|
|
The president of the Republic of Georgia eats his tie on national television. BBC
$1.1 Billion Giveaway for the Republic of Georgia Announced:
"The United States Supports The Recovery, Stability,
And Continued Growth Of Georgia's Economy"
The White House, Sept. 3, 2008
(Wash. DC) We're not talking about the great state of Georgia, which deserves everything it has coming to it and more. We're talking about the Republic of Georgia, a nation of 4.5 million people wedged between Russia and Turkey.
On Wednesday, September 3, the White House announced a comprehensive aid package valued at $1.1 billion dollars to help the Republic of Georgia recover from the whipping it took after it attacked Russian peace keeping forces in South Ossetia, a breakaway province of Georgia near the Russian border. That region experienced a major war in 1991 and varying tensions since.
Russian personnel were in Georgia as part of a multi-national peace keeping regime created by the United Nations and endorsed by the European Union in 2006.
As the Soviet Union dissolved, Georgia declared its independence in April 1991. This resulted in tensions with the Russian government, sparked a civil war, and also generated real concern among those living in South Ossetia. They're not ethnic Georgians and have experienced periodic conflict with the government. As a result of war related violence in 1991, for example, 100,000 fled South Ossetia for refuge and safety in Russia.
South Ossetia held two national elections which endorsed independence form Georgia. The Georgians refuse to recognize this claim and, unlike Kosovo, which had no elections, there was little international support for the aspiring nation. As a result, there have been ongoing skirmishes and political conflicts between the South Ossetia and Georgia from 1991 on.
Georgia is wedged between Russia and Turkey. South Ossetia
is near the middle of the Georgia-Russia border.
WikiCommons
Tensions between Russia and Georgia had been building in recent months. On Aug. 7, 2008, the Georgian president issued orders to his negotiators to meet with the chief Russian negotiator.
"We should find all the means to stop incidents and to stop the violence, to stop threats and creating of problems to the peaceful population. Of course, we will show maximum restraint, but we do not recommend anyone to continue provocations." Mikeil Saakashvili, Aug, 7, 2008, 12:45
A few hours later, the government of Georgia said it had "decided to restore constitutional order in the entire region" of South Ossetia" through military efforts. By the afternoon of Aug, 8, officials in South Ossetia confirmed that, "Numerous Georgian military units are moving towards the border [with the breakaway region]" and that Georgia was carrying out "large scale military attacks" against their country.
The TimesOnline (London) reported that this was the start of military conflict. They're clear that the conflict was initiated by the military actions announced by the Georgian government on August 8, 2008.
"Russia and Georgia edged dangerously close to direct conflict today after Tbilisi (Georgia) launched an overnight offensive to regain control over the breakaway province of South Ossetia.
"Fighting raged around the city of Tskhinvali, the South Ossetians capital, as Georgian troops backed by tanks and warplanes pounded separatist forces. At least 15 people were reported to have been killed." TimesOnline, Aug. 8, 2008
Those who insist that Russia started the military phase of this conflict need only check in with the government of Georgia. On Aug. 8, 2008, at 12:35, a Georgia news agency reported that "A senior official from the Georgian Ministry of Defense said Georgia had 'decided to restore constitutional order in the entire region' of South Ossetia." The release went on to say that Georgia took the military action after the South Ossetia refused to accept a cease fire.
Russian military actions came after the attacks on South Ossetia by the Republic of Georgia. The only people who fail to acknowledge this are found in the U.S. political and media establishment.
"Today, we're all Georgians!" Sen. John McCain, Republican Presidential Candidate, Associated Press, Aug., 12, 2008
McCain's battle cry drew little response form the general public. It did fall in line with Bush administration policies, however.
The leader of Georgia responsible for initiating the conflict, President Mikheil Saakashvili, is a U.S. trained lawyer who took power in Georgia in 2004 through the "Rose Revolution." The Bush administration and private groups helped advance the claim that Georgia's government had committed election fraud and lacked legitimacy.
George Soros, the activist billionaire, provided $42 million to oust the former government with the help of Freedom House, headed at that time by former CIA Director James Woolsey. Other private foundation funded "democracy" groups helped as well. Saakashvili had the foresight to hire Sen. John McCain's current foreign policy adviser as his DC lobbyist, Randy Scheunemann.
There were well organized public protests in the capitol, a chorus of international pressure for change, and Saakashvili was swept into power.
With Saakashvili in charge, U.S. and European firms made major investments in the nation and then praised the new government for rapid economic growth accounted for by those investments. Improvements to ports and infrastructure for a U.S. - European oil pipeline, intended to bypass Russia, were a central focus of the investments.
Once in power, the proponents of democracy followed the path of those they'd replaced by turning the country into a virtual one party state. Charges of corruption like that under the old regime have become more common. There are also charges that Saakashvili and his party are engaged in election fraud like that of the previous rulers.
Nevertheless, U.S. support has been unwavering. On July 10, less than a month before Georgia's attack on South Ossetia, Condoleezza Rice was in the Georgian capital lending U.S. support to Georgia's "territorial integrity," by which she meant the disputed area of South Ossetia.
Shortly after he attacked, President Saakashvili must have been further encouraged by White House orders to promptly fly 2,000 Georgian troops home from Iraq to help fight the Russians.
The Russians responded to the attack by Georgia in about the same way that the United States would be expected to respond if Cuba, for example, attacked U.S. military personnel conducting official business close to our borders. How hard was it to anticipate the disastrous outcome?
Hallucinogenic Politics
The volatile Georgian president held a bizarre press conference on Aug. 15 after it was clear that there would be no U.S. or other troops coming to his aid. Speaking at a joint press conference with Condoleezza Rice, Saakashvili blamed the Russian invasion on a NATO meeting in April 2008 where Georgia failed to gain admission to that organization. He said that Russia began a military buildup along the border that somehow made it clear that Russia intended to attack his tiny republic.
He skipped over some important events (like his troops attacking South Ossetia) and lashed out at the United States and Europe with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice next to him: "So who invited the trouble here? Who invited this arrogance here? Who invited these innocent deaths here? Who is - not only those people who perpetrate them are responsible, but also those people who failed to stop it." CNN, Aug. 15, 200 8 (3:41)and U.S. Dept. of State, Aug. 15, 2008.
In a clear contradiction to his claimed knowledge of an imminent threat of invasion, the president of Georgia indicated that he had no idea that a Russian military action was about to take place: "When the thing started, I had to rush back, cut my holiday short when the tensions started to raise." (4:41).
The very odd gap in Saakashvili's narrative concerns his orders for a Georgian attack on South Ossetia on Aug. 7, 2008. He knew that Russian personnel were present in South Ossetia. How could he forget about his order to restore Georgian "constitutional authority" by sending his troops on the offensive? What did he think the Russians would do? Did he actually expect that the United States would attack the Russians in response? And what kind of chief executive goes on holiday when he's convinced that his country is about to be attacked?
After a joint press conference where he insulted the United States for inviting "these innocent deaths" by inaction, the Bush administration decided to give him $1.1 billion to repair the damage that resulted from the rash actions by the Georgian president.
So Why are We Giving Georgia $1.1 Billion Dollars?
Sen. McCain had a point when he said that "Today, we're all Georgians." In fact, the Bush-Cheney regime and the cooperating "democracy" groups gave birth, so to speak, to the current Georgian state.
Could it be that some of the patrons of those who helped create Georgia will benefit from the $1.1 billion dollar aid bill?
If so, then a portion of the billion dollars will subsidize those firms that made the initial investments after Saakashvili s rise to power. These folks were truly Georgians on Aug. 12 when Georgia was put in its place. They'll surely be in line for the largess handed out by the fathers of Georgian democracy, the president and vice president of the United States of America.
The Russian response to Georgia's attack on August 8 was predictable. They have a number of vital interests in the region. The provocation by the tiny Republic of Georgia was a gift. It created an opportunity to extend Russian influence in response to an attack on their peace keeping personnel. In retrospect, this outcome was probably guaranteed with the installation of an intemperate, rash leader who received nothing but praise as he replicated the policies and tactics of the corrupt regime that he helped remove from power.
Giving Georgia a billion dollars may simply recycle those funds to U.S. firms that are doing business there. In addition, this financial reward will reinforce the tactically challenged president of Georgia for his grandiosity and lack of restraint. It may even create the opportunity for yet another Russian smack down followed by outraged reaction from those whose tears are more likely from joy at the ever expanding opportunity to promote the cycle of war and rebuilding around the world paid for by the hard work and taxes of the citizens of the United States.
END
This article may be reproduced in whole or in part with attribution of authorship, a link to this article and appropriate acknowledgment o any images used.
Put aside the mistaken political maneuvering between Russia and Georgia, and focus on this - like it or not, this country pledged support to Georgia. In all of Deserter President's bogus posturing about supporting emerging democracy's in the world, this is one that's legit.
The bigger issue is that we don't want Russia to go back into Soviet Expansionist Mode, and start steamrolling the breakaway republics dotting the border with them.
Sure we can play Diplomatic Trivial Pursuit on why Russia beat the crap out of the Georgian Army, and now holds not only a breakaway province but their major port (which wasn't part of this border scuffle.)
This is a gen-u-ine opportunity to show the rest of the world that we really do give a shit about democracy. That part of our foreign policy is about as believable as a Nigerian Lottery Email, and it would be nice that we would actually stick up for a government that supported free elections.
As I posted before, there's no way in hell that we can project any military power into Georgia that would make the Russians be wary of it. All the troops are in Iraq, but all the heavy gear we need to fight a Russian OMG are parked in motors pools in the US and Germany.
So, the best we can do is send Stinger and Patriot AA Missiles in boxes marked "crackers." We can pour a bunch of money into housing and humanitarian relief, because all those Georgians chased away by Russian tanks need to live somewhere else now.
As someone who watched the Balkans melt down in the 90s, I KNOW how refugees feel about countries that shelter them from Ethnic cleaning, and the countries that send aid to help rebuild their country.
When I deployed to Croatia and Bosnia during and after the war, everyone (other than the Serbs) treated the American forces with respect and gratitude. That resonated with the rest of the Muslim world, which is why Clinton was able to deal effectively in the Middle East.
Do you really want to be the guy who advocated letting Russian swallow up it's former republics? Do you want to advocate for ethnic cleansing and violent overthrown of sovereign government? So you're now OK with the invasion of Iraq?
We could send the leftover chump change from the War in Iraq to Georgia, and that would be enough to keep the Russians from thinking about restarting an invasion. Start a real aid campaign, and the Russians will take their T-80s and BMPs and go home.
They'll only try to stomp on Georgia if they know we'll do nothing...and to do nothing while a real democracy gets ovethrown is a true crime against humanity.
"As George Kennan had put it (would that we had a single diplomat in the entire foreign service of his stature and caliber today):
"(E)xpanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold war era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.
Or, related, as Henry Kissinger had recently written:
"Confrontational rhetoric notwithstanding, Russia's leaders are conscious of their strategic limitations. Indeed, I would characterize Russian policy under Putin as driven in a quest for a reliable strategic partner, with America being the preferred choice...But the movement of the Western security system from the Elbe River to the approaches to Moscow brings home Russia's decline in a way bound to generate a Russian emotion that will inhibit the solution of all other issues. It should be kept on the table without forcing the issue to determine the possibilities of making progress on other issues."
And this:
Mr. Saakashvili’s persona and his platforms presented an implicit challenge to the Kremlin, and that Mr. Saakashvili made himself a symbol of something else: Russia’s suspicion about American intentions in the Kremlin’s old empire. They worried that he would draw the United States and Russia into arguments that the United States did not want.
This feeling was especially true among Russian specialists, who said that, whatever the merits of Mr. Saakashvili’s positions, his impulsiveness and nationalism sometimes outstripped his common sense.
The risks were intensified by the fact that the United States did not merely encourage Georgia’s young democracy, it helped militarize the weak Georgian state. [my emphasis]
Link
Remember that Mr. Saakashvili has used the democratic process to install a one party political system in Georgia.
Or at least pretend to.
I don't buy into any of your reposted diplomat blurbs -if Russia is starting back down the path of expansion and military intimidation, then I give a crap what they "think." The Russian "government" has been dissolving rapidly into a state of fascism since Putin took power, effectively making Russia a one-party state with absolute censorship via assasination.
Georgia militarization has nothing to do with the US intentions to build a global terrorist strike force to do our bidding - it was necessary given Russia's previous adventures against Chechnya.
And as witnessed by the overwhelming force Russian deployed against the Georgians, it was clear they would've send an entire Army front against Georgia if they thought that's what would've won the battle
Are you implying that the Russian would've left Georgia alone, peacful and happy if it had NO military? That if you are a former Soviet republic, you'd better tow the Russian line or else you get what you deserve?
The real problem is that Bush-Cheney and our corporate media actually stooped so low this time they figured out a way to make Russia look good (by comparison)! We didn't see the Russian leaders bloviate and chew their ties. And, apparently, we did see CNN use footage of one city burning and report that they were filming another (which was not burning).
Someday the people of this country will have a government that they deserve. Hopefully, that will be in 2008 but Obama will have to do some house cleaning to get the greedy and self-motivated out of his lineup before they start doing their own damage. The alternative is frightening when you consider the potential for wars around the world.
What a concept: being willing to defend democracy. In the 50's, we were glad to goad the Hungarians on and what did that get them. Crushed. As late as the 70's when I was in Budapest, the former capitol building was still gutted - a living reminder what happened to those who deviated form Soviet ideology. Then we were happy to let the Chinese people show the world that love of democracy isn't just for Caucasians (a big myth) but when it came time to exert a little influence, guess who caved in (not us). Bush I.
If we're serious, we need to place democracy and social justice at the head of our priorities. The Balkan effort did address huge problems and your description stands without any question.
Here's a point I should have made better in the article. The "democracy" revolution in Georgia was the prototype for other efforts, e.g., the Ukraine. While our state department and the NGO's (meddlers with impunity in US foreign policy answerable to no one) were conducting exit polls and using them to claim election fraud in the Ukraine, at the around the same time, those forces were denying our own exit polls and the other examples of fraud in in the 2004 election (something they do to this day!).
The "Rose" revolution in Georgia was a no brainier for Bush-Cheney. Of course there was corruption in the Georgian elections. Use that as a wedge, put "our guy" in (US trained lawyer) and "it's all good." The new "pro democracy leader" continued torture (according to Amnesty International), turned the place into a virtual one party state, and began thumping his chest.
I'm no fan of military intervention by Russia. In this case, it was like T Ball for them, though, because "our guy" actually attacked first, full force, (and yes, the debate can be endless but Georgia made a real move) and, well, Russia did their thing. They've actually got some smart people in charge there because, although they said the very long good bye, they behaved better than they have in a long time in this sort of thing (e.g. Chechnya).
Rather than defending "our guy" - wherever that may be next - we should defend self determination when it's home grown and real, not the product of Bush-Cheney power moves (and where did they get such a lousy candidate, they can't even be "good" bad guys).
So lets get all money out of politics, impeach the Supreme Court if they try to over rule it, and see what we can do being a true democracy in order to help other real efforts.
My thoughts, anyway. Thanks for the response.