The Georgian-Russian war is the most significant watershed in world politics since George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in March 2003. As I noted last Sunday, it signals clearly for all the world to see that (1) The global power-projection capabilities of the highly over-militarized ‘west’ are currently stretched ways beyond what can be sustained, and (2) Russia, which was largely absent as a significant actor on the world stage since 1991 (or before), is now most certainly ‘back’ in the role of a substantial big power.
At such a watershed point, we should be more relieved than ever that over the past 63 years the world’s governments have created and sustained an entire network of globe-circling institutions, led by the United Nations, that are primed and ready to help ease all the tensions that a shift like the present one represents– and to do so in a sustainable, rights-strengthening way that radically decreases the possibility of further, possibly much more serious, war.
So where the heck has UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon been over the past eight days?
He should have been at the forefront of all the international diplomatic efforts aimed at ending the Russia-Georgia conflict and crafting a longterm settlement in that region that can also strengthen the UN’s essential norms of nonviolence, human equality, and the support of human flourishing and human security.
Where has he been?
Ireland’s RTE News tells us this morning– eight days into the crisis– that Ban “will interrupt his holiday to hold private talks with the ambassadors of the US, Russia and Georgia on how to formalise the ceasefire deal.”
So until now, he’s just been continuing his holiday?
On Thursday, the UN issued a press release assuring us that Ban (presumably speaking from his vacation hideaway) “has expressed deep concern at the humanitarian impact of recent fighting on the civilian population in Georgia.”
Not good enough. Anyone and everyone has issued a bland, humanitariany statement like that. But the UN is about a whole lot more than “humanitarian aid” and “humanitarian concern.”
Yesterday (Friday), Reuters reported that Ban,
- has so far been unable to contact Russian President Dmitry Medvedev by telephone [presumably from same vacation hideaway] to discuss the crisis in Georgia, a U.N. spokesman said on Friday.
Ban has spoken to Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, who called him on Thursday.
But Ban’s spokesperson assured Reuters that “Ban is expected to meet Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, possibly on Saturday.”
Or possibly not, huh? Can’t cut that holiday too short, after all…
Here’s why this is important. For the past 15 years, the US has come increasingly to act like the “power of last resort” and the delegated enforcer for all portions of the earth’s surface except for some those limited portions of the global landmass that lie inside the national borders of Russia and China. No international body ever delegated these powers to the United States, whose citizens comprise under five percent of the world’s people. It just came to assume them, helped in many instances by a never-stable, ever-evolving cast of “allies,” like those roped in for occupation duty in Iraq (a group that dwindled significantly over time), or in Afghanistan (mainly, a subset of members of a strictly-military alliance that was formed for very different purposes 60 years ago.)
Now, the US-led “west” is hopelessly over-extended, with grave consequences for the peoples of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere. The military-based, “US leadership” model of global governance that it represents cannot be sustained. We all need to take a few very deep breaths, reflect deeply on the consequences of war-waging and militarism wherever they have been practiced, and start a new worldwide conversation on how to do things a whole lot better going forward.
That’s where the United Nations comes in.
Yes, it’s imperfect. But we really don’t have time to start a wholly new organization from the ground up. And meanwhile, the UN has a number of very important attributes:
- 1. Its inclusivity,
2. Its founding principles of anti-militarism and human equality,
3. The many instruments it has developed to help bring about the nonviolent resolution of even thorny conflicts among nations, and
4. The wide expertise its network of specialized agencies has acquired in all aspects of building the human foundations of security in today’s highly interdependent, irreversibly globalized era.
That is why all the world’s citizens– but most especially, the people living inside the self-referential bubble of the US system— now need to see some robust and sure-footed UN leadership in the diplomacy of resolving the Ossetian crisis. It will demonstrate to us all that there is a better way than reliance on US unilateralism and militarism as a way of ordering the world– and it will help strengthen the UN’s own capabilities and credibility, as well.
But all this past week, Ban Ki-Moon has been Missing in Action.
Ban, we need you! Come home!
Instead of seeing him leading the immediate diplomacy, what have we seen? More of the same, of “western” leaders just stepping in as if it is entirely their right to dominate all international diplomacy, on every issue, in every part of the world.
Excuse me? Who gave them that right?
Why should it be Condoleezza Rice who positions herself as “final arbiter” in the dispute between Georgia and Russia? Why would she or anyone imagine that– after all the considerable aid the Bush administration has given to Georgia in recent years– Washington has the neutrality that would be required for anyone credibly and effectively to play that role?
(Oh, maybe the whole sorry history of US domination of the Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking over the past 20 years got Americans into the idea that being deeply partisan is not incompatible with being a neutral peacemaker? Well, it hasn’t worked too well there, either, has it?)
In the present crisis, the two US allies Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel played a significant role as Condi’s scouts and wingmen in the diplomacy…
And between them, they have secured something of a ceasefire on paper at this date, which is a valuable first step.
But a more durable, longer term settlement between the Russians and Georgians is certainly still required. Personally, I hope it would be based on a wide and credibly monitored demilitarization of the two ‘contested territories’ within Georgia, and also of wide swathes of ‘inner Georgia’ itself, as well as of areas of Russian territory that border Georgia.
But whatever the content of the longer term settlement, to arrive at it will require strong and clear UN leadership of the diplomacy. Hard to see how Bush or either of his successors would have either the international credibility or the means to do that.
It will take tough talking– with the leaders of both Georgia and Russia. And it will take promulgation of a paradigm of what “peacemaking” is about that is very different from the US paradigm of “arm this side, then arm that side, then if they fight each other get in there with our own armies to rack up the violence level even higher…”
The west can’t sustain that approach any more. We are in desperate need of a new, much more cooperative and human-based approach to peacemaking, too. Help us out here, Ban Ki-Moon. Please?
But where the heck are you today?
Ahem, haven’t I fully documented that Ban Ki-Moon is a weak, subservient US lackey, incapable of any independent action on any significant issue? He is now AWOL on Georgia, as he has been on Iraq and Afghanistan.
The irrelevance of the UN Secretariat was summed up by statements of a UN representative and a Russian on 10 August:
B. LYNN PASCOE, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, recalled that the Secretary-General had issued a statement yesterday, in which he had expressed alarm over the escalation of hostilities in South Ossetia and other regions of Georgia. . .
VITALY CHURKIN (Russian Federation) said that, unfortunately, the content of Mr. Pascoe’s briefing had shown that the Secretariat and its leadership were unable to adopt an objective position, as required by the substance of the conflict. Over the past three or four days, the Council had been holding meetings on the situation, which had arisen due to the aggression by Georgia against South Ossetia. . . ”
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/sc9419.doc.htm
The UN has long been little more than a tool of western imperialism — useful in providing propaganda cover for acts of wanton aggression.
The world would be better off if this degenerate institution follows the old League of Nations into oblivion.
My nieces and nephews named an elusive stray cat that sneaked every now and then into their summer dwelling outside Beirut after the UN secretary general. I thought that was a good metaphor and an accurate gauge of his standing among the populace in the region.
As I said, the UN is a highly imperfect instrument but it is certainly a whole lot better than any alternative!
Also, the SG has a very short leash that ties him (or, I suppose, her, if that should ever happen) to the will of the 5 permanent members. So long as Russia was totally on the ropes and the Chinese were intent on not making waves as they peacefully ‘rose’, the US and the two European P-5-er’s could overwhelmingly dominate the decisionmaking. (Though W notably failed to get what he wanted from the Security Council in 2003.)
But now, Russia is ‘back.’ Ban may well have a long personal history of kowtowing to Washington but those forces in the world that don’t want to see the collapse of the whole UN system– and yes, we are certainly the majority and have considerable power– will surely find a way to have him either play a more constructive role or make way for someone who can.
It’s seldom remembered that Kofi Annan was appointed SG back in the day precisely as Washington’s candidate to replace Boutros G-G (who had been appointed as Washington’s candidate but then Washington grew disenchanted with him…) But then even Kofi, in his mild and non-confrontational way, established an important degree of distance between himself and W.
These things do have a way of bending over time to the saner, more humane side of things.
The situations facing Ban and Annan are different: Kofi Annan never had to directly confront US (or indeed Russia or China) when their supposed immediate interests were at stake, let alone in direct confrontation. Russian position regarding Georgia, whether one likes it or not, are well known and they have secured it all by themselves, leaving very little for the outsiders to do. The only thing left to do, really, is for the US to accept gracefully what Russia has already accomplished–which would allow some of the harder edges to come off of what has already been done…and that’s a thankless job for anyone to do, esp. for an old friend of Washington best known for his sycophancy.
Anything that Ban might have done would have got in the way of the emerging “western” narrative of Russian aggression. So he kept his mouth shut, which is better than denouncing Russia for an unprovoked (and inexplicable attack) on Georgia. But not much better.
I don’t mean to defend Ban Ki-Moon, since he’s not exactly the best Secretary General to have graced the UN, but….while the Secretary General can be an effective mediator and a respected international voice with respect to many of the world’s conflicts, when any of these conflicts involve the P-5 (the 5 permanent members of the security council), they have virtually no influence, and can only embarrass themselves by trying. If he were to actively intervene in a conflict involving one of his most important “electors,” he would discredit his position even more. Frankly, the way I see, the only thing he could have done is to resign in protest, which probably would have been the most morally courageous thing to do. But, the “slippery eel,” as he likes to style himself, is not exactly the self-sacrificing type. Otherwise, he did the right thing by keeping his powder dry for conflicts (involving anyone other than the P-5) he might actually be able to play a positive role in resolving. The UN is only as good as its member states, and when its most institutionally important states decide to flout international norms for whatever reasons, the UN itself becomes a rather useless institution. Don’t blame the UN, or Ban…blame Russia for overreacting to Georgian provocations, China for undercutting the UN’s abilities to deal with international crises involving her clients, France for supporting her client pawns in Africa,the US for flouting international law when it feels like it, and Great Britain for playing the American poodle.
Chaps
At last we have a sensible intervention from a senior politician who knows what he is about.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/geoffrey-wheatcroft-why-are-we-pretending-we-would-fight-for-georgia-899618.html
It remained for a former Tory foreign secretary to dash a little cold water of sanity on these overheated effusions. On Friday Sir Malcolm Rifkind chided the folly of making threats about the use of force when these are obviously not going to be carried out. And the day before he had said, “I think people in both the United States and in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in western Europe will have to ask very clearly how important is Georgia to them.
“There was a lot of talk about how Georgia should join Nato and if only Georgia was a member of Nato this wouldn’t have happened, and so forth. I think that is frankly totally unconvincing.” The truth is surely as Sir Malcolm says: “The United States, Britain, France and Germany are not going to go to war with Russia over South Ossetia, however sympathetic to the people of Georgia we are.
“We are sympathetic to Tibet, we are sympathetic to Zimbabwe, but we don’t contemplate military solutions to these problems. So Nato membership is not the answer.” Is it too late for our politicians to learn again that kind of plain speaking and common sense?
Chaps
This leading article has got quite a lot of sense about it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-do-not-feed-the-bears-paranoia-899616.html
The honest answer is that it could not have been, and that was why it was pursued with such enthusiasm by Mikheil Saakashvili, the Georgian President. He wanted to join Nato precisely because it would have meant a confrontation with the Russians – how could Russian troops be stationed on the soil of a Nato country? Mr Saakashvili has shown himself as a leader of poor judgement. In all the playground back-and-forth about who started it, it was Mr Saakashvili’s decision to launch a military attack on the capital of South Ossetia eight days ago that stands out as the most disastrous mistake.
There may be those who interpret this to mean that The Independent on Sunday advocates a policy of appeasement towards Russian aggression. We reject the charge. We agree with George Bush when he condemns Russian bullying. But so much of the West’s response to this crisis has been waffle and, where it has not been meaningless guff, it has actually made matters worse.
As I read the reports today of the Ukranians trying to offer radar sites to be included in the missile defense system and reports of the Baltic Fleet dusting off their nuclear warheads, it is time to cool it and think things through rationally without trotting out anachronistic references to situations leading up to the second World War or some of the scenarios for starting the Third.
Washington Post today describes how both sides rambled into war by accident, and indicates that cool heads in State Department might be trying to draw back public opinion from a Tom Clancy response.
Anyone who is nterested in the forensics of war by accident can find it at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/16/AR2008081600502.html?hpid=topnews
“As I said, the UN is a highly imperfect instrument but it is certainly a whole lot better than any alternative!”
Ah, well, the United Nations Organisation is scarcely alone in being “a tragedy to those who feel” and at the same time “a comedy to those who think”! La condition des comédiens était infâme chez les Romains et honorable chez les Grecs: qu’est-elle chez nous? On pense d’eux comme les Romains, on vit avec eux comme les Grecs.
“And what about the South Koreans?,” jested Pilate.
Happy days.
OK I was wrong. It was Debkafile that produced the agitprop. Not the good Caroline (yet)
The same issue reports back channel communicatioms between the US and Russian Federation to calm things down.
Don’t anybody panic.
Russia considers nuclear missiles for Syria, Mediterranean, Baltic
DEBKAfile Special Report
DEBKAfile’s military sources report Moscow’s planned retaliation for America’s missile interceptors in Poland and US-Israeli military aid to Georgia may come in the form of installing Iskandar surface missiles in Syria and its Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad.
Russian Baltic and Middle East warships, submarines and long-range bombers may be armed with nuclear warheads, according to Sunday newspapers in Europe.
….
After routing Georgia over the breakaway enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Moscow appears to be eying Poland, the Middle East, and possibly Ukraine, as the main arenas for its reprisals.
One plan on the table in Moscow, DEBKAfile’s sources report, is the establishment of big Russian military, naval and air bases in Syria and the release of advanced weapons systems withheld until now to Iran (the S-300 air-missile defense system) and Syria (the nuclear-capable 200 km-range Iskandar surface missile).
Shortly before the Georgian conflict flared, Moscow promised Washington not to let Iran and Syria have these sophisticated pieces of hardware.
The Iskander’s cruise attributes make its launch and trajectory extremely hard to detect and intercept. If this missile reaches Syria, Israel will have to revamp its anti-missile defense array and Air Force assault plans for the third time in two years, as it constitutes a threat which transcends all its defensive red lines.
Moscow’s war planners know this and are therefore considering new sea and air bases in Syria as sites for the Iskander missiles. Russia would thus keep the missiles under its hand and make sure they were not transferred to Iran. At the same time, Syrian crews would be trained in their operation.
DEBKAfile’s military sources report Syrian president Bashar Assad will be invited to Moscow soon to finalize these plans in detail.
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5513
As I said, the UN is a highly imperfect instrument
Did the writer of these words know why this happened?
Did the writer of these words tell us how she got to this and what behind of the imperfectness of UN?
But we know the perfectness of UN depend solely on its members and specially those who hold Veto power and their support for the right of people who whatever what their colours, religious, and believes of their desire and freedom.
For 60 years UN striped from its imperfect system for small body created from a group of believers in dream of 5000 years old with 99 UN regulations thrown to the rubbish bin in front of 6 Billions of humans living on this earth
More on how everyone stumbled towards war by accident
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/washington/18diplo.html?pagewanted=1&hp
It is instructive to remember that Peter Carrington the Foreign Secretary resigned after the Argentines moved into the Falklands.
Did McCain or Cheney undermine or dilute the State department message?
Helena, where is your UN from this?
Is tens of hundred moving you more than 25 million suffering by your imperial country making you looking for Ban Ki-Moon who is no more than US puppet in hand of US like former Kofi Annan and others.
UN DEAD Helena, its no longer legitimate UN its dead. we living in time the strong who have more power will take in his own hand slapping the weak nations.
US and Iraq like 2 years baby treated brutally by adult. Is that enough to make some of you understand where we are standing today?
Partners in the occupation of Iraq,
Are partners in dividing and destroying.. From Butler .. De accessible to .. Barzani and Talabani
* Arab writer from Iraq
This is quite interesting. Fuelling the Bushehr reactor by Christmas.
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0808174610192825.htm
Bit less spectacular than debkafile.
With all due respect, Ms. Cobban, I must inform you of the obvious: the UN Secretary-General, whether Kofi Annan (who was unsuccessful in keeping the U.S. government from invading Iraq) or Ban Ki-Moon, does not in fact control the United Nations and/or its noble founding principles or actions. The Security Council controls and has all but destroyed the United Nations. This Security Council is dominated by the United States of America and its Western allies in what amounts to a cycle of tyranny.
It is likely that in the coming months or year or two we will see international violence on a massive scale. This will not be because Ban Ki-Moon was on vacation. The UN has virtually no role – except as enabler of violence, a polite cover for the actions of its most powerful members, the US and the west.
The forces at work here are very dark, and vastly more powerful than most suppose. Against them our familiar ‘reality’ has no substance at all.
Gerogia was full of American advisers and Israeli contractors. And not the CIA and Mossad? Is it even possible that the US and Israel did not know what was about to happen? No.
What then was the expected result?
There are apparently two more carrier battle groups headed for the Gulf. That will make four. A truly massive naval force. For what purpose, now that Russia’s cooperation on diplomatic efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue is extremely unlikely?
Ban Ki-Moon is irrelevant. Helena’s very well intentioned ideas miss the point. She assumes that peace is the desired outcome. It is not.
If you go to the UN website you will see that the Georgia conflict isn’t even mentioned, at the “News Centre” or anywhere else. Ban has made no statements. The only UN concern with Georgia, which is worthwhile, is the humanitarian crisis and sending relief supplies, making the UN a sort of expensive Red Cross.
The UN needs a strong SG who knows how to agitate world leaders for peace. I say get rid of the feckless Ban Ki-moon and get a capable, proven person in there. I nominate Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland. (I know that Frank might object, but that’s the way I feel.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Robinson
well, anonymous, shall we all pray for the gods of war, then?
at some point, UN will not be irrelevant, maybe after 10, 20 more years of mayhem and destruction, after some millions more of dead bodies, nuclear warheads flying in the skies… after that, surely world nations would like to seat down and settle…
before that, advocating for peace is not “well intentioned”, it’s the only decent thing to do
Don
Why would I object? Mary is one of the good guys.
When I was 18 I sat and listened to her bravely discussing womens rights and contraception in University College Dublin. This was the Dublin of the fearsome Archbishop John Charles McQuaid.
The last time I saw Mary was on a BBC World telecast of a session from the World Economic Forum from the Dead Sea where she and Ali Larijani and Turki al Faisal and a few others along with some colleagues of mine were gathered around a whiteboard brainstoming solutions to the Middle East’sproblems.
As I was watching it in my flat while working in Moscow for a couple of Russian ex submarine captains looking at restructuring the Russian Federation’s telecommunications networks I did realise the world has changed a lot and the language and thinking of both the Second World War and the Cold War are obsolete.
As Sir Michael Howard the historian said on the BBC a few days ago, anyone who claims to have learned lessons from history knows neither history or logic, and is just demonstrating lazy thinking.
Frank,
I was jesting — I figured you might like her.
Thanks for the background. I have never met or even seen Mary Robinson, but I am familiar with her background and I have visited Ballina, County Mayo, her birthplace. After listening to the people there talk reverently about her I feel that I have met her.