On the other hand, and following McCain's speech, Bush's speech also tries to focus the "damaged Russia's standing in the world". It might now be as elegant as McCain's speech, but it works good enough.
We should also mention the gaffes. The first is a tribute to President's Bush ability to render everything into a more comical setting: "It now appears that an effort may be underway to depose Russia's duly elected government." Obviously, it should have been said "Georgia"! Let's hope it will not help into complicating matters further. The second gaffe is the removal of an "if". The text reads "If these reports are accurate, these Russian actions would" etc. But in his reading Bush simply eliminates the "if". On the whole these gaffes give the American speech a much more stronger tone than it was intended to have.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the gaffes is the sense of urgency of the speech. If Bush could not be allowed to lie down and rest from his trips, then it seems obvious the speech was intended to give some muscle to Kouchner and Stubb's Moscow mission tomorrow (presenting Saakashvili ceasefire pledge).
But, being this the most important reason (at least apparently), there are a few others who might be playing a part as well:
1) the upcoming elections: this speech underlies McCain's and puts it into an even better light. If Bush had not talked there could be doubts about the valor of McCain's speech, instead of that, McCain can now easily been seen as an expert who anticipated what the "national security team" would say. Besides McCain's speech is even better, by adding Nato into the mix and by its overall style. In fact Bush's speech seems designed to be poor, for instance: "Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century." (what?, was it acceptable before? and if so, what makes it unacceptable now?)
2) satellite imagery and privileged information? There must be a lot of surveillance equipment in the area (after all we are talking about a region close to Iran and Iraq and where a good deal of smuggling in weapons and forbidden technology must be checked for), this should give the US a very strong ability to monitor Russian's forces advances and numbers in a very accurate manner. Perhaps it was not only tiredness that helps to explain the absence of the "if" we pointed out before.
3) actual friendship with Georgia and past agreements and true ideals seem not to be at the root of this. We are in the "pragmatics" territory, since such ideals would have had its consequences well before. (even in Iraq)
4) A sensed division between Medvev and Putin. It is not entirely clear that these two men have the same vision for the area. Although it's Medvev that controls the army in theory, it is Putin that has been taking the front role in this crisis. The threat of sanctions might give Medvev the internal momentum to separate from Putin.
Other notes:
Obama's first serious speech about the situation is also interesting by it's backing on Saakashvili and the talking about non-military retaliatory action against Russia (WTO) and the need for further steps (UN peace keeping force). It's certainly a step forward.
Another note on Mr Putin comparison with Iraq, a comparison that certainly applies. Iraq was a much more illegal action.
«But Mr Putin said the US was wrongly viewing Georgia as the victim instead of the aggressor.
He said: "Of course, Saddam Hussein ought to have been hanged for destroying several Shia villages. And the incumbent Georgian leaders who razed 10 Ossetian villages, who ran elderly people and children with tanks, who burned civilians alive - these leaders must be taken under protection."» (source)
There is a point here, for in both cases, facts were taken out of context to the point of distorting their meaning. Now, with which moral record is Bush going to preach to Russia about self determination and people's right to non-interference when he has had such a poor record in respecting these? In fact it would seem, there is not much difference between the West and the East in their preparedness to interfere with others. But obviously, the west, in its own history and internal progression, was able to create much more open societies. So far it was unable to expand this culture either to outside nations, or even to inside individuals coming from these cultures (Muslim immigrants in the UK for instance).
In any case it is curious how the public in Russia and the West is seeing events in a similar light. In both cases there is an aggressor, with evil and strange intents, which must be stopped. War is closing by...
Here is an interesting article of opinion in a Russian news agency (more here).
A final note: no one is talking about the need to safeguard the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Amazing how we want to have control and deem it fit even when it is undesired by the controlled.
No comments:
Post a Comment