
|
WAR
IN GEORGIA
|
The
war in Georgia seems to be over.
How
it began is still not clear. The first major military action was
Georgia’s bombardment of Tskhinval, but
some claim that this was itself a response to escalation in the
low-intensity fighting in the villages of South Ossetia that has been
going on for many years. In any case, the Georgian assault on South
Ossetia gave Russia a golden opportunity to pursue its own goals
under cover of humanitarian intervention (see last month’s
Material World).
In
general, both sides have excelled in hypocrisy. Russia as the
protector of small peoples – after
Chechnya? The United States as the champion of national sovereignty
against foreign aggression – after Iraq?
And yet there are always people prepared to take such guff seriously,
or pretend to.
Three
levels
The
context of the war needs to be understood at three levels:
Level
1: the struggle within Georgia for control over territory, waged by
ethnically based mini-states (Georgian, Abkhaz, Osset).
Level
2: the confrontation between Georgia and Russia.
Level
3: the renewed great power confrontation between Russia and the
West, especially between Russia and the U.S.
The
West in its propaganda stresses Level 2, casting Russia as aggressor
and Georgia as victim while obscuring its own role. Russian
propaganda stresses Level 1, casting Georgians as aggressors and
Abkhaz and Ossets as victims, and also Level 3, casting the U.S. and
its allies as aggressors and Russia as their victim.
Only
by focusing on Level 3 can we grasp what the war is really about.
Reclaiming
a sphere of influence
The
rulers of great powers often regard the areas immediately beyond
their borders as their rightful “sphere
of influence.” Thus, the U.S. calls
Central America and the Caribbean its “backyard,”
while Russia refers to other parts of the former USSR as its “near
abroad.” They are especially concerned to
prevent military ties between outside powers and states in their
sphere of influence. Recall the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.
After
a period of weakness, Russia is now reclaiming great power status and
a sphere of influence. In the military field, the main goals are to
prevent Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO and block the deployment of
ABM systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. In addition, Russia
will not allow post-Soviet states to cooperate with the U.S. in any
attack on Iran.
The
Russian operation has succeeded in keeping Georgia out of NATO for
the foreseeable future: it has demonstrated the risks involved and
several of the existing European member states are unwilling to take
those risks. Another Russian goal – not
yet achieved – is to oust Saakashvili,
who is rightly viewed as an American client. (The “rose
revolution” that brought him to power in
2003 was funded by the U.S. government, through such agencies as the
National Endowment for Democracy.)
Western
ruling class deeply divided on Russia
It
would be a mistake to interpret even the knee-jerk support of the
American media for Georgia as indicative of unequivocal support. The
U.S. and its allies (with Israel playing a major role) did create the
conditions for war by encouraging their client and by arming and
training his forces. However, it appears that Saakashvili started
major hostilities on his own, without seeking prior approval from
Bush, who was enjoying the Olympics at the time. This evidently
caused some annoyance. The U.S. refused him the practical support on
which he was counting. Like many ambitious but inexperienced
politicians before him, he overplayed his hand.
We
must bear in mind that the Western ruling class is deeply divided
concerning policy toward Russia. Certain forces, especially in the
U.S., are upset that Russia is no longer subservient to the West and
regard it once more as an adversary. Other forces have a more
realistic view of the shifting balance of world power, are wary of
making too many enemies and fighting too many wars at once, and want
to maintain a more cooperative relationship with Russia. These forces
are particularly strong in West European countries that are dependent
on Russian gas.
Not
worth war with Russia
The
dominant view among our masters, fortunately, is that they have no
interests at stake in Georgia worth the risk of war with Russia. They
have only one really important economic interest in Georgia: the
pipelines connecting the Caspian oil and gas fields with Turkey’s
Mediterranean coast (Baku – Ceyhan),
which pass through the south of the country. Significantly, although
Russia bombed many valuable assets in Georgia care was taken not to
bomb these pipelines. Perhaps secret assurances were given that the
pipelines would not be damaged.
The
Russian rulers too have no really vital economic (as opposed to
strategic) interest in Georgia. Abkhazia has long been their favorite
vacation spot and still has considerable tourist potential. Western
Georgia is a traditional source of tea, tobacco, walnuts and citrus
fruit.
Shared
responsibility
Our
hearts go out to the many thousands of ordinary working people who
have borne the brunt of suffering in this war, as they do in every
war – cowering terrified in basements as
the shells burst above them, jumping to their death from burning
buildings, trudging along the roads tired, hungry and thirsty in the
summer heat …
And
yet we also have to say something that must sound heartless in the
circumstances. The majority of these ordinary working people –
of the adults among them – share
responsibility for their current plight. Because it was they who
demonstrated and voted for the politicians who ordered the shelling
and the bombing. And most of them, it appears, are still ready to
demonstrate and vote for the same politicians. Because they still
believe that the location of state borders matters more, infinitely
more than their own lives or the lives of their children. Because
they still view as their enemy ordinary working people who happen to
be of different descent and speak a different language. These
delusions, for so long as they persist, guarantee that this will not
be the last war.
STEFAN
|