Home » Blogs » Patrick Fitzgerald's blog

China, neighbors, cool on Russian action in Georgia

Thu, 08/28/2008 - 1:29pm
FILE; TEH ENG KOON/AFP/Getty Images

Dmitry Medvedev may have hoped the Shanghai Cooperation Organization would evolve from a loose security bloc into an anti-NATO counterweight, but so far things don't look like they're going in the Russian president's favor. 

On Thursday, Medvedev asked the group, which also includes China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to back Russia's response to Georgian "aggression." Instead, while the group welcomed "Russia's active role in contributing to peace and co-operation in the region," it condemned the use of force and reaffirmed its support for the sovereignty of the countries involved:

The SCO states express grave concern in connection with the recent tensions around the South Ossetian issue and urge the sides to solve existing problems peacefully, through dialogue, and to make efforts facilitating reconciliation and talks," their statement said.

That China and the others spoke of respecting territorial integrity should come as no surprise. From its relations with Sudan abroad to its concerns with seperatists in Tibet and Xinjiang at home, China has long expressed a policy of non-intervention.

Russia, too, was often a strong opponent of Western interventions -- in Iraq and Kosovo, among others -- which makes its military action in Georgia all the more galling. Its Asian allies, though, haven't jumped on board. That, at the very least, should be a comforting sign for the West amid cries of a new Cold War.

For more on how Russia's recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia may backfire, check out FP's interview with regional expert and CIA veteran Paul Goble.

Patrick Fitzgerald | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

SCO

by kidzib on Thu, 08/28/2008 - 1:48pm
American media seem to be portraying the SCO declaration as a Russian triumph. Glad to see everyone else realizes that this was a rebuke to Russia.

horsepucky

by Don Bacon on Thu, 08/28/2008 - 2:21pm
"China, neighbors, cool on Russian action in Georgia . . .it [SCO] condemned the use of force . . " Horsepucky. The SCO did and said no such things. The SCO did not condemn the use of force by Georgia or Russia. The SCO was not cool on Russian actions, they supported them. You made that stuff up, which is typical for your jingoistic commentary. What the SCO said: “The SCO states . . . support Russia's active role in contributing to peace and co-operation in the region”

non-sensical remarks

by teodoro on Thu, 08/28/2008 - 3:26pm
Don, are you insane? can you not read quotes or follow links that show that FP has done nothing of what you claim. Besides using elipsis in your supporting evidence does nothing to help keep you out of the insane asylum.

kidzib--evidence?

by Don Bacon on Thu, 08/28/2008 - 4:52pm
kidzib: "American media seem to be portraying the SCO declaration as a Russian triumph." What American media? The AP didn't: Asian alliance rebuffs Russian plea for support DUSHANBE, Tajikistan (AP) — China and several Central Asian nations rebuffed Russia's hopes of international support for its actions in Georgia, issuing a statement Thursday denouncing the use of force and calling for the respect of every country's territorial integrity.///The NYT didn't: DUSHANBE, Tajikistan — Russia suffered a significant setback here on Thursday, as members of a regional security group in which the Kremlin plays an important role offered little support for Moscow’s military action in Georgia.///The Washington Post didn't: DUSHANBE/PARIS (Reuters) - Russia faced diplomatic isolation over its military action against Georgia on Thursday, with its Asian allies failing to offer support and France saying EU leaders were considering sanctions.

teodoro--evidence?

by Don Bacon on Thu, 08/28/2008 - 4:58pm
Show me the evidence where the SCO: (1) condemned the use of force and (2) reaffirmed its support for the sovereignty of the countries involved, as claimed by FP Passport.

1) The six leaders called

by teodoro on Thu, 08/28/2008 - 5:15pm
1) The six leaders called for peaceful dialog to resolve ongoing tensions.
"The SCO member states are deeply concerned over tensions around the South Ossetian issue, and call on all sides concerned to peacefully resolve existing problems through dialog," the declaration said.
"The leaders of the SCO member states welcome the signing in Moscow of the six principles for regulating the South Ossetia conflict, and support Russia's active role in assisting peace and cooperation in this region, But placing the emphasis exclusively on the use of force has no prospects and hinders a comprehensive settlement of local conflicts," a joint declaration adopted at the SCO summit in Tajikistan said.
2) From People Daily "Both countries always maintain that the situation in Iraq should be stabilized as soon as possible, and Iraq's sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity should be safeguarded, says the statement. "
And (same source) seems to say that the reduction of force is required 1) "and mutual reduction of armed forces on the border areas"
Why does this latter quote, when considered with the statement's intent for Russia to "solve existing problems peacefully" not mean that SCO does not approve of force??

Perils of recognizing South Ossetia

by jgarzik on Thu, 08/28/2008 - 5:44pm

Crossposted from my blog...

The Goble interview is a good one, in particular answering a question that I had:

FP: But if the South Ossetians and the Abkhazians don’t want to be part of Georgia, why should the West support President Saakashvili’s position? Why is it a good idea to support Georgia’s “territorial integrity”?

Goble: Since 1932 [...] it has been (largely) consistent American policy that the United States does not recognize territorial change achieved by an act of aggression. So, the issue is not, as the Russians have put it, between simple territory integrity or the right of nations to self-determination. It is whether the United States and Western governments will accept border changes brought about by the use of force.

Western and US officials produced many soundbites on upholding Georgian territorial integrity, but little or nothing on why this principle must be upheld. It seemed to run counter to "facts on the ground" demonstrating that Abkhazia and South Ossetia had little interest in being part of Georgia.

Abkhazia is largely independent anyway. South Ossetia is really a shell; independent yes, but mainly a smuggling route into Russia, and under implicit Russian control anyway. Neither wanted to be part of Georgia before the war, and now, really do not wish to be part of Georgia.

Thus, self-determination (freedom) runs up against another sound, logical principle: do not encourage aggressive states to redraw boundaries by force of arms. In any case, unlimited self-determination is a bad idea anyway. Fragmenting an existing nation-state has the potential to destabilize entire regions.

Redrawing nation-state boundaries as the West did with Kosovo did indeed open a new can of worms. As the Seven Questions post indicates, redrawing boundaries for breakaway regions is a double-edged sword. That is true for Kosovo and the West as it is for Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Russia.

This wikipedia article provides a surprising amount of depth on worldwide reaction to Kosovo recognition, and various regions striving for independence. (WARNING: read the wikipedia article with two grains of salt, rather than the usual one)

Self-determination and redrawing nation-state boundaries are very, very delicate subjects. Russia is wrong here. Were we wrong on Kosovo?

Jeff @ Armchair FP

teodoro whiffs--again

by Don Bacon on Thu, 08/28/2008 - 6:12pm
Have you always had a reading comprehension problem? (1)Saying that "placing the emphasis exclusively on the use of force" is hindering, and calling for peaceful dialog, is NOT condemning the use of force, is it. It's saying that the use of force should not be exclusive, and (2) Iraq's sovereignty is irrelevant to "sovereignty of the countries involved" (Russia and Georgia).

I guess we'll have to

by teodoro on Thu, 08/28/2008 - 6:30pm
I guess we'll have to disagree on the point of your intelligence. Because recognizing the territorial integrity of another nation IS relevant to the situation involved. How can you miss that the SCO's less than supportive statement means a significant blow to the Russians who were expecting open arms (pun intended) and a degree of support like their client Belarus.

Duelling op-eds

by jgarzik on Thu, 08/28/2008 - 6:42pm

I, for one, am very pleased to see key leaders (and former leaders) taking their case directly to the public via editorials in Western media. In a culture of soundbites, the practice of distributing essays and op-eds to the media during key events is incredibly useful at cutting through the media filters to get to the raw news sources.

In this age of the Internet, it is a disgrace that AP/Reuters/AFP-based web articles do not hyperlink back to the raw data sources (transcripts, press releases, reporters' notes).

Recently, we have seen writing from Gorbachev, Shevardnadze, Yushchenko, two days ago from Medvedev, and late yesterday we heard again from Saakashvili.

Jeff @ Armchair FP

my point stands--

by Don Bacon on Thu, 08/28/2008 - 11:18pm
The SCO *supported Russia*: "“The SCO states . . . support Russia's active role in contributing to peace and co-operation in the region” and the SCO DID NOT condemn the use of force nor were they "cool on Russian action" as FP Passport alleged, incorrectly.