On Georgia and Kosovo

Yesterday afternoon, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced that his country had officially recognised the independence of the Georgian separatist states in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This decision followed passionate speeches in the Russian Duma over the previous week by representatives of both regions. One of the common features of these announcements has been the comparison between the Georgian regions and Kosovo, a region of Serbia recently declared independent to the approval of the West. However, whilst there are certain comparisons that can be drawn between the two regions (peripherality, federalism and ethnic difference), there is little common moral equivalence ...

It is interesting to note that the nationalisms in Abkhazia and South Ossetia were so low down the interests of Moscow that the regions micro-nationalisms were ignored during the Soviet era, whilst Georgia was a constituent member of the USSR. This suggests a certain element of strategic brokering in an attempt to negate the independence of Georgia, but also represents a warning to states with large pro-Russian populations within their recognised borders. Kosovo itself was never manipulated by another state directly in an attempt to promote the division or annexation of territory. Kosovan nationalism exerted itself largely through non-violent political resistance. Violence only began following the NATO response to recognised ethnic cleansing and mass deportation conducted by Serbian troops in the region. Whilst there was violence in the Caucasus, it cannot be said to have been on a par with the actions of Slobodan Milosevic.

I have also yet to see any sort of UN Resolution proposed by the Russian representatives that justifies the invasion of a sovereign state (and ex-colony) against the wishes of that state and the international community. The word "unilateral" comes to mind. Where was the equivalent of the Resolution 1441, warning Saddam Hussain of the consequences of belligerence, in this case? I also worry that the independence of these states will not result in their becoming "nations" at the high table of diplomacy. The former republics of Yugoslavia now have seats at the UN (alongside Georgia) and 20 of the 27 EU states have recognised the de jure and de facto independence of Kosovo and its 2.1 million people. Realistically, Russian sponsorship of these tiny enclaves is not an attempt at independence, but an attempt at re-integration into a new Russian empire. No-one has suggested that Kosovo should be annexed by neighbouring Albania, nor have they proposed the unilateral presence of Albanian troops on Kosovar soil.

The ethnicity element of the two conflicts is also one primary source of difference. Where the West has attempted to promote the independence of Kosovo through the integration and assimilation of multiple ethnic groups, Russian activities in the Caucasus represent nation-building by appeal to sectarianism and violent nationalisms. This threat of violence also looms elsewhere as a result of Russian foreign policy. This month, Russian has threatened to attack both Poland and Ukraine in response to their decisions to host a US missile defence shield and also refused to endorse economic and political sanctions against the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe. If Russian diplomacy is concerned with the "encirclement" of their state, one wonders how Kosovo and Zimbabwe are part of this breaking out.

I don't want to avoid criticism of the West by the way. The Bush administration is guilty of giving the impression of US support to Georgia, before refusing to act at the decisive moment. This is all to reminiscent of Bill Clinton's support for the Bosnians in the face of Serbian aggression, before letting them get slaughtered ... an error repeated in Kosovo. It would be nice to think there was a consistent response from Washington, but I would not bet on the idea, which is what President George W. Bush has given the strong impression of doing in the last two weeks. But surely this suggests that there was no imperial ambition involved. Will anyone say the same about Putin's undisguised plan for the forcible restoration of Russian hegemony around his empire's periphery?

Blygt