The European Union and the Russia-Georgia Conflict - as
of August 21, 2008.
By ESLaPorte
“World
peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts
proportionate to the dangers which threaten it” – The Schuman
Declaration (1).
Introduction The region around Georgia has been simmering
since the bloody conflicts of the early 1990’s, shortly after the break-up
of the Soviet system. There Russian Federation had an agreement with the
government of Georgia and the leadership of Abkhazia to maintain a peacekeeping
and peace monitor mission. On the night of August 7, 2008 the Georgian military
started a massive military operation to “gain constitutional control”
over South Ossetia and its capital city, Tskhinvali (2).
According to Human Rights Watch:
“Violence has escalated in
South Ossetia, a breakaway province of Georgia and one of the ‘frozen
conflicts’ of the former Soviet Union. The conflict heated up dramatically
in the early morning of August 8, 2008. Georgia declared that it intended to
restore constitutional order and launched a large-scale military offensive.
Russia sent additional troops to South Ossetia, saying they were reinforcements
to Russian peacekeepers who are in the area to monitor a 1992 ceasefire between
Georgian and South Ossetian forces” (3).
The sides were drawn, with America, Britain and East
Europe’s militant Atlanticist corps on the Georgia side and Russia on the
other, needing to defend its actions to stop the Georgia military offensive
against South Ossetia. In the middle was, and to date still is, the European
Union, which courageously refused to blame a side in the conflict. Instead, the
French Presidency and Germany, took the lead in finding first a cease fire.
European diplomacy is a smashing success, but winning the peace through
diplomacy in especially the United Nations will be a long road. Europe needs to
travel this long road without making Russia into a threatening enemy and
walling Russia out of the process.
"Old" Europe, or the grown-ups of
Europe, thankfully are in charge, while "new" Europe, or the children of the
European Union, Poland especially, and have attempted to force the European
Union to blame Russia. What is noticeable here is that the positive and
cooperative spirit that is embodied in the Community's historical documents,
like the Schuman declaration, are being challenged by both Britain and Poland
especially. If there is to be a lasting solution to this conflict - the
European Union MUST maintain open channels and positive cooperation with
Moscow. This conflict also highlights the need for the European Union to part
ways with Washington and its provocative proclivities of picking and friends
and enemies in a highly volatile world.
Georgia’s questionable
“democratic” credentials. What must first be pointed out is that
Georgia is not the “beacon of freedom” that the West and America is
touting it to be. Media outlets have trouble becoming economically viable in
Georgia. According to Freedom House, Georgia, which it rated as a
“Partly Free” country has a problem with harassment and
violence against especially journalists. A year ago (August 2007) Rustavi-2
staff staged a boycott and in July a TV show host resigned on the air to
protest the Georgian government’s attempts to influence her reporting on
the murder of a banking official. According to Freedom House the Partly Free
country of Georgia:
“…remains particularly
critical and intolerant of the media, leading to an overall decrease in
media independence since the 2003 Rose Revolution (emphasis mine).
Separately, the Ministry of
Defense continued its practice of banning critical journalists from public
events. There were reports of harassment and violence against journalists, and
a sense of impunity prevailed in the country, particularly with regard to
crimes committed against journalists. Media freedom is legally guaranteed in
the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but the separatist
authorities in both areas restricted media outlets and journalists” (4).
In November 2007, 50,000 Georgians, despite government
roadblocks, took to the streets of Tbilisi to protest the Saakashvili regime's
move away from democracy. Prior to the protests, Irakli Okruashvili,
Saakashvili's former defense minister, was arrested and then and then freed on
a multi-million euro bail after he retracted accusations of the Saakashvili
regime's involvement in murder and corruption - was believed to have been
forced on a plane to Germany to prevent him from leading the opposition
protests. The excuse from the Saakashvili regime was that Okruashvili was
seeking medical treatment (5).
On November 7, 2007, the opposition TV station,
Imedi TV, was violently closed by
Saakashvili's police forces. The closing came at the height of the protests and
after Saakashvili declared a state of emergency and banned protests. The police
beat peaceful protesters and seriously injured opposition leader, Koba
Davitashvili. The violent closing came during the on-air news broadcast in
which a TV anchor gave an emotional "farewell speech." The day of the closing,
the station aired a protest where the protestors demanded Saakashvili's
resignation. Eventually, a court unfroze the Imedi's assets and the station was
allowed to reopen in mid-December after European and international pressure on
the Saakashvili regime (6). However, the pressure on the TV
station still mounts, as a page on Imedi's website explains:
"We created 4 years of
Imedi, but lately Imedi became the target of the political
dirtiness, typical for the pre-election campaign in the country. We want to
confirm, that all of us and our family members became the objects of pressure
and blackmailing from the side of authorities during this one month and a half.
During the last two days it was created the complete hysteria by the TV
channels, controlled by the authorities, which causes the hysterical situation
in which our journalists were to work and now there are no guarantees for
leading the work safely.
After this we want to stand aside
from the dirty political games, this is our protest against the government,
which was doing its best to blackmail journalists, as well as against that
misunderstanding, which is connected with the participation of the owner of the
TV channel in the Presidential elections. The scandal around this topic placed
all of us, journalists in the hardest situation. The only purpose we have, is
to save the channel, as it is the most objective and free media-source. We
completely understand our responsibility to the Georgian society" (7).
Still, the Americans still call Saakashvili’s Georgia
a “democratic country” and the militant Atlanticists in Poland, the
Baltic and Britain want to “stand with” this tyrannical regime that
has clearly demonstrated a disrespect for the Western democratic value of the
freedom of the press. Shame on those that “stand with” this
regime, shame on the Bush administration, shame on the Baltic countries, SHAME
ON YOU Lech Kaczynski and shame on David Miliband for his vigor in defending
the Saakashvili regime's actions in South Ossetia (more about them down the
page- and more about these shamelesss people in a later paper).
The Georgian aggression on
South Ossetia. On the eve of August 7, 2008, the military forces of Georgia
staged an invasion of the “break-away” province of South Ossetia. The
attack on South Ossetia was massive and intended to take out
“separatist-rebels” – but the action was intended to force South
Ossetia back into Georgia. The attack was timed to start with the opening of
the Olympics and a surprise attack on South Ossetia. Hundreds of civilians were
killed in this assault, as well as 15 Russian peacekeepers, who were in Georgia
as part of a Russian Federation contribution (8) The reaction
to Georgia's President Mikhail Saakashvili massive military offensive against
South Ossetia was one of condemnation as stupid blunder. Foreign Minister
Bernard Kouchner called Saakashvili’s military attack on South Ossetia a
blunder and "there were major errors of judgment on the part of the
Georgians” (9).
The need to understand what
the Community is about… John McCormick (2007) described the
differences between Europeanism and Americanism in his chapter on "The Meaning
of Europe." While McCormick states that defining "Europe" as "not America"
might be easy and a quick way for European independent thought and action, but
the real attention needs to be paid to what the European Union is and
represents. Often, there is much less certainty to what the EU actually
represents and what its global significance really is (10).
Well, we can now know, especially after the Russia-Georgia conflict.
"In international relations,
Europeanism represents the post-modern values of peace, multilateralism,
internationalism, soft power, and civilian means for dealing with
conflict" (11).
It is well known that common foreign and security policy,
is an area that is problematic in terms of coherence and coordination, the
current crisis emphasizes the persist need for Eastern European nations to grow
up a bit as European Union members. A common position might suffer from the
know Atlanticist - independent European divide and no doubt that Europe's child
Member States are going to give grown-up Member States trouble (12). It is militant Atlanticist, East European Member States,
like Poland and the Baltics, that want to hinder the development of a common
position so that the pundits can say "the EU is a failure" and to keep
"American leadership" going over this crisis.
In the desire to develop common foreign and security
policy, according to Bretheton and Vogler (2006) "reflect enduring themes that
have contribute to the constructions of the Union as a values-based actor -
commitment to multilateralism…through the United Nations, and promotion of
externally of the values …embraced internally" (13). One
of the stated goals of the European Security Strategy is to promote and
international order based on effective multilateralism is the core of EU
activities and a commitment to multilateralism is also aimed at building a
secure neighborhood (14).
EU-Russian cooperation The
European Commission's External Affairs website states that the EU and Russia
"are very different places in 2008 from when they concluded the Partnership and
Cooperation Agreement in 1997." This agreement had several objectives for the
partnership, political dialog, economic, energy, social, cultural cooperation,
gradual integration of Russia into a wider cooperation in Europe (15).
The “four common spaces” between the EU and
Russia:
At the St. Petersburg Summit in May 2003, the
EU and Russia agreed to reinforce their cooperation by creating in the long
term four ‘common spaces’ in the framework of the Partnership and
Cooperation Agreement and on the basis of common values and shared interests.
These common spaces are as follows :
1. The Common Economic Space,
covering economic issues and the environment ; 2. The Common Space of
Freedom, Security and Justice; 3. The Common Space of External Security,
including crisis management and non-proliferation; 4. The Common Space of
Research and Education, Including cultural aspects.
The time on this agreement is ten years and it is up for
renewal. Well, the usual suspects in Britain, chief among them is Secretary
David Miliband, who gave a rather one-sided demonization of Russia’s
actions to save the people of South Ossetia. Ignoring the real causes of the
conflict, the Georgian military to regard “constitutional control”
over South Ossetia. In early September, the agreement negotiation for the new
partnership agreement, which was in the process of negotiation before the
conflict, will be discussed by ministers (16). A sane and
more rational voice still comes from the German Foreign minister, Frank Walter
Steineier, who stated again that it is unproductive to point the finger at
Russia:
"But we should ... assume
realistically that, if the EU really wants to play a stronger role in the
region, if the EU wants to help stabilize this crisis-shaken region, it must
keep open the channels of communication to Tbilisi and to Moscow" (17).
The most cool head that is being heard in some quarters is
Luxembourg's Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn:
"As the European Union, we must
stick to the partnership with Russia, even after these recent events which of
course do not please us. We need to enhance this partnership so that one day we
won't have these situations any more" (18).
The last thing we need in Europe is for the European
Union to reduce its ties to Russia because of this conflict. In fact, the
European Union needs to fully engage all parties – and Russia plays an
important part of the equation. To give in to emotional calls to sever ties
with Russia out of purely emotional bending – when it was Georgia that
actually stated this conflict – will even set back a resolution to this
conflict. This is obviously counterproductive and will further antagonize
Russia and ruin the European Union’s credibility to honestly mediate
conflicts in the future.
The usual militant Atlanticist
suspects crawl out of the woodwork… What should also be noted from
Saakashvili attack on South Ossetia, which killed peacekeepers and thousands of
civilians, are those European leaders coming out to bash Russia. These are the
usual militant Atlanticists, the defenders of American hegemony and “NATO
uber alles” over Europe. This not only includes the usual suspects in
especially Poland, but the British leaders. Yes, the Washington, London, Warsaw
Axis is out in full force, attempting to get their long desired wish of walling
off Russia from positive and productive relations with the European Union.
Leading the often belligerent, militant Atlanticist camp
in Eastern Europe now if Polish President, Lech Kaczynski (more on him later),
who has even chided France and Germany in the some times “big power
hegemony” complaint. Now, according to Kaczynski the two “EU
giants” and “taking the lead without considering the views of East
European member” that were captive of the Soviets. But –
Kaczynski’s whining doesn’t stop there, nope, he stated that the
“common policy is laughable” and the (19).
There are two things missing in this childish and
short-sited in Kaczynski’s whining. The first is that this is not the
Soviet Union, but the Russian Federation. Second – Kaczynski needs to
recall both the history of the European Coal and Steel Community and the spirit
of the whole European project and the Schuman Declaration.
But – Kaczynski’s whining doesn’t stop
there, nope, he stated that the “common policy is laughable” and the
“real decisions are being made in Berlin and Paris.” Well, dear
President Kaczynski, thank God they are, and you are probably more concerned
with American missiles than to know that France holds the EU presidency and
that the two original powers of the ECSC leading things is a positive thing.
What kind of policy does Kaczynski want to “punish Russia” for
stopping violence in South Ossetia?
First of all, Prime Minister Donald Tusk, about the only
rational leader in Eastern Europe when it comes to Russia, saying he did not
want to Poland “to become the EU member with the worst relationship with
Russia.” (20). Well, giving yourself and Europe up for
hostage to American missiles is really not fostering good relations between the
Union and Russia, now is it?!
Kaczynski telephoned the "freedom-loving" Saakashvili to
offer him "solidarity" and will travel to visit to Tbilisi. When George Bush
"pledged" to "rally the free world in the defense of a free Georgia," the
muck-raking Polish president, along with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko,
and the leaders of EU members Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia - appeared before a
rally in Tbilisi. Kaczynski conduct did not help the European Union's cause
any:
"We are here to take up the fight.
For the first time in quite a while, our neighbors have shown the face which we
have known for hundreds of years. These neighbors feel that the nations around
them should be subservient to them. We say no!" (21).
"This time, a dynamic European
presidency, as the French is, could intervene relatively quickly in the
conflict area and propose a peace plan. A contestable one, it’s true, but
better than nothing. What would have happened if other country would have been
the Union’s president?"
What if Poland was
the EU president? Well, that would be pridictble, and we can
thank God that it's not...That's like letting a your children run your
household. Things would get ugly quick, and would not be in the best interests
of the Union. We DO need to think about this in relation
to the Lisbon Treaty!
Well, the other Atlanticist muck-raker is British Foreign
Secretary David Miliband, who “got a chill down his spine” to see
tanks rolling “parts of a sovereign country.” Also, “that is
simply not the way in which international relations can be run in the 21st
century." No, Mr. Miliband, its not, but, then, neither is attempting to settle
a “separatist-border problem” by attacking the “separatist”
city with full force of the Georgia military, resulting in the deaths of
thousands of civilians (22).
Oh, and did I fail to mention the death of 15 Russian
peacekeepers, huh? Notice a pattern here? America’s friends and lovers are
out in full force, no doubt with tacit support of the neoconservatives in the
White House, insuring the “NATO uber alles in Europe is healthy and
strong,” and, “win a permanent role” for Washington’s
advocates against the European Union superpower. Neat hey?!
The European Union’s finest
hour (?)!
“Now it is Europe's hour.
The French president had discussions in the Kremlin. At the end of the week
Chancellor Angela Merkel will meet the Russian president in Sochi on the Black
Sea, just a few hours' drive from the conflict zone. France and Germany are
well advised to ignore the voices of Poland and the three small Baltic States
in these discussions. They are threatening Russia and thus totally misjudge
their possibilities. They are a hindrance for a consistent European foreign
policy” (23).
Miodrag Soric at DW-RADIO had it right and we can thank
the Good God above for giving European leaders of France and Germany the vision
toward world peace, and especially with Russia, despite Kaczynski, who really
needs to learn the history and intentions of the Community. A real European
leaders (one not obsessed with pleasing Washington), would not only cheer
France and Germany, but offer their help, and refuse to place American missiles
in their country for the sake of the Community.
The Six Points of the European Union-sponsored
"Sarkozy Plan" (24): (1) Not to resort to
force;
(2) To end hostilities definitively;
(3) To provide free
access for humanitarian aid;
(4) Georgian military forces will have to
withdraw to their usual bases;
(5) Russian military forces will have to
withdraw to the lines held prior to the outbreak of hostilities. Pending an
international mechanism, Russian peace-keeping forces will implement additional
security measures;
(6) Opening of international talks on the security
and stability arrangements in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Divided European Union?
Despite the work the European Union, especially the French Presidency to meet
the goal of securing the peace, the European Union’s efforts were still
described as “divided” by some observers. The Christian Science
Monitor was not only railing about the “divided EU,” but highly
annoyed that the EU didn’t side with Georgia and America, which it called
the “Partly Free” rated country a “democracy” and cried
that “the West must stand together,” (25) as if
this is 1968 (…and sorry Christian Science Monitor, but the requirement
for responsible behavior fell on Saakashvili, not Russia).
The European Union took the best path, Poland and the
three Baltic nations did not, choosing not to engage in pointing fingers of
blame. This is not what the Community is supposed to be about and it is wrong
to use the Community as a tool to get back at Russia. Both Germany and France
took pains to ignore that usual militant Atlanticists, who are now calling on
EU sanctions against Russia. As a result of the European Union’s
courageous and positive stance, the conflict was able to come to a close. This
is truly a triumph of European diplomacy and Europe’s finest hour.
Winning the peace and restoring positive and productive
relations between the European Union and Russia will not only require handling
the Polish, but require an ability to be firm, but not present the antagonizes
of the Polish. It has been suggested that Angela Merkel be out in front.
Germany has a special, working relationship with Russia, especially with regard
to energy. Merkel has encouraged Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to pressure
diplomacy and has avoided blame for the conflict. A sticking point is the
absolute “territorial integrity of Georgia” (26).
Human Rights Watch
has called upon the EU to undertake a peacekeeping mission, and this signals the faith some in the
international community place on the EU: "We'd like the EU to take steps to
provide protection to all civilians who are in need of it, to protect them from
incursions by armed militias or the kind of things that can happen at
checkpoints," Rachel Denber of Human Rights Watch told
Reuters.
EU foreign
ministers agreed to send peacekeepers and Alexander
Stubb said of Russian accptence and the OSCE playing a part: "I'm convinced
at the end of the day we will find an international peacekeeping [force] in the
region, with the EU at its heart," he said.
Germany has proposed a
EU-Georgia neighbours' conference that would fit into
the EU's Neighborhood policy: "The conference would take place in the
framework of the EU's neighborhood policy, aimed at strengthening ties with the
bloc's neighbours and which already includes Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia" a
spokesman for Chancellor Angela Merkel's office
said.
"The German government's
representative for Russian affairs, Andreas Schockenhoff, said that neither the
EU nor Germany would take sides in the conflict. A solution required both sides
reaching an agreement. 'That is very difficult at the moment and will take a
while. At the moment the hate and mutual mistrust is so great that we must use
every chance to get the two conflicting sides to the negotiating table"
(27).
Good and the German Foreign minister with equally positive
statements, the negotiations for the European Union should now rest with
Germany. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has called for, like
his Luxembourg colleague Foreign Minister Asselborn, to keep the channels of
communication open with Russia. "It remains the case that a levelheaded policy
is the one that most helps people in the region," he said, and that calls to
keep the channels open with a "level headed policy" between Moscow and Tbilisi
are the only realistic way for the European Union to be a key player in the
peace process (28). To maintain its finest hour, there
European Union will have to avoid the divisive tendencies and proclivities of
the militant Atlanticists, especially in Poland.
We should conclude Since
"world peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts
proportionate to the dangers which threaten it" the Community needs to
break the Cold War thinking-trap with regard to Russia, work to bring real
democracy to Georgia, and consider the independence aspirations of "break
aways" like South Ossetia. Also, there needs to be some security guarantees for
these "break aways" in that they should not fear attack from anyone else,
including "democratic" Georgia. Also - the Community must never develop a
hostile relationship with Russia, otherwise, the seeking of lasting peace will
be substantially hindered and bring disrepute on the EU's conflict resolution
policies and processes. A good summary of the serious mistake it would be if
the European Community sided with Georgia and its American allies:
"Cold War-style brinkmanship will
not make Russia's neighbours safer. It will only reinforce the Kremlin's view
that small states are pawns in a strategic game. The best guarantee of security
and peace in Europe since the end of the Cold War has been economic
integration, achieved through the EU. It is Brussels, not Washington, that
stands the best chance of persuading Moscow to change its ways"
(29).
The first, and most obvious, is to avoid sanctions or
any other punitive actions against Russia! The Union should use this crisis
to both reach out to Russia and use the crisis as a teaching tool for New
Europe. The ministers' meeting in early September MUST not be used by
the Eastern European countries to pout about "Sovietization," nor should it be
a one-sided Russian bashing session by David Miliband and other militant
Atlanticists. There appears to have been NO alternative view of presented
either to the foreign ministers on August 14, and to the European Parliament
when it entertained the Georgia Foreign Minister. Let's hope that cooler head
prevail, like Frank Walter Steineier and Jean Asselborn.
"The creation of the European
Union has been central to this development. It has transformed the relations
between our states, and the lives of our citizens. European countries are
committed to dealing peacefully with disputes and to co-operating through
common institutions. Over this period, the progressive spread of the rule of
law and democracy has seen authoritarian regimes change into secure, stable and
dynamic democracies. Successive enlargements are making a reality of the vision
of a united and peaceful continent" (30).
The European Union should not start keeping an enemies
list against any nation or group of nations! The European Security Strategy
(ESS) makes mention of Russia several times, in the Russia's cooperation in
especially the Balkans was productive. Cross pillar cooperation is required
with Russia to address threats from weapons of mass destruction and organized
crime (31). According to the ESS, "[W]e should continue to
work for closer relations with Russia, a major factor in our security and
prosperity. Respect for common values will reinforce progress towards a
strategic partnership" (32).
The Union must be prepared for how to deal with one or
more Member States taking sides in a conflict! This crisis could as a
teaching model for East European leaders, especially in the Baltic countries
and Poland, that punitive policies against Russia and attempts to "ex-post
facto" punish Russia for injustices of the Sovietization period are contrary to
European values. European sanctions are not used to punish, but to get a nation
or other entity to change its behavior. The East European nations need to be
taught the European way of peace and that "world peace will require creative
efforts to maintain, " to paraphrase the Schuman Declaration. The Union has to
resort to some treating some of its Member States as parties to the conflict,
or partly parties to a conflict, when they clearly demonstrate they are taking
sides in a conflict and play advocate for one side or the other. Above all,
the Union must remember and remain loyal its purposes, conflict resolution
policies, and above all its history and founding purposes - and remind some
Member States in mainly East Europe and Britain of them!
Third, it is clear that Georgia is not a genuine
democracy in a fashion that we would regard as a "democratic" and needs the
Union's help in becoming a acceptable democracy! Georgia has had a recent
past of intolerance toward the freedom of the press and police brutality toward
opposition protests. The European Union has had "rule of law" type police
missions, including in Palestine, where police training also includes respect
for human rights and individual liberty. It is clear that Georgia could benefit
from an EU police mission that help develop respect for democratic policing
principles, and an EU mission should include a "rule
of law" component (33). Train Georgia's police in
democratic policing principles and the rule of law concepts!
"Common policies" and "joint actions" must best
represent the Community's values and "Common positions" must, therefore, be
crafted for the best interests on the image of the Community, its values and
founding purposes, even if some Member States that have taken sides in a
conflict object to them! "Joint actions" should consist of those Member
States, or Member State, that agree with them, and "joint actions" must best
reflect Community values and founding concepts, and given the East European
nations' desire for vengence against Russia, "common positions" resulting in
"joint actions" may be hard to get. The last thing we need in Europe is for the
European Union to reduce its ties to Russia because of this conflict and
presents the appearance that it has "chosen a side." In fact, the European
Union needs to fully engage all parties - and Russia plays an important part of
the equation. To give in to emotional calls to sever ties with Russia out of
purely emotional bending - when it was Georgia that actually stated this
conflict - will even set back a resolution to this conflict. This is obviously
counterproductive and will further antagonize Russia.
1. From: Brent, Nelsen F., and Alexander
C-G. Stubb. Eds. 1998. "The European Union: Readings of the Theory and Practice
European Integration." : Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 13-14.
Communication from the Commission to the Council and to
the European Parliament on the general approach to enable ENP partner countries
to participate in Community agencies and Community programmes. Brussels,
4.12.2006 - COM(2006) 724 final
http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/com06_724_en.pdf