Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

EU Takes the Diplomatic Lead on Georgia

(Inter Press Service) The Russia-Georgia peace deal indicates that the European Union (EU) is acting as an independent power and plans to maintain dialogue with Moscow in spite...

Print Friendly

(Inter Press Service)

The Russia-Georgia peace deal indicates that the European Union (EU) is acting as an independent power and plans to maintain dialogue with Moscow in spite of pressure by some of its own members and the United States to switch to sanctions.

Last week French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev met in Moscow to agree on the gradual withdrawal of Russian troops to positions held before the outbreak of the Georgia-Russia war in August.

On August 8 Georgian troops tried to seize control of the Georgian breakaway region of South Ossetia. Russia launched a military offensive, saying it had to protect Russian citizens living there.

Soon after, Sarkozy negotiated with both sides to end hostilities amid escalating Cold War-type rhetoric between Moscow and Washington. But Russia failed to keep its promises to completely withdraw from Georgian territory outside South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another separatist region, prompting Sarkozy’s return to Moscow.

Now Russia has nodded to the arrival of 200 EU observers to the borders of the irredentist regions, recently recognized as independent entities by Russia.

But there are complaints that "EU observers will not be allowed into the region—which is the part of the conflict that should actually be internationalised," as Michal Thim, South Caucasus analyst at the Prague-based Association for International Affairs, told the Inter Press Service (IPS).

In a compromise whose ultimate goal was to maintain an impression of European unity, the EU has called the Russian occupation a "reaction" but added it was "disproportionate." The EU also condemned Moscow’s recognition of the regions’ independence.

This was far from satisfactory for a block of mostly Eastern European countries that, led by Polish President Lech Kaczynski and encouraged by the United States, called for tough economic sanctions against Russia.

The EU will only maintain a temporary suspension of the Russia-EU partnership agreement, which should be lifted once Moscow abides with the peace plan. The fact that Russia supplies the EU with almost half of its gas and one-third of its oil makes a policy of isolating Russia impractical.

With most EU members striving not to get caught in the crossfire of a new Cold War, more idealistic politicians, especially in Eastern Europe, seemed ready to bear the cost of mutual economic sanctions.

"It is a long-term tendency that those who want to keep a pragmatic policy in relations with Russia have the upper hand within the EU’s decision-making. Decisions have to be taken unanimously, and with the lowest common denominator it is unlikely to get a tougher stance towards Russia," Thim told IPS.

The absence of Washington from the EU-Russia negotiating table has been seen as an encouraging sign for those looking for a more autonomous international role for the EU.

Russian officials had warm words for Europe’s "balanced" position, and there was visible satisfaction among Russian analysts over Moscow’s ability to dictate many terms of the agreement.

"Both the EU and the U.S. realized they have no power to change the status quo or future of these regions," Thim told IPS.

Russia will maintain its military presence in the separatist regions, prolonging a situation that began in 1992 with a U.N. sanctioned peacekeeping mission.

Russian-Georgian relations significantly worsened after Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili took power in 2004 and began pushing for his country’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

The United States has been the main sponsor of the NATO aspirations of Georgia and Ukraine, and Russian officials are openly blaming the United States for having blessed Georgia’s attempt to take the separatist regions by force.

Moreover, Russian officials have accused the United States of arming Georgia before and after the conflict. "The rearming of the Georgian regime is continuing, including under the guise of humanitarian assistance," Medvedev said last week after the United States brought Georgia aid on one of its most sophisticated warships, the Mount Whitney.

Washington says the war was provoked by Russia, and already last week U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney was visiting Ukraine and Georgia, where he called on "the free world to rally to the side of Georgia" and support its NATO membership.

In Ukraine, where Cheney tried to prevent the pro-Western ruling coalition’s collapse due to disagreements over the Georgian conflict, most politicians and media saw the visit by the lame duck vice president as fruitless and ill-timed.

An international meeting that will include representatives of the separatist regions will be held in Geneva in mid-October to discuss the conflict and assess progress in the peace plan. Moscow says its recognition of the regions’ independence is non-negotiable, while the EU’s position on their independence is softer than that of the United States.

Thim says the United States was far away when the fate of the South Caucasus was being decided.

"Washington won’t be happy, but it’s too busy with Afghanistan and Iraq. There has been only political support for Georgia but no action; they can simply keep threatening with Georgian NATO membership and try to persuade others about it."

Washington might try additional sanctions, such as refusing Russia’s membership in the World Trade Organization. It has already considerably upset Russia by signing a deal with Poland on a missile defense infrastructure to be built there.

The United States has sought to increase its stakes in the oil and gas rich Central Asian and Caucasus region ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. It is promoting the construction of pipelines that will bypass Russia and Iran, with Georgia being the only remaining corridor fully independent of Russia.

Zoltán Dujisin writes for the Inter Press Service.


Analysis by Zoltán Dujisin, "EU Takes the Diplomatic Lead on Georgia” in Somalia" Right Web with permission from Inter Press Service (Somerville, MA: PRA, 2008). Web location:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/4953.html Production Information:
Author(s): Right Web
Editor(s): Right Web
Production: Political Research Associates   IRC logo 1310 Broadway, #201, Somerville, MA   02144 | pra@publiceye.org

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has been an outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. foreign polices and the use of torture, aping the views of her father, Dick Cheney.

United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.

John Bolton, senior fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and the controversial former ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, has been considered for a variety of positions in the Trump administration, including most recently as national security adviser.

Gina Haspel is a CIA officer who was nominated to head the agency by President Donald Trump in March 2018. She first came to prominence because of accusations that she oversaw the torture of prisoners and later destroyed video evidence of that torture.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Hardliners at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are working overtime to convince the Trump administration to “fix” the nuclear agreement with Iran on the pretext that it will give the US leverage in negotiations with North Korea.

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.