http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125431087432152321.html
BRUSSELS--A nine-month European Union investigation into the 2008 war in the Caucasus has concluded that Georgia triggered the conflict, but that Russia prepared the ground for war to break out and broke international law by invading Georgia as a whole.
Conclusions to the roughly 1,000 page report, released on Wednesday by Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini, also found that Russia-backed South Ossetian militias committed atrocities and "ethnic cleansing" of Georgian villages during and since the war. It faulted Russian forces in control of the territory that either "would not or could not" control the South Ossetians.
The report found no evidence to back Russian claims that Georgia committed genocide on the night of Aug.7-8.
The conflict, which briefly brought the United States and Russia into Cold War-style confrontation, left some 850 people dead, 35,000 permanently displaced and Europe's security infrastructure severely weakened. Russian forces remain in occupation of the two territories, while Moscow has recognized them as independent states.
It seems that these kind of reports are of absolutely no value.
AntwortenLöschenBy the very political nature of it, I do not bother to take such reports serious.
Plus, EU has ZERO capability to do something for or against the recommendations of the report.
What, in your opinion, is this report significant for? I can't think of any.
I would not go that far. Of course, it is naive to expect that such reports will somehow result in some action or whatever. Their value is mostly symbolic - which should not be underestimated, in my opinion. It just officially confirms that the Russians provoked the incident, something most of us already knew.
AntwortenLöschenOverall, it is easy to discount such symbolic gestures, claiming they have no value. However, international relations is a delicate and complex field - everything counts and has its value. How seriously one takes such reports, depends on what one's goals and positions are in that field. Just because it's nature is political, does not mean it has no value.
But, doesn't the international relations institutions have binders full of such reports?
AntwortenLöschenI do not recall any such report of other historical events having had any noticeable effect. Whenever there is a conflict, some commission gets formed. After long efforts of pulse taking and clever wording, eventually a report is issued.
If there is "enforcement power" (stick) behind the report, it gets "filed". And that is the end of the story.
Aside,
I had thought that the report said that it was Georgia who had provoked it but that Russia had jumped onto the opportunity.
Whatever it was, the "political" interpretation of that confrontation is clear:
The crisis has been linked to the push for Georgia to receive a NATO Membership Action Plan and the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo.
(Wikipedia)
Not that Wikipedia says so, of course.
I had come to that very conclusion way before it showed up on Wikipedia in those words.
In a simplified wording: Encouraged by various promises by the West (Nato membership etc) and recent recognitions of several "new" countries by the West, such as Slovenia, Croatia, Kosovo etc, Mr Saakashvili attempted to play a fait acompli hoping that the West would have no choice but to stand behind his political game.
Russia did not buy that. West did not think Georgia was worth a hot confrontation with Russia.
The rest is history, so to speak.
When I attempted to read a-fresh the Wikipedia page on that, it sounded much like school kids playing games to each other. He-said-she-said, tit-for-tat,...
=> 2008-2009 Georgia–Russia crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008-2009_Georgia%E2%80%93Russia_crisis
No, it said that Georgia initiated the actual conflict (the proverbial "first shot fired"), but it was Russia who did everything to set it up and provoke Georgia. Russia pulled up its military to the border, it gave out passports to South Ossetians, it helped them irritate Georgians with various incursions, etc., etc., etc.
AntwortenLöschenAnother important thing it states is that Russians helped South Ossetians conduct ethnic cleanisings during the conflict. They are also lying about Georgians doing the same in Southern Ossetia prior to the conflict - which was supposedly one of the main reasons for the invasion.
The list goes on
Well, of course this was part of the equation. No one is excusing Saakashivili's reckless behavior. But Russia did more than simply "not buy that," as I mentioned. It did everything possible to provoke the conflict.
AntwortenLöschenI still fail to see the significance of the the report and the analysis.
AntwortenLöschenObviously, Russia has been very clear about its "Sphere of Influence".
In a deeper sense, I would claim that it was NATO which started all the conflict by hastily drafting former USSR countries to "NATO".
For heavens' sake, what has Georgia got to do with the mission of the NATO?
That right there was a first PROVOCATION if you ask my opinion.
It is in the same category as the "missile defense shield" to be installed in Poland and the Czech Republic.
That Washington emerges to bullshit its OWN people by claiming it to be against Iranian missiles.
I'm sorry, but I do not accept that concept. "Sphere of influence" is a euphemism for imperial drive, and it's just not acceptable. I don't believe in realpolitik. I happen to think that Ukraine and Georgia need to join NATO. That was not a provocation - as you can clearly see, Russia is a threat to its neighbors. Last year's conflict was simmering for many-many years, and the NATO factor is only one part of it. Ultimately, it is Russia's loss of imperial identity and inability to construct a new one that is driving this thing.
AntwortenLöschen))) As you said yourself - language is an imperfect means of communications. Obviously, media has to use shorthand, especially in the headlines. Its role is to deliver the text/message to the readers/audience. Then it is up to that audience to interpret what is meant. In this forum, we are able to discuss the nuances of interpretation and understanding, which, in my opinion, are very important. In the article, it is explained what the headline was meant to imply.
AntwortenLöschenHere's another interesting article on the topic:
AntwortenLöschenReport Says Iran Has Data to Make a Nuclear Bomb
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/world/middleeast/04nuke.html?th&emc=th
Senior staff members of the United Nations nuclear agency have concluded in a confidential analysis that Iran has acquired “sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable” atom bomb.
The report by experts in the International Atomic Energy Agency stresses in its introduction that its conclusions are tentative and subject to further confirmation of the evidence, which it says came from intelligence agencies and its own investigations.
But the report’s conclusions, described by senior European officials, go well beyond the public positions taken by several governments, including the United States.
[...]
Such reports in general play a significant role - it's simply part of the system, of the international bureaucracy, and sometimes they may provide ground for further action, which may be impossible in the absence of such reports. Of course, I am speaking in generalities, because I would have to do research - for which I do not have time at present - to provide specific examples.
AntwortenLöschenIn that case that report has hardly any relevance for people like myself, who are outside of "international diplomacy" circles, right?
AntwortenLöschenBohdan,
AntwortenLöschenIt is not a matter of me or you accepting that. I do not find MANY things not acceptable. However, there is such a thing, we like it or not.
Similarily, the US has its "sphere of influence". I do not find that acceptable either. As a matter of fact, attempts to absorb Ukraine and Georgia into NATO itself is a manifestation fo the US expanding its sphere of influence!!!
Today, still many areas of the world are tacitly recognized as "sphere of influence" of certain countries. For instance, a number of African countries which used to be dominions of France are still considered as being in the sphere of influence of France. Hence, France sends peace-keeping (!) forces to Rwanda. (...sad)
There are two faces to any discussion:
1) The way things ARE
2) The way we wish them to be.
Knowing that Russia has a strong interest in keeping Georgia out of Western influence, yet, still encouarging Saakashvili to "prematurely" aggravate Russia, *is* an aggression of NATO, IMO.
For one moment, let us forget about "Russian imperialism" or "Western imperialism".
Rather, let us THINK about the agony of those thousands of people who have suffered in Georgia -it does not matter on which side-, and ask the following question:
What for. And by who's "judgment"?
The answer to it is simply this: When these "high level political games are played, nobody really cares about them", or, not enough.
Well, the report was not prepared for your sake, correct? It may be irrelevant to you, but it's not irrelevant overall.
AntwortenLöschenI disagree. Speaking nonchalantly about "spheres of influence" make them more real. Don't underestimate the power of words in internatinal relations. Symbolic violence is just as detrimental as physical violence.
AntwortenLöschenTo a certain extent, yes. But only by not accepting the way things are and refusing to treat it as normality, can things be changed. I am very adamant about this notion of Russia's "sphere of influence" - Soviet Union is no more, the totalitarian empire is gone, and Russia should take care of its own people, not try to stick its nose in everybody elses problems.
AntwortenLöschen