History
South Ossetia is a region in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia that is slightly smaller than the State of Rhode Island. Though few Americans have heard of South Ossetia, recent developments in this region have serious implications to US foreign policy.
South Ossetia has had close ties to Russia for nearly two centuries. When the Russian Empire expanded into the region in 1801, Ossetians sided with the Russians and continued their support when the Bolsheviks forcibly incorporated Georgia (a de facto independent state itself following the Russian Revolution) into the Soviet Union. Perhaps as a reward, the Soviets established the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast (i.e. District) in 1921, giving South Ossetians a degree of control over their internal affairs not normally afforded to most regions of the Soviet Union.
Following the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1989, South Ossetia was stripped of many of the privileges it had as a de facto independent state. Conflict broke out as South Ossetians asserted their claims to the region and Georgia was forced into a cease-fire by Russian involvement in the conflict. In 2006, South Ossetians voted almost unanimously to preserve their de facto independent status.
If history makes anything clear, it is that there is a clear mandate from South Ossetians to be free from Georgian rule. Most South Ossetians have official Russian citizenship. The official currency of the (de facto government of the) Republic of South Ossetia is the Russian Ruble. Every indicator makes it obvious that South Ossetians have no desire to be governed by Georgia.
Enter the Conflict
Most Americans are surprised to learn that Georgian troops represent the third largest contingent of coalition forces in Iraq. The Georgian contingent has the vital role of policing Iraq's border with Iran to prevent infiltration of insurgents and weapons. However, recent fighting in Georgia has led Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili to plan the withdrawal of all his nation's troops from Iraq. Although Georgia's 2,000 troops are barely 1% of total coalition forces in Iraq, they represent almost 10% of non-US forces, lending their withdrawal increased moral significance.
But it does not end there.
The conflict in South Ossetia puts the United States in an awkward position. The United States has already been having trouble thawing frigid relations with Russia. Georgia is an ardent US ally, but not particularly strong politically or militarily. It could be suggested that Georgia, foreseeing potential unrest in South Ossetia, has been attempting to curry US favor with its involvement in Iraq. The question is if the US will be willing to make more than vague gestures of solidarity with Georgia with the Russian army invading the region and forcing Georgia into a cease-fire.
An Unsustainable Foreign Policy
So what is the lesson from all of this? I can think of two.
The first is the value of non-intervention. By initiating an unnecessary conflict in Iraq, the US tied its hands, forcing it to align itself with governments it probably not ought to. We have all heard the expression, "Politics makes for strange bedfellows" and international politics is no exception. Now a nation given birth by rebellion and secession (from the British Empire) is coerced by obligation into supporting a nation that is forcibly preventing the self-governance of its people. This could be expanded to numerous totalitarian regimes the US has supported along the way to include Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, and any number of Latin American despots.
A foreign policy of oppression is almost always guaranteed to backfire and reap consequences far greater than the troubles such intervention was initiated to relieve. Thomas Jefferson outlined the most sustainable US foreign policy with the words, "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." Unfortunately US foreign policy has become decidedly more complicated in the last 200 years.
If the US were to take the moral high ground, it would recognize the right of the South Ossetians to break away from Georgia in much the same way it recognized the right of Kosovars to break away from Serbia. Instead, it is likely to adopt the morally corrupt, unsustainable policy of Georgian political hegemony over South Ossetia, albeit in the absence of any diplomatic or material support for Georgia. In either case, the US loses. On one hand, we betray an ally; on the other hand, we betray the spirit of Liberty that gave birth to our nation.
Lessons in Secession
The second lesson is the right of secession. Few would argue that people have a right to govern themselves, but for some reason many people are opposed to a people breaking away from a larger political entity to govern themselves.
Make no mistake, secession is a good thing. It allows groups of people to dissolve political ties with entities that do not have the best interests of the region in mind – if they did, there would be no point in seeking secession.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union is an excellent example of both the benefits of secession and the drawbacks of the empire state seeking to exert its control over a particular region. When the Soviet Union disbanded, it led to a collection of independent states that are, more or less, at peace with each other. One can only imagine the disaster that would have occurred had the Soviet Union crushed every rebellion that arose in the wake of the collapse of Communism. Russia made a wise choice and, in the end, has benefited more from tolerance and cooperation than from direct military intervention with its former member Republics, proxy conflicts notwithstanding.
When secession is the right choice is another discussion for another time. The lesson from the disbanding of the Soviet Union, South Ossetia, the former Yugoslavia, the former Czechoslovakia, and any number of Empire States to include the UK, is that self-rule benefits all parties. The benefits of being in a Union should outweigh the costs.
Anything less is tyranny.
©2008 Lojiko, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Saturday, August 9, 2008
Last modified: Saturday, August 9, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of Lojiko only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Lojiko is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Lojiko of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Lojiko |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Andreas Berg
Date: 2008-08-09 17:20:46
This conflict has been started by Georgia using military force against its breakaway province. Russia has responded militarily that to protect its peacekeepers and citizens. I do not think that USA as well as Australia are in position to judge Russia after their own unlawful invasion into Iraq, which presents much less excuse. It is sad that our country Australia joins USA in using double standards. While, certainly, peaceful solution of this conflict is the only way to go, it is doubtful that the USA and Australia possess moral right for judgement.
Posted By: Jeff Bradshaw
Date: 2008-08-10 16:25:56
Russia is just using this for a power play. Just remember they have forced Chechnya to stay under their rule.