DUCKPOND

The BBC account suggest that the latest rounds in the wars of separation in Georgia was instigated by the Georgian Government. The resort to force, and the escalation of violence will again prove how costly, counter-productive and cause of human suffering of responding to a conflict with violence. The reaction of the Russians to revert to aerial bombing has lead to civilian casualties.

Map of Georgia via BBC

The BBC report notes:

The crisis began spiralling when Georgian forces launched a surprise attack on Thursday night to regain control of South Ossetia, which has had de facto independence since the end of a civil war in 1992. The move followed days of exchanges of heavy fire with the Russian-backed separatists. In response to the Georgian crackdown, Moscow sent armoured units across the border into South Ossetia.

The Georgian parliament has approved a presidential decree declaring a state of war for 15 days.
Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili has denounced Russian reports of a high civilian death toll from his forces as an “egregious lie”. Mr Saakashvili said he had decided to declare that Georgia was in a state of war because it was “under a state of total [Russian] military aggression”. Georgia is withdrawing its entire contingent of 2,000 troops from Iraq to help deal with the crisis.

What is the bigger picture here? Why would Georgia countenance a war with Russia? The map would suggest the reasons why the Georgians feel aggrieved. I recall the Caucasus and Afghanistan have something in common – they are both ethnically and linguistically very diverse.

Chris Lloyd sees the hand of the United States since Georgia seems to have become an American ally. If the Americans were closely involved then it seems counter-productive to their interests. Juan Cole notes that the 2,000 soldiers previously stationed on the border with Iran have now been repatriated with American assistance because of the declaration of war.

It seems to me what is required is a third party peacekeeping mediation. The American policy of abusing the United Nations, and excluding it from playing the principle role in Afghanistan, means that organization cannot play the role world opinion (I suspect) would otherwise dictate.

The Guardian supplies background information on the conflict, via Chris Lloyd.

Postscript:

Welcome to the internet, you go from next to no information to an overwhelming amount in days, as has happened in regard to these events. While he does not tag the oil connections, David Wearing sums up the situation pretty well, suggesting that the Americans must have been forewarned what the Georgian Government planned because of the redeployment of the 2000 soldiers from Iraq. If true, it is evidence of another geo-strategic miscalculation of a stretched US military and almost defunct presidency – barring the coup that will not happen, will it?

There is a law of human history that violence begets violence, that what was won by violence has to be held by violence (I think the later is the Gandhian quote). The priority is not just ending the killing of all people, whether they are holding guns or not. The place to begin is respect for others, then truth and reconciliation. We do not need peace keeping; we need peace making, using all the available tools, and those you understand how those tools can be used most effectively.

UPDATE: 14 August 2008

Listen to Scott Horton’s interview with Brendan O’Neil at AntiWar.com and read his article, “Georgia, the messy truth behind the morality tail”. The West (meaning the principles the US and sidekick Britain, with assorted hangers on) says O’Neil, “has no moral authority, whatsoever”. Ain’t that the truth? None of this stops “our ABC” following carefully the official script as in the reports on PM, and ABC Online.