...or Tbilisi Post?
If you were running the largest newspaper in the capital city of the world's sole superpower, which foreign-policy issues would you select as your top priorities? The war in Iraq? Terrorism? Nuclear terrorism, something that could change the American way of life forever? Energy policy, which is already severely affecting many Americans' lives? If you don't like these, what about China, India, Iran, North Korea, the Middle East peace process or climate change?
The Washington Post's answer to this question may surprise you: it's Georgia (the one ruled from Tbilisi, not Atlanta). In barely more than five months since the beginning of January, Lexis-Nexis shows that the Post's editorial pages have carried at least nineteen separate contributions focused on Georgia and its relations with Russia--almost one per week--if one combines editorials (seven) and opinion pieces (twelve).[1] The vast majority of these (but not all) have the same thesis: that Georgia, under grave threat from Russia, must be rescued by the United States, usually through accelerated membership in NATO and American pressure on weak-kneed Europeans.
President Bush visiting Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili. One of the key foreign policy advisors to Senator McCain's presidential campaign, Randy Scheunemann, is a former registered lobbyist for the Georgian government. Senator McCain is also receiving advice from former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, who has publicly advocated a more conciliatory approach towards Russia
In fairness, one editorial and one opinion article are critical of Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili's heavy-handed treatment of Georgian opposition parties and two pieces--by the excellent Post columnist Jim Hoagland--are quite balanced analytical assessments. Strikingly, however, ten of the twelve opinion pieces are by the Post's own staff and columnists; only two are from outsiders and both of them (Bruce Jackson and Ron Asmus) are friendly to the editorial page's perspectives.
Is Georgia's NATO membership really such a priority for American security in the twenty-first century? I certainly do not support Russian policy toward Georgia, or Georgian policy toward Russia, for that matter, but what bearing does it have on the central strategic interests of the United States? NATO already dominates the European continent and Georgia would add no meaningful military capabilities. Georgia does host a section of an important pipeline, but a military or even political defense of the pipeline depends far more on the willingness of European governments to confront Russia than it does on Georgia's participation in NATO. And living next to Russia, rather than thousands of miles away, most Europeans are understandably reluctant to start a fight that could threaten their essential interests to ensure that Georgia rather than Russia has the predominant influence over the remote and fairly small regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I suspect that most Americans would feel the same way--after asking where they are on the map.
Click here to read the rest of the article over at The National Interest's website.
Paul J. Saunders is executive director of The Nixon Center and a former State Department political appointee in the George W. Bush Administration.
I agree, it is very strange.
Looking at it from afar, I see some kind of kooky super-ideological group-think happening in Washington on a lot of issues, from Iraq to Iran to Georgia and other places in-between.
This kookiness is all the more puzzling to me because just doesn't connect with the normal Macchiavellian realpolitik that is the normal way states conduct foreign policy.
A big element of it seems to be some sort of reluctance by the European and US military-industrial complex, and the older US intelligentsia who grew up on the easy white-hat/black-hat world-view it fostered, to let go of the Cold War.
Another seems to be a really poor appreciation of simple geography and modern world politics and economics by US political and media elites. The world is a complicated place, not a comic book.
You see this comic book view of the world expressed in the WashPost but it also shows up a LOT in the WSJ too, and most of the other US media.
I mean, realistically, Georgia is a blip on the world scene, for both the US and Russia and anyone else who might bother to take an interest. And it's internal politics are complicated and dark and quite rotten. In no way can it qualify as some sort of flag-bearer state or ideological exemplar.
Yet it gets the headlines, while meanwhile US troops are being killed every day in Iraq and Afghanistan, a subject the US media has barely taken an interest in, it seems, despite the real world deaths and trauma it is generating. Go figure.
The US should support Georgia. Saakashvili is after al put in the Georigan president seat by the US with the only one mission to make Russia look like a fool towards the west. Now the US wants Georgia into NATO so the US has even more control on Russian borders. The US is nervous about Russia getting economically better and re-establishing an healthy army. The US doesn't want to lose control over that and therefor they want all former soviet states into NATO.
The Washington post is a tool for the US government to publish untrue and ridiculous stories. Glorifying Georgia and making Russia look like a bad guy over the heads of the poor South Ossetians and Abkhaz people.
Just read the following post: http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-08-05-voa48.cfm?rss=topstories
Full of false facts. Georgia isn't a democracy. In fact Saakashvili lost the last election, but by US-magic he is still in office. Georgian citizens want to join Russia because Russia manages to give them an healthy economy. While Saakashvili puts all the money in its army so they can lick the heels of the americans in Iraq and finally take control over South-Ossetia and Abkhazia so they can join Nato.
Sam Smithson, as a Georgian I can tell you that your post is just completely absurd.
"Full of false facts. Georgia isn't a democracy."
- It IS. Sure it's not a shiny democracy like Switzerland, BUT IT IS democracy. There is free media. And the opposition. But there is a real lack of
experience. So what? It's still by far the most democratic post soviet state. excl. Poland, Latvia, Estonia, but those guys got real help from EU and US in it's time. Unlike us...
"In fact Saakashvili lost the last election, but by US-magic he is still in office."
- There where thousands of observers from many Int. organisations and country's and they all have stated that while the elections where far from perfect the results were still reflecting the real vote.
"Georgian citizens want to join Russia because Russia manages to give them an healthy economy."
- Now pardon me, but have completely no idea what the hell you are typing. Georgians want to have good healthy relationship with Russia, BUT NOT in such a way. And as for the economy, while in complete economical embargo from the Russian fed. Georgian economy is still booming like never before. Just come over here and see Tbilisi, Batumi, Signagi all are getting huge investments and the economy does move forward.
"While Saakashvili puts all the money in its army so they can lick the heels of the Americans in Iraq and finally take control over South-Ossetia and Abkhazia so they can join Nato."
- Sigh... well true to some extent, but as I can see... with such a neighbour and such "real" support from our "friends" we can sadly rely only on ourselves...
I don't think my post was absurd.
My main point was that there is no important reason why Georgia should occupy more newsprint in Washington than, say, Uzbekistan or any other FSU state - or Mauritania or Nepal, for that matter. It puzzles me why it gets the media it does.
I have nothing against Georgia. I am sure they are all nice people there. And like Russia they are an emerging democracy, and that's great too.
But I just have no real reason to care about them.
They are a small, troubled FSU state that is pretty much strategically and economically insignificant, and has no other real outstanding virtues worthy of special political attention and Washington sunshine (eg as a 'beacon of democracy in a sea of despotism' aka Israel).
They are having troubles with separatists and their neighbours, but so are about 50 other countries at the moment, big and small. Big deal.
And so like the original poster, I too struggle to understand why Georgia occupies so much Washington Post mindshare. Especially when over 120,000 Americans are fighting in wars overseas at the moment, the US economy is stumbling, and the world is otherwise going to hell in a handbasket, so there seems to be lots of other objectively more important things to focus on.
Your post, Alexander, didn't provide much answer to the puzzle.
I wanted to bring some light why everything what is happening in Georgia HAS TO BE interesting for whole world, but it does not make sense unless you can read Russian and can see by yourself what is happening in RUSSIA. One day we will all realize that we have seen it somewhere, maybe in thirties? in Europe? can be late though...
I guess Washington Post understands that.
Real issue isn't some insignificant country like Georgia obviously, but that RUSSIA took up arms. US would have the same reaction if Poland/Ukraine/Estonia were involved instead of Georgia. Despite what people say, US is OBVIOUSLY VERY concerned about Russia.
TERRORISM has always been a facade to advance our strategic interests, wherever they may be. RUSSIA is strong, so thats where the interest is. DUH!