A Western Bias?

That Georgia launched a major military offensive against its own autonomous region is the key issue that did not receive significant attention in Western political and media circles in the initial days of confrontation with Russia. One might assume that Georgia, being a key Western ally, would not be criticized too openly by its friends.

On the eve of the Georgian assault, the United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stood beside the Georgian president Mikhael Saakashvili, and emphasised that diplomacy and not military means was the key to this problems resolution. That night Georgia attacked its own autonomous region of South Ossetia. It is clear from the United States diplomatic response in the coming days – inspite of the Georgian president’s efforts to encourage NATO and the United States to intervene militarily – that Dr Rice was true to her word on the eve of the assault.

In making the attempt to retake control of the autonomous region of South Ossetia, did Mikhael Saakashvili think he would succeed. One key question obviously would be first of all would Russia respond militarily. It would be difficult to find any sane person who is informed of the historical situation to conclude that Russia would not respond in force militarily. Hence, the next question is would the Georgian military defeat the Russian military. On this question I think even most insane and uninformed people would consider this to be an absurd question to even ask. So, quite obviously Russia would intervene and defeat the Georgian military. Hence the question is why would Saakashvili even bother?

Saakashvili attempted to justify his actions by saying that Russia was going to try and take over Georgia anyway, so it was better to lose fighting rather than just lose. This is a very courageous motive. However to carry out a pre-emptive attack on South Ossetia because Russia was any how going to invade Georgia proper is not backed up by any clear evidence.

The Russian response was likened to the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Union. However this comparison was incorrect because Czechoslovakia did not launch an initial military assault.

It is clear from the first days of conflict what Saakashvili’s real position was. It was to achieve his goal of retaking control of the break-away regions by encouraging NATO and the United States to confront Russia militarily. However no analyst or political player outside of Georgia considered this even a remote possibility. The Georgian president’s judgement in launching the assault is seriously called into question.

The Georgian’s approach was to play the victim and show Russia as displaying excess use of force. The United States, the European Union, and NATO backed this position diplomatically. Admittedly it filtered out slowly through Western media outlets that an important point was that Georgia started it. However the key point of concern in all of this is that the position of Russia being excessively aggressive was adopted before Russia moved outside of the conflict zone in South Ossetia. This point was almost missed and was eventually pointed out by Mikhael Gorbachev in an International Herald Tribune opinion piece (20 August 2008).

It became clear when the conflict spread to Abkhazia, and Russian troops moved significantly outside the conflict zone, that accusations of aggression may have merit. However Russia was already being accused of aggression prior to this. The grounds for aggression were not evidenced in Russia’s initial response. So the question is why the premature accusations of aggression? Perhaps the West predicted that Russia would take the opportunity to expand its interests and so the West was adopting an early position to reflect this. Even if this is the case this was not stated, and I do not see any reason not to disclose this. In other words a reasonable Western position at the outset would be that Russia stopped Georgia from violently retaking a breakaway region, and please don’t punish Georgia too much for their stupidity. Hence it looks like the West was biased in its initial calling of the situation. If this is the case it would help the West in dealing with Russia, to look at this bias.

Broadening the picture, in the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia’s independence by the Russian parliament and government, it is worth considering the parallels with Kosovo’s recent independence from Serbia. Russia considers it to be a similar situation. However President Medvedev makes the point that the only key difference, and hence why Russia did not support Kosovo’s independence bid, is that Serbia did not try and crush Kosovo with military force. It would be interesting to know what the West’s position is on this comparison.

Also, in making a premature call on Russian aggression, it would be interesting to compare Russia’s initial response with Israel’s 2006 war against Lebanon. Lebanon abducted two soldiers, and Israel demolished one country. The United States used their veto on an otherwise uniform view at the United Nations Security Council that Israel’s response was disproportionate and excessive.

This article is not aimed at taking sides. It is aimed at the truth. The author is of the opinion that there are some biases taken by key Western players on some major international issues, and that by acknowledging and exploring these, a better understand can lead to a better and more harmonious global outcome.