map
Our Affiliates
Listen In 28 LanguagesRFE/RL Radio
In 28 Languages

'Berlin Wall's Lessons For Today'

In an op-ed for "USA Today," Jeffrey Gedmin discusses RFE and the role of free media in societies living under repressive regimes. More
More Articles

Commentary

EU Blinks As Russia Holds Its Gaze

August 31, 2008
By Ahto Lobjakas
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (left) with French President Nicolas Sarkozy -- who will blink first?

BRUSSELS -- When the chips are down, it is everyone for themselves in the European Union -- and among its neighbors.

Although EU politicians have been vocal in their condemnation of Russia's military presence in Georgia and Moscow's recognition of the independence of Georgia's breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the bloc finds itself powerless to make a difference in the conflict. Worse, a number of EU governments openly entertained fears this week that Ukraine could be next on Russia's list.

Yet the EU remains unable to marshal what limited leverage it does have. EU ambassadors in Brussels decided on August 28 that the September 1 summit should confine itself to another "strong" condemnation of Russian actions -- and pass on to the bloc's foreign ministers and its executive European Commission the task of coming up with specific measures later this month.

According to diplomats in Brussels, the EU will on September 1 also offer aid to Georgia and assistance to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) as it struggles to send observers to Georgia.

Bernard Kouchner, foreign minister of France, the current holder of the rotating EU Presidency, briefly kindled hopes of a more forceful EU reaction when he uttered the word "sanctions" at a news conference in Paris on August 28.

"We are trying to draw up a strong text expressing our determination not to accept [violence in Georgia]," Kouchner said. "Now, sanctions are considered, of course, yes, they are considered, as well as many other means."

Too much has been read into that statement, however. All Kouchner did was to acknowledge that there could be calls for sanctions around the summit table on September 1. But these will be half-hearted at best, after leading hard-liners Poland and Britain indicated this week they will put EU unity first and refrain from divisive tactics.

Limited Means Available

The EU is at its strongest when its united, but it has no pinpoint political will -- all of its 27 member states retain their sovereignty in foreign-policy decisions. As a result, the member states' perceptions of the threat posed by Russia differ. As a rule of thumb, the farther they are from Russia, the lesser the urgency of the predicament of Georgia and other Russian neighbors seems to them.

Apart from its internal divisions, the EU is also severely hamstrung by the evident incongruity between the foreign-policy instruments at its disposal and the situation at hand.

Russia has over the past two weeks shrugged off all threats of isolation and exclusion, with President Dmitry Medvedev even suggesting Moscow views with equanimity the prospect of another Cold War.

The EU's stock responses to foreign-policy crises are geared toward expressing displeasure. This, however, accentuates the problem it is facing with Russia. "You can only say so many times that something is 'unacceptable' or 'inadmissible,'" one Brussels diplomat noted this week.

The prospect of a serious loss of face is most immediately felt in France, whose President Nicolas Sarkozy personally negotiated the cease-fire terms that committed Russia to pulling its troops out of Georgia and attending international negotiations on the future "stability and security" of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Paris now finds itself in the unaccustomed position of having to ratchet up pressure on Russia. In a speech in Paris on August 27 to foreign ambassadors, Sarkozy did just that.

"The European Union has firmly condemned Russia's unilateral decision to recognize the independence of these two territories [Abkhazia and South Ossetia]," he said. "This decision, which presupposes a unilateral change to Georgia's borders, is quite simply unacceptable."

But as Moscow has now made Georgia's dismemberment a fait accompli, there is no obvious way for the EU or its French presidency to square the circle of conducting constructive dialogue with Russia as long as the latter does not back down.

This is something that is clearly worrying Germany, the EU's largest member state and one with an immediate and historical stake in the
stability of Eastern Europe.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel did not mince words when condemning Russia's occupation of Georgia and the severing of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from the country. But she has also emerged as the de facto EU chairwoman, immersed in shuttle diplomacy to keep all sides on board.

Germany's philosophy in this impasse has been best expressed by Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier in an interview that appeared in "Sueddeutsche Zeitung" on August 28. Steinmeier said that "the task of a foreign policy is not to describe what happened." Instead, "the task of a foreign policy must be securing points of departure for making existing conflicts manageable."

Given that the EU does not, at this stage, have much leverage over Russia, its member states and neighbors who feel threatened by Moscow are left to fend for themselves. They must minimize their own vulnerabilities, and this can only be a long-term undertaking.

Most obviously, this applies to energy supplies. The German daily "Handelsblatt" quoted Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus on August 28 as ruefully acknowledging that if Russia were to turn off the oil and gas taps, "they would destroy our economy and all of the progress we have achieved over the past 18 years." Lithuania is not unique in its predicament in Eastern Europe. Steinmeier, meanwhile, can cannily point out that Germany has diversified its energy provisions "more successfully than others."

There are other weaknesses. The same "Handelsblatt" article said Estonian authorities are worried at the speed with which its Russians are taking Russian passports. Estonia and Latvia have large Russian minorities and are acutely aware of parallels with South Ossetia, where Moscow ostensibly intervened to protect Russian citizens.
     
Comments
by: Claude from: Silver Spring, MD
September 04, 2008 15:24
Twisiwile from: Mwaighogha:

The issue of Human Rights within a country is a serious issue indeed, especially in areas where both Russia and China have continually provided weapons to assist in genocides in Darfur and Serbia/Bosnia. The fact that countries do not physically invade a country, but supply the arms and logistics to supply proxies is effective in avoiding the spotlight while reaping the benefits. You attack the western countries and defend Russia, China, and “anything African”, and I am curious how much money Russia and China have spent on HIV/AIDS in Africa compared to the western countries you attack. Perhaps “human rights” does not include massive medical treatment of Africans suffering from malaria, HIV/AIDS, and high infant mortality rates in your eyes.

You mention Iraq and the response of the Coalition Countries after Saddam Hussein’s continuous violations of the terms of the cease-fire, which prevented his overthrow. Some ill-informed critics of the eventual removal of Saddam Hussein claim it was for oil, and yet the Chinese are the first country to sign a deal with the Iraqi government worth US$3 billion – the only such contract for oil signed to date. When the UN Security Council resolutions are continually violated or members are recipients of business and/or bribes to veto, what alternative solutions exist for countries? Now that Iraqis are responsible for the majority of its country’s security, life with democracy and without Saddam’s secret police and rape/torture/murder centers certainly is consistent with the United Nations charter and mission.

The world witnessed the effectiveness of Russia’s military hardware sold to Iraq when it went against US weapons systems, which was something Russia certainly wanted to avoid after the same results were seen when Israel was attacked in 1967 and prevailed against Russian hardware. It is therefore no surprise Russia attempted to blockade the deepwater port of Poti and stole American military hardware from the docks.

Russia did not just fight a two weeks war in Georgia – it invaded an independent country, killed military and civilians alike, and remain as illegal occupiers. This has nothing to do with UN resolutions or oil or human rights. It is international intimidation, premeditated theft of another country’s land, and a military escalation against all peace-loving countries. Russia was terribly embarrassed when Kosovo became independent and Russia could do nothing to help Serbia keep that independent republic, and this is Putin’s revenge.

Membership in the G8 is earned, not a right. It is a benefit to its members, and the world benefits from the G8. Mao and Hitler would not have been welcomed into the G8, just as Putin, Chavez, and other tyrants are not welcome. The G8 members work together for the benefit of the world; Russia works for the benefit of Russia. “Now which country is clean to say it will belong to the G8.” Perhaps everyone reading my response would benefit by researching the answer to your “question”.

“…the Russia were justifiable to militarily intervene when Georgia started bombing the minority ethnic groups within its disputed territory.” Using this logic, Russia, according to you, is entitled to invade and unilaterally declare war on any country on the basis of a perceived threat to ethnic groups. When did the world agree Russia’s ne role should be the Policeman of the World? When will they send their military to Darfur?

by: David Edwards from: USA
September 02, 2008 18:49
Georgia was bombed by South Ossetia first and their response was to return fire which
played right into the Russian's desires. That the war was premeditated and prepared in advance by Russia can be proved by the speed of the battle cruiser Moskova responding from Sevastopol 24 hours in advance of the Russian ground troops invasion.

If was'nt for the US all of Europe would be speaking Russian!

by: George from: Tbilisi
September 01, 2008 18:01
Dear Twisiwile,

Georgia did not start the war. It only, and very unfortunately, succumbed to repeated Russian provocations! And Russia planned the war for quite a long period, as evidence shows.

What's the evidence, you may ask? Well, evacuating nearly 3000 residents from Tskhinvali on July 30-31 - importantly, many of the evacuees were the relatives of the de-facto government.

Moreover, large-scale military training of the 58th Russian army in late July, right in North Ossetia!

In June-July special "railway forces" were stationed in Abkhazia, to repair the railroad which is practically unusable. And after the war flared up, Russian troops used this very railroad to accelerate the deployment of the troops in Kodori Gorge - the part of abkhazia that was controlled by Georgia till August 12.

Isn't it a sufficient evidence that Russia started the war?

and the stories of Georgian "atrocities" - is an old, tried-and-true Soviet-style smear campaign and propaganda!

by: Twisiwile from: Mwaighogha
September 01, 2008 13:56
I want to critique EU states who have taken a hard-line stand against Russia. Why is that the issue of territorial integrity is being highlighted more than the issue of the Human Rights of minority ethnic groups in the Georgian territory. Britain PM stated that Russia should be stripped off its membership to G8 and other big international clubs just because it fought a 2 weeks war started by Georgia. Why is it that they do not condemn Georgia for human violence ? and what about the war in Iraq started by the US and UK? Is this justifiable? What about the sovereign rights of Iraq and the worst humanitarian crisis of this century caused by this war. Now which country is clean to say it will belong to the G8. I do believe that if Brown was a rational and objective man he could have called for US and UK withdraw from the GB and other club. Then from that position he could have a legitimate voice appealing to a common sense man that Russia should follow suit.

Either , the , EU and the US should acknowledge and make a public declaration that the definition of ‘what is right’ or the ‘truth’ is in the eyes of the west. And that a justifiable war is one caused or retaliated by the West and its allies. Anything African, Chinese Russian is evil and therefore intolerable.

Though all wars are avoidable, at least the Russia were justifiable to militarily intervene when Georgia started bombing the minority ethnic groups within its disputed territory.
     
TEXT SIZE - +

Products and services:

RSSMail SubscriptionMobile