Georgia: More grandstanding?


Posted by Helena Cobban
August 13, 2008 10:22 PM EST | Link
Filed in US foreign policy

If the situation in Georgia weren't so tragic, it would be pretty amusing to see George W. Bush now posing as the guardian and gatekeeper of international legitimacy. In his statement in the Rose Garden today, he prissily lectured the Russians that,

    Russia has sought to integrate into the diplomatic, political, economic, and security structures of the 21st century. The United States has supported those efforts. Now Russia is putting its aspirations at risk by taking actions in Georgia that are inconsistent with the principles of those institutions. To begin to repair the damage to its relations with the United States, Europe, and other nations, and to begin restoring its place in the world, Russia must keep its word and act to end this crisis...
All of which would have a lot more force if Bush had positioned himself over the previous 7.5 years as a staunch respecter and defender of the world's multilateral institutions and their key organizing principles...

As it is, given the extreme constraints at both the logistical and the political levels on the Bush administration's ability to respond militarily to Russia's undoubted excesses in Georgia, all Washington is able to do is organize some airlifts of humanitarian supplies into Georgia.

As for Georgia's intemperate president, Mikheil Saakashvili, he briefly claimed today that this airlift meant that the US would be taking over his country's ports and airports. Yesterday, he had told CNN that the Russians were about to encircle his his capital. He said (once again) that the whole fate of world democracy was imperiled in his country, while he also blamed "the west" for letting his countrymen down.

Perhaps all those attempts at moral blackmail were intended to cover up for his own extreme lack of forethought in having provoked the Russian response with his military assault on South Ossetia last week?

In the event, little of Saak's blackmail worked. The Pentagon was quick to "shoot down" the suggestion its forces were about to take over Georgia's ports and airports. The the airlift to Tbilisi is being described as "continuous and robust"-- but it will also apparently be strictly limited to humanitarian supplies. (I note that many items useful in humanitarian relief ops are also dual-use as basic military items; but at a certain level of military materiel, including all forms of weaponry and ammunition, these items have no reasonable "humanitarian" purpose.)

And while we're looking at people seeking to use the present crisis for purposes of political grandstanding, top of that list must be Sen. John McCain, who is reportedly despatching two of his key advisers, Sens. Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, to Georgia.

I find this outrageous. The foreign policy of the country is supposed to be run by the President, and it can only considerably complicate the delicate task Bush faces in doing this if either of the candidates seems to be running his own foreign policy separate from that of the president.

Bush should rein in McCain and his Senatorial wingmen, in no uncertain terms.

(Imagine the uproar if Obama announced that her was sending his own personal envoys to Georgia to deal with the situation there!)

It is also, of course, extremely relevant that McCain's key foreign-policy adviser Randy Scheunman was until very recently a paid lobbyist for the Georgian president.

Another question: Though Lieberman and Graham are working as high-level advisers to the McCain campaign, they are also members of the US Senate in their own right. So if they do travel to Georgia in the days ahead, will they do so as Senators or as McCain campaign people?

It is all so very murky that they would do a lot better just not to go.



Comments
Comment from... Ted Rudow III,MA, at August 13, 2008 11:48 PM:

The U.S. is just used to having things its own way, and its leaders don't like people and nations who won't let them do what they want, when they want to do it, so they do all they can to paint them as the bad guys, since they consider themselves the good guys! And most of the mainstream media go right along with them, repeating the same government line and pumping out the same propaganda.
Well, no one likes a bully. He may be feared, but he's not popular on the school grounds, much less in international affairs. The U.S. has become the sort of bully that it used to accuse the Russians of being, trying to bully Russia and picking on other nations when it can get away with it's usually weak little nations that can hardly fight back, like Afghanistan and Iraq.

Comment from... John R, at August 13, 2008 11:57 PM:

Senators missing a chance to Grandstand....?

Any attention of this terrible aggression on the world stage and domestic stage is a net posative.

The USA is not to blame for this, the victums deserve better. Too many people are being killed for totally avoidable reasons.You should emphasize this more in your text.

Comment from... Orin T., at August 14, 2008 10:36 AM:

Move alone nothing to see here - just regime change being affected under the Monroesky Doctrine!

Comment from... Don Bacon, at August 15, 2008 11:20 PM:

HC: "The foreign policy of the country is supposed to be run by the President."

Really? Where does that come from? There is nothing in the US Constitution that says that domestic policy is the responsibility of the Congress and foreign policy is the privy of the President.

Here's Senator Wayne Morse on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiLV-Xeh8bA

Recent Posts on JWN
• The Color of Iran's Elections (15)
• George Mitchell is doing what?? (24)
• Does Obama understand Israel's war goal in Iran? (81)
• Newsweek: "Everything you know about Iran is Wrong" (16)
• Closing Gitmo: The Abe Lincoln solution (18)
• Iran Politics: It's the foreign policy, stupid. (12)
• IPS piece on Turkey's role in region, world (35)
• Transit systems, Turkey (2)
• More on 'natural growth' in settlements (1)
• Thinking on Iran decision-making (9)
• Why Israel's 'natural growth' claim is dishonest: Four reasons (3)
• Abbas losing support from Fateh (10)
• Open Thread, Istanbul, London (16)
• My IPS piece on Netanyahu's big meeting with Obama (23)
• Uzi Arad in Washington (9)
• Uzi Arad and other aspects of Netanyahu's Washington visit (33)
• After Hamas's Hudna, what? (9)
• Dayton on his Palestinian army's prospects (9)
• An informed view of Hamas policy (14)
• J. Cook on the Pope in Nazareth (10)
• Meshaal on the Palestinian state alongside Israel; Nunu on the tahdi'eh (0)
• Meshaal: the longer NYT text, and a question about Haaretz (4)
• Palestine/Bantustans (3)
• On Qatar and Sheikha Mozah (11)
• Palestine: The archipelago 'map', spaciocide, etc. (14)
• My piece in The Nation on Hamas (2)
• Obama and Israel's nukes (8)
• Advancing Security and Opportunity -- US Style (5)
• White House (still) guiding Middle East policy (13)
• Mondoweiss tweets AIPAC (10)
• US MSM and Latin America (5)
• NYT interviews Meshaal (5)
• Discussing Hamas with Allister Sparks (41)
• New reports on press and other freedoms (7)
• Some notes from UNESCO klatch, Doha (9)
• Another Scary Terror Report (11)
• The Year of the Ox II (7)
• IPS piece on Lebanon (9)
• Hariri court orders generals' release; case in disarray (6)
• Obama opens timid discussion with Congress on Hamas (6)
• Netanyahu and the 'Palestinian state' card (12)
• China Hand on the bleak prospects for the US in Afghanistan (4)
• 'Sensitive' developments in Saudi Arabia? Succession-related? (5)
• Videos from the recent Georgetown University CCAS conference (0)
• More dishonest argumentation from the WaPo's Hoagland (12)
• Ahmadinejad: "Whatever decision they (Palestininians) take is fine with us" (13)
• Destruction of mosques in Israel after 1948 (12)
• IPS piece on coming Obama-Netanyahu spat (27)
• On bank governance: A modest proposal (11)
• Sort of catching up here (5)