 |
War and Peace by Shlomo Ben-Ami |
 |
Crossing Cultures by Ian Buruma |
 |
 |
 |
The Statesmen's Debate by Castaneda, Haass, Rocard |
 |
Anatomy of the Global Economy by J. Bradford DeLong |
 |
Net World by Esther Dyson |
 |
The Rebel Realist by Joschka Fischer |
 |
Capitalism Then and Now by Harold James |
 |
The Peacemaker by Richard Holbrooke |
 |
Global Warning by Bjorn Lomborg |
 |
European Observer by Dominique Moisi |
 |
Of Might and Right by Joseph S. Nye |
 |
History in Motion by Chris Patten |
 |
Roads to Prosperity by Dani Rodrik |
 |
The Unbound Economy by Kenneth Rogoff |
 |
Economics and Justice by Jeffrey D. Sachs |
 |
 |
Finance in the 21st Century by Roubini, Shiller |
 |
The Ethics of Life by Peter Singer |
 |
 |
Transatlantic Perspectives by Feldstein, Sinn |
 |
I Dissent: Unconventional Economic Wisdom by Joseph E. Stiglitz |
 |
Against the Current by Robert Skidelsky |
 |
Awakening India by Shashi Tharoor |
 |
The Next Wave by Naomi Wolf |
PARIS – At the very moment China was getting a “gold medal” in diplomacy for the success of the opening ceremony in Beijing, Russia earned a “red card” for the extreme and disproportionate violence of its military intervention in Georgia. Whereas China intends to seduce and impress the world by the number of its Olympic medals, Russia wants to impress the world by demonstrating its military superiority. China’s soft power versus Russia’s hard power: the two countries’ choices reflect their very different levels of self-confidence.
China may play the victim versus the West, but its leaders know that their country is back on the world scene at a level that they deem appropriate and legitimate. Of course, domestically, China’s leaders lack confidence and behave accordingly towards their citizens. Yet, as China takes minuscule steps forward, Russia takes giant steps backward.
For many years now, Georgia and Russia have been playing with fire, and war in the Caucasus looked preordained. Each side was waiting for a false move by the other to play its hand.
It is more than likely that the young and impulsive Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili fell into the trap that he had helped to create. He wanted to demonstrate to his Western partners that Georgia needed NATO protection from Russia, and that accession was therefore urgent.
Regardless of whether some in the United States encouraged Saakashvili, he did not expect – but he should have – the “hyper-charged” reaction from Russia. For it is clearer than ever that Vladimir Putin is still in charge. The opportunity that Saakashvili presented to him to signal to the world Russia could no longer be humiliated was simply too tempting.
Well aware of Russia’s emergence as a growing energy super-power, of the relative weakening of US clout and determination, of Europe’s deep divisions between pro-Russians, such as Germany and even more so Italy, and anti-Russians (mostly from the EU’s newest members in eastern Europe), and of the United Nations’ paralysis owing to Russia’s veto power, the Kremlin is sending a strong message to the world: “the time for concessions is over.” For the Kremlin, it is likely that South Ossetia and Abkhazia would remain under formal Georgian sovereignty only if the country did not join NATO.
Yet Russia, like Saakashvili, is playing with fire: its strategy of encouraging separatist forces in the two Georgian provinces may inflame separatist tendencies in other parts of the Russian Federation (remember Chechnya?). Moreover, Russia is unnecessarily isolating itself from the world.
Above all, this crisis confirms the new hierarchy of powers that now exists in the world. In this new world, China and Russia are back and America, though still on top, is declining. As for Europe, while the European Union mediates, in doing so it is also demonstrating the limits of its influence.
The EU is truly “convincing” only when it can use the seductive power of a membership card. But Russia is not interested in joining, at least not on Europe’s terms. Russians are well aware that Americans want their help in the Middle East; on other issues, they listen to Europe and America with a stance oscillating between indifference and brutality.
In the Caucasus, everyone is losing, though some more than others – foremost the civilians who have lost their lives or homes. Then comes the Georgian government, which has demonstrated its immaturity, if not irresponsibility. A lamb, after all, does not provoke a bear. But Russia, too, has unnecessarily damaged its international image. The Kremlin did not need such a display of unrestrained force and brutality to prove its case. China, in comparison, now looks like a respectable partner.
As for the West, it is confronted with a dilemma. Can it reward Georgians for the leaders’ irresponsibility by rushing the country into NATO? On the other hand, can it afford to grant Russia the de facto right to control, directly or indirectly, countries like Georgia today and Ukraine tomorrow?
The current crisis in the Caucasus does not mark the return of the Cold War, nor is it likely to mark the start of open warfare between Russia and the West; it is, more simply, the return of the traditional imperialism practiced by the Russian Empire more than a century ago.
China is, with the exception of Tibet, a satisfied and confident status-quo empire. Russia by contrast is a revisionist imperialist power, whose lack of self-confidence is returning to haunt the world.
Dominique Moisi, a founder and Senior Advisor at Ifri (French Institute for International Relations), is currently a Professor at the College of Europe in Natolin, Warsaw.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2008.
www.project-syndicate.org
@ SergeKli ,
Well said,
Thank you !
It is a very disturbing development when supposedly brightest minds out there who shape the mentallity of the modern Europe resort to such meaningless, pointless and abstract expressions of their flawed views of world affairs. The flow of thoughts presents a chaotic picture of Paris metro in a rush hour.
There were at most only two solid ideas mentioned in the article - the rest was a literary exercise in fashionable speech. Red card, gold medal, good, bad - who really cares what kind of associations one guy can make?
Putin is in charge - so what?! Most Russians want him to be in charge - otherwise the country would have slid into the hands of oligarchs or American oil magnates, completely disintegrated or reached unimaginable to average Russians poverty. Above all he was almost anonymously voted for in the Parliament. People are proud to have such a leader, even if the mockery of the Prisidency is being made. The will of the whole country is behind his will. Simply state that Russians are a bunch of bear cubs who are afraid to see that political injustices that are taking place across the globe under the US initiative will slip into the territory of the Russian Federation.
And above all will there be at least one prominent figure who can speak out loud of the idiocy of Europe's support of American invasion of Iraq - the most powerful millitary nation of the world was afraid of the ghost of Saddam, unlawful break up of Serbia, and in this context of Saakashvilli's full scale millitary operation to "install constitutional order" in a sleeping little town that left tens of thousands of civilians misplaced and a couple of thousands dead? Has it occurred to anyone that we have witnessed too many disproportional outbursts of power lately? Or is it just the question of reducing the bear to a goat? How could Russia damage its international image is beyond my grasp! Maybe, the international community stopped playing by the international rules and started blaming honest players for following the doctrine of "mutual respect"? Come on, people, get real. Your absurdity stinks volumes.