Not China; not the United States. The gold medal for interstate warfare was snatched up by Russia, and that one is worth more than all the others combined! Poor China; it spent $100 million on the opening ceremony alone and walked away with just a bunch of medallions; for a lot less, Russia got a chunk of territory and a formidable reputation not to be messed with.
I agree with Ilya that Russia is not a threat to the United States in the way that the Soviet Union was; my interest is in what the conquest of South Ossetia tells us about international law. Here, Ilya’s concern about soft power comes into play. But soft power cuts in multiple ways.
If you’re the dictator or even duly elected president of some small state somewhere, with gas reserves or space for a military base or some such thing, who would you rather deal with? Russia or China, who will make a deal with you and then leave you alone, or the United States or Europe, which will make a deal with you, and then start bleating about your human rights record, or the fairness of your elections, or the integrity of your judges, or your devotion to the rule of law, or your persecution of religious minorities, or your treatment of women – which looks so fine to us, but looks like neocolonialism to them. Inward-looking nationalistic states, with nothing to offer in terms of a universal ideology, have a tactical advantage, it seems to me; and we will see more of this as Russia and China begin to flex their muscles.
Of course, nationalistic regimes have a tendency to self-destruct – “we are better than the rest of the world” can’t be true for more than one state at a time. Russia’s neighbors are terrified of it, and so some like Poland are being driven even more deeply into the arms of the west. But the danger that the United States will find itself being manipulated to advance the local ambitions of those states — which is essentially what Georgia tried to do — is significant, and we should recognize what the Russians did to Georgia in our own Monroe Doctrine (which since 1989 has been extended from the western hemisphere to more or less everywhere). In the long term, the United States and Europe are less of a threat to states that actually give in and adopt western norms than Russia and China are, if the democratic peace literature (which says that democracies do not fight with each other) is to be believed, and that is, I suppose, what our soft power amounts to. But the long term just never seems to arrive, does it?
I approve, even if I think the US government isn't consciously following that path.
To paraphrase Keynes, in the long term we are all dead.
This is actually a troubling proposition. Are we to effectively cede any geopolitical interest in the former Soviet republics by recognizing them as being within a Monroe Doctrine-like sphere of Russian influence, where Putin and his fellow travelers may practice their hegemony without interference?
One can argue that its reputation preceded it, but precisely what "chunk of territory" are you talking about?
Cato:
There's some interesting discussions of the Russia-Georgia
contretemps over at the Volokh Conspiracy. These bloggers are all
self-described-libertarian law professors. What makes this blog
particularly interesting on this issue is that many of the
participants are second-generation Russian-Americans. Check out:
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1219270166.shtml
Publius:
A talking head on CNN last night confirmed my suspicions about an
"August surprise", saying:
Nothing could be better for McCain right now than an international
crisis that has "nothing to do with Iraq".
The electorate won't care whether Russia or Georgia is the aggressor;
let alone ponder the dubious claim that this crisis "has nothing to do
with Iraq". Pay no attention to that oil slick you're standing on,
folks!
Cato:
I'm getting really nervous about how the US is going toe-to-toe with
Russia about things that are really none of our business but that
matter a lot to Russia. Anyone who knows any Russian history or
who's read Lermentov or Tolstoy knows that the Caucasus region is to
Russia as the American West is to the US. The Caucasus tribes were
(are?) as politically unorganized as the Plains Indians and have
caused Russia as much trouble. Russia has traditionally had a strong
say in how these regions operate. If the US keeps causing trouble
here it may wind up hurting the Eastern European and Baltic neighbors
of Russia.
I don't think our current idiot or either of the presumptive idiots
has a clue how to defuse this situation and establish reasonable
relations with Russia. Maybe the war that started around 1900 (with
-- take your pick -- the Balkan Wars, the Russo-Japanese War, the Boer
War, etc.) and most assumed ended around 1990 with the breakup of the
Soviet Union is still not over. That's coming to be my feeling. I'm
no longer even sure what history may eventually think this war has
been (is?) about nor what history will regard as the issues it may
eventually resolve.
Publius:
Putting aside the hypocrisy of US telling RU not to interfere in the
internal affairs of sovereign states [!], what would you expect from a
foreign policy led by C. Rice, a Soviet scholar trained in a by-gone
era? Apparently, she's still trying to "contain" the big bad Russkies.
Cato:
The hypocrisy is mind-bending; particularly when you consider that we're
poking our nose into alien places half-way round the world while Russia
is intervening in a disputed region on its very border and containing a
very large minority of ethnic Russians.
As for Rice -- There's an old saying that generals are always fighting the last war. Maybe it's just as true that "diplomats" are always maintaining the last century's balance of power.
Not quite - the Poles simply realized who it was they actually had on their border. The NYTimes has a good article on that today.
NYTIMES ARTICLE LINK
plus ca change...
I'm always hearing about Saudi Arabia! It's like a constant drumbeat of bleating!
And I know I'm constantly hearing about China's human rights record a lot more than the shoddy merchandise they sell us!
Can I please have the short list of countries that are harangued over their human rights records after making oil or gas deals with western companies, and the even shorter list of the countries that cared?
Now I'll grant, if you want to buy technology or services, dealing with Russia or China allows you to avoid all sorts of U.S. laws and regulations that would come into play if you were dealing with a U.S. company. Want a nuclear plant? Write a check and hope the U.S. doesn't make a big enough stink to sink the deal.
Oh please. Hitler effectively abolished democracy in Germany long before WWII.
Only because they're stupid.
I mean, don't they know that neo-colonialism is defined as "Anything the West does to non-white nations"? So Georgia doesn't count.
Or can a child of Georgian immigrants apply to my university as Asian-Americans.
zippy: Correction: 1947, when the U.S. formally adopted the doctrine of Containment.
I don't see how that was an outgrowth of the Monroe Doctrine. Keep in mind, Adams had his own corollary to the Doctrine: We'd stay out of European affairs. In that sense, the folks who argued that Containment was a violation of US foreign policy traditions had something of a point.
*gasp*! How neo-colonialist!
[and Containment came from how much World War I sucked, from what I have read]
good one.
Not any geopolitical interest-- if Russia started screwing around with energy supplies or became expansionist in the manner of the former Soviet Union, I am sure that it would make sense to confront them despite the cost.
But the issue right now isn't whether the US might intervene under some extreme set of facts, but whether, in the normal course of things and absent any serious threat to US interests that are worth protecting, Russia is entitled to have a sphere of influence within which it, rather than the US, is the primary hegemonic actor. And the sensible answer to that question is yes, because it isn't worth a war with Russia to stop them.
I suppose it's natural, and perhaps even stabilizing, for the strongest power in a given geographical region to maintain a sphere of influence over its neighbors. Russia would naturally feel threatened by any regime in its region that was developing closer ties with Europe and the US. We need to take the hint here, and make sure that NATO expansion is halted promptly, and certainly that it delves no further into Russia's sphere of influence. The last thing we want is to be committed by treaty to go to war and defend some piddly little country of no vital national importance to us.
Perhaps we should be glad that Russia is consolidating some power. Communism got us into the habit of considering Russia to be outside "the West", but it's certainly more Western than China or India. We may be glad to have Russia there this century, keeping some natural check on the influence (and ambitions) of China and India.
This equates to Russian occupation and its traditional attributes of rape, loot, murder, and gulags only in the feverish mind of Hate America Firsters.
(And please spare me the dozen regrettable U.S. interferences over the past century. It still does not equate to what happened 40 years ago today-- when Russian renewed a multi decade cycle of murder, looting, forced labor and rape on Czechoslovakia—let alone its long history of brutality.)
The long term never does seem to arrive. Unless you are only planning for the short term, then it seems to rush in with a vengeance. Soft power, of course, is only one tool. It was never meant to be the totality of a state's options. The best course of action is almost always a balanced approach, with some adjustments as circumstances change.
In the end, I think it is better for the US and the rest of the West to remain active, involved, even aggressive (or in the case of most of the rest of the West, to become this). Yes, we should recognize that Russia's reassertion of power over its near abroad is very much a reflection of our Monroe Doctrine. But then we should also realize that Russia itself is not much of a reflection of the US. Simply put, the US and most of the West, even when strictly pursuing their own interests, are much less damaging to the world than others doing the same. Pax Americana est bonum.
The test of a democratic leader is not being elected, it's being "un-elected". The real American revolution occurred in 1800, not 1776.
NATO does not obligate member states to go to war to defend each other.
. The Treaty of Brussels, OTOH, requires military action for the common defense.
Actually, this can be true for more than one state at a time since we all value what is best a little differently. Some value freedom, some value security, others value the ability to bully their neighbors. Not all such sets of values are mutually exclusive.
That assertion is fantastic, and I mean that.
I was in Lviv, Ukraine (in the Western, Ukrainian-speaking part of the country) this past Sunday. There was a concert in the main town square dedicated to "Solidarity With Georgia." After the concert, the banner was placed on the town hall for at least the first half of this week.
The statement above simply compared the results of us pursuing our own interests, with what happens when a country like Russia pursues its own interests. We don't arbitrarily invade another country on our border, rampaging through with tanks and killing civilians to make a point, like Russia just did.
By now, every thinking person in the world knows that the U.S.A. could have taken over the entire world following WWII. Who could resist atomic bombs?
But we didn't. Why? Because we're better than that. We are morally superior. We could have created an empire and milked it like England did with India, or like Germany tried to do with Russia. But we didn't, easy as it would have been.
For the morally blind, this means something important: America is better than other countries. Just think what would have happened if the Soviets had atomic bombs after WWII, and no one else did.
Understand... comrade?
Isn't the Caucasus (at leaset in the south) considered Europe?
I was my impression that given how affirmative action often works, applying to a university as an Asian-American if you have a choice may not be a good idea anyway.
You are quite right, we have not invaded either Canada or Mexico (at least within the memory of those who are reading this site).
It tells us that international law is a fantasy shared by a very small group of leftist academics.
Cause like them, we love us some Freedom! And by Freedom, I mean Capitalism. And by Capitalism I mean infrastructure contracts with transnational companies.
And don't go asking Africa or Columbia or Chile or most of the Middle East, neither! They hate us for our Freedom!
You can't equate those actions to the oppression that Eastern Europe suffered under Russia, but can you say that those actions were somehow acceptable under some sort of formula?
That sounds like the acceptable calculus I hear from the hard-right on a regular basis. It's okay if our guys do something bad, because that other guy was doing something worse like chopping off heads.
The point is that the good guy is held to a higher standard of ethics and conduct; how else do you measure good vs bad other than the patches on your uniform or the other guy's? My apologies for being a pseudo-intellectual-leftist...
Has America done stupid things? Yes. Has America committed atrocities even? Yes. Would I trade the US for Russia? Um, no. I would rather be realistic and accept the idea of American power, imperfect as it is, than cede the world to genuinely despicable governments like Putin's.
I am not sure, as Smokey claims, that America is better than other countries morally. But, for whatever reason, we are certainly the most moral of the great powers. Americans, like people everywhere, are a mix of good people and bad people. But we have managed to create a system where our government, despite its overwhelming power, acts with considerable restraint in the world.
We could certainly do better. But the world can also do a lot worse than us. People should certainly continue to press the US to pursue its interests more ethically. Part of the reason that the US is better for the world is that, unlike a Russia, the US is more willing to respond to such pressure. Try convincing Russia or China that it should condition its deals with other countries on labor or environmental standards.
But we should also realize that it is ultimately in the interests of the people of the world that countries like the US have the upper hand.
Too bad those silly "prey" nations can't pick their own destiny, only their master.
In an age of terrorist blowback and nuclear proliferation, throwing the country's weight around everywhere puts the population at risk.
Thus, the issue isn't whether American hegemonic power is the best way to run the world (an interesting, but very debatable, assertion) but whether American hegemonic power is worth a significant number of American lives, or whether Americans would be better off in a world where America did not intervene in as many places and other hegemonic powers existed.
If we can keep the lines of Eastern Europe mostly where they are and Russia only gets back a few chunks of disputed territory on the borders, I'd consider things a huge success. The key, as with Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, is to understand the difference between continuing to pound down and humiliate a defeated enemy on the one hand, and not to let a resurgent power expand enough to threaten. Like Germany after the First World War, Russia, a proud power, found itself defeated without ever having been invaded. How could it not be resentful? How could some of its people not feel they had been betrayed? Hopefully a repeat of the subsequent events can be prevented.
But it DOES (The NAT, that is. The "O" came after the invasion of South Korea). That was its POINT. You left out the first half of paragraph 1, Article V, including the key first clause:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
It is clear in the diplomatic record that the commitment was this: The US will view any armed aggression against a signatory to the NAT as if it were the US itself that had been attacked. This is how the Europeans understood the treaty, and this is what the Americans promised.
On the Monroe Doctrine and US intervention in Latin America: Let's specify that we are not talking about the Monroe Doctrine itself, but the "[Theodore] Roosevelt Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine. There is nothing in *Adams's* version of the M.D. implying a US right to intervene in Latin America. It was, rather, directed *against outside (European) intervention* in Latin American politics to restore colonial rule.
One hears this again and again. But it is a myth. Think what you will about Weimar democracy, or democracy in general. But the Nazis never surpassed @ 37% in a free election. Hitler never quite got to 37% in his presidential bid. And the Nazis never held a majority of parliamentary seats.
Had democracy worked for the Nazis, I doubt they would have go to work so soon, and so furiously, to destroy it once in office.
I think you are giving them too much credit. It isn't moral equivalence or concern with perfecting the U.S. that makes them take those absurd positions. Rather, it reflects an insecure dilettante arrogance. They want to be able to look down on those credulous masses who don't know the "truth." (They are a bit like conspiracy theorists in that regard.)
my interest is in what the conquest of South Ossetia tells us about international law.
And, everyone at the UN. Along with a fantasy that the UN will stop a war or a genocide.
I would agree with that. All the more reason that we shouldn't squander our moral greatness on such stupid things like invading countries based upon lies, or using torture, and then using torturous reasoning to say it isn't really torture.
This made me think that perhaps the conflict the Russian incursion into Georgia most closely resembles is Pershing's expedition into Mexico in 1916-17.
Obviously there are many differences, but had not that effort been interupted by America's into WWI, might the US troops have remained south of the border for security reasons?
Obviously there are many differences,
Including the fact that Pershing had the approval of the Carranza government.
Well some of us can. I don't know 'bout you.
I see your point, but I suspect an even better event to point to would be this overlooked but monumental moment in American history.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.