some it's shocking. For some it's a scary return to the days of the Cold War. For me, it's quite funny - a stage where "the West" can once again show how wonderfully hypocritical it is with some quite brilliant soundbites. Firstly, presidential hopefully John McCain showed that he has the credentials to become a great leader of the free world in following in Bush II's footsteps by claiming something ridiculous.

George Bush II, always keep to make his mark on international events, pointed out that "Russia has sought to integrate into the diplomatic, political, economic and security structures of the 21st century. Now Russia is putting its aspirations at risk by taking actions in Georgia that are inconsistent with the principles of those institutions." The fact that the majority of Ossetians are Russian citizens and were being targeted by the Georgian army seems to be rather irrelevant here - the US was protecting American civilians by attacking Iraq, which was incidentally barely able to threaten its neighbours. Just because a bunch of people with Russian passports were being charged on by the Georgian army doesn't mean Russia was actually acting legitimately defending them. Far from it, apparently - this kind of thing is just not allowed !

"In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations !" claimed John McCain to back up this accusation. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find out whether Iraq and Afghanistan were considered nations by the US or not, but in any case this seems to be a rather bizarre claim to make. A suggestion that Russia be barred from the G8 while its army is still in Georgia was also floated. Interestingly, McCain has stated that if he becomes president, he will aim for American troops to remain in Iraq until 2013.

Condoleezza Rice, not wanting to miss out on the action, came up with this little pearl : "This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten its neighbours, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed !". Indeed, this is 2008 - it is not 2001 or 2003 either. Admittedly, the US did not invade neighbours, occupy their capitals, overthrow their governments and get away with it in 2001 and 2003 - it did actually make the effort to get the troops out to Asia in order to do all of these things. Which, I suppose, makes it acceptable.

Eventually, someone stopped playing the game. Zalmay Khalilzad, US ambassador to various places in recent times, decided to say "hey ! we're not being hypocritical, we're just being selective in who people are allowed to invade !". "The days of overthrowing leaders by military means in Europe -- those days are gone !" he said, skillfully avoiding the Iraqi/Afghan question. Unfortunately, in a slight oversight, he forgot to mention McCain and Rice's specific comments on timing, and therefore the US-led NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 would fall foul of this statement. If I was being really pedantic, I could say that, Georgia lying south of the main peaks of the Caucasus, it's technically in Asia itself. But I digress.

In addition to its military action in Georgia, Russia has done something even more disgusting - it has recognised the independence of South Ossetia AND Abkhazia !

The US has positioned itself as a champion of international law and in this arena the UN Charter gives the organisation's purpose as one "to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples". Self determination of peoples would mean that Ossetians would get their own state, as would the Abkhaz, both of which speak their own language and have their own cultures and customs. Russian intention to recognise two regions that have been in conflict but are clearly within the internationally recognised borders of Georgia... is regrettable" claims Condoleezza Rice.

Where the Americans tread, of course, the British will surely follow. Foreign Secretary David Milliband claimed that the crisis provided a "rude awakening" and that Russia's "unilateral attempt to redraw the map marks a moment of real significance". Also, "We fully support Georgia's independence and territorial integrity, which cannot be changed by decree from Moscow." Would this be the same Britain and America who dismantled Serbia and pushed Kosovo into independence on the basis of national self-determination ? What a strange world this is.


DISCLAIMER : I would also like to explain this before anyone thinks "Oh here we go, someone who wants to slate Britain and the US for everything". I don't see any particularly easy solution for this situation, nor do I think Russia's aggression can be condoned. Nor do I think that the US and Britain are the only ones involved in blowing the trumpet of Western double-edged morality either - many others have recognised Kosovo which was declared as an independent state completely against international law and are jumping onto the anti-Russian bandwagon as well. I'm just presenting a certain side of things which crop up again and again in any crisis situation relevant to the West across the globe.