Cluster Munition Accusations Continue

Russia continues to deny the use of cluster bomb munition in it's operations in Georgia despite continuing and growing evidence to the contrary.



Human Rights Watch is dogging Russia on this but it isn't getting a whole lot of press coverage outside of the occasional NPR mention. That seems rather odd given our media's general record on human rights. Heck, it would seem to be a great opportunity to grill McCain and Obama about their thoughts on the use of such horrible weapons!

• Georgia: Russian Cluster Bombs Kill Civilians
• Georgia: Civilians Killed by Russian Cluster Bomb ‘Duds’

I think Russia would do well to fess up and help with the cleanup. It might even help to foster some international goodwill. Of course, Russia is not usually amenable towards ideas that I come up with.

---

Russia also continues to drag it's feet on withdrawal from Georgian territory but has reportedly finally started to do so, at least from some positions.

As with most conflicts, just about every party here seems to deserve some blame. Georgia for being idiotic enough to use force in South Ossetia. Russia for it over the top reaction and for their own human rights abuses during their 'response.' Even the leaders in both South Ossetia and Abkhazia deserve some blame as they have not helped to defuse anything and seem more intent on fermenting further bad feelings.

The United States seems to deserve some blame here as well. There is some reason that Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili seemed to think he would be backed up with his action against South Ossetia. There is some reason why he thought we would come to his aid, militarily, when Russia moved against Georgia. That reason is not simply that Saakashvili suffers from delusions (which is not beyond the realm of possibility.) He was given some type of assurance from someone. Whether it was someone within the government or someone he had reason to believe knew the intentions of the government is the question.

There is a story here that hasn't been told yet. Perhaps the story has started to be told at TPM and the Washington Post? John McCain better hope that this is not the start of the story that will be told. That would work out badly for him.

Look for it though. The rest of the story is coming. It's out there somewhere and it won't be pretty. It is disgraceful that so many had to die and be injured because of it.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Saakashvili Does Sign

I am baffled by the fact that regardless of when I decide to resume making post on current events, the events of the day inevitably draw me to post multiple times, and incessantly, on one given topic.

This occured last year with the Walter Reed scandal and the original Wandering Donkey. Sad to say, I have lost those posts. You may be able to ressurect them on archive.org but I don't have time to.

Now onward to the fact that I am posting at least once a day on the Georgia-Russia crisis. (You may indeed read into the order of the nations in my title.)

In my previous post I asked why Mikhail Saakashvili might be expected to sign a peace agreement with the terms outlined. I responded with, what I thought, to be a well reasoned argument that he should not.

However, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili has done exactly that.



The fact that the Georgians have signed a Cease Fire agreement is somewhat significant.

First, I give a number of reasons why this should NOT have been done on my previous post.

Second, and a point I did not consider earlier, is that Russia has not yet agreed to these conditions! WTF was French President Nicolas Sarkozy doing in Moscow? Apparently he was putting together a peace deal that was up to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to shove down the throats of the combatants. I personally thought the Russian side was covered. I guess this was wrong. (I hope you enjoyed your visit to the Kremlin, Nick. I'd love to get such a deal!)

Apparently, the Russians now have to sign this. This is not a big thing if it gives what was told before. This would include the ability of Russian troops to move into proper Georgian territory if it's citizens, troops or integrity were threatened.

Hell, I'd be all over signing that. I don't necessarily think that is the same thing they thought they would be signing two days ago though.

I have a feeling that some sort of switch has taken place.

Time, and the various news agencies will tell.

In the meantime, given the past knowns and rhetoric, Mikhail Saakashvili made a mistake today.

Given that he went to Columbia; I think there is a different interpretation that will come to light.

Russia, cannot win this, despite their overconfident attitude. They lose. The west and Georgia win. Does Medvedev lose credibility? Absolutely! Does it mean change? Probably not.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Why would Saakashvili sign?

Slowly, but surely, more and more stuff comes out in this whole Georgian invasion that just makes you wonder. It is now clear, to a great extent, why the Russians have not removed themselves from Georgian territory.

Why?

They don't think they have to! Indeed, they apparently don't have to according to the peace plan that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is now trying to get Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili to sign.

The plan gives the Russians the right to patrol in Georgian territory. Not just South Ossetia, not just Abkhazia but in what is actual, undisputed Georgian territory.

Here is where I should make a politically incorrect joke about how it must have been a Frenchman who negotiated this deal. Unfortunately, this isn't a situation to which humor, in bad or good taste, should be applied.



Comparisons and analogies abound here folks.

The Russians are saying that they are doing nothing different that the United States and Europe did in Kosovo (which was, notably, done against Russian wishes.)

Saakashvili is making comparisons to the Munich Agreement in 1938.

Both sides are leveling charges of genocide.

Meanwhile civilians and reporters are being caught in the crossfire. The video above has footage of a reporter being hit by a sniper as she is going on the air.

I cannot imagine that President Saakashvili will sign the agreement as it is presently constructed. It does not even have any provision for outside oversight or any type of sanctions against Russia if it fails to abide by it's terms.

It is not clear who started this. It is clear who needs the protecting here. I do not say that Georgia is innocent in this. But they, being that their army is already all but destroyed, need to have someone defending their right to exist here. At the very least, the Bush administration seems to be doing their best to achieve that.

That said, their is a lot of blame to go around on why this is happening.

-You can start with Kosovo. But that was still what nearly all in the west would consider a justified action by the United States and Western Europe. Nevertheless, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and his Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov are using that as their template here. Ironic really, since we cut into their sphere of influence with that action and this action is, and least partly, about reestablishing their sphere of influence.

-Iraq. To some extent, Afghanistan also. But mostly, Iraq. Unilateral action on a grand scale. This is what really cuts the Bush Administration off at the knees. No matter what they say, the Russians will come back at them with some excuse that they say makes this situation more justifiable that the United States violating Iraqi sovereignty.
I am sure the right wing in the country will have all sorts of arguments on this. The left does not.
Internationally, as we try to mend the burned bridges of said Iraqi campaign, the Bush administration will also find it hard to defend this attack as well.

-Our foreign policy in Eastern Europe in general for the last seven plus years. We have spent the last seven years building our foreign policy in Eastern Europe on a "great personal relationship" with former Russian President and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

That said, Russia itself hasn't felt the relationship has been 'good' or even 'okay' for at least three years. We have done nothing but play nice with countries such as Georgia or Ukraine both of which the Russians consider thorns in their side. Meanwhile NATO and the EU creep ever closer to the Russian border.

Unfortunately, we also have given the Russians no reason to think that we would be reacting as we are right now to such an action as they have taken. They thought we would say something, sure, but they did not beleive we would be so righteous in our rhetoric.

(Take a step back, and think about our governments actions for the last seven years. Objectively, would you think we would have the balls to present such a loud protest about the violation of sovereignty of a country that the other country considered a 'threat to their national security'? That's a WOW in most of the world's eyes.)

All of this leads us to where we are. With a Secretary of State trying to convince the president of a small embattled republic to let the troops of a big, allegedly democratic republic, have free reign on his peoples territory.

Would you sign that agreement? Would you expect the democratically elected leader of another country to?

I wouldn't.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content