I suppose I shouldn’t be so surprised to find that the default position on the left over the Georgia crisis is one of passive sympathy with Russia. Attitudes formed in the past can leave powerful legacies, after all.
I’m particularly taken by a couple of conversations over the last 24 hours. Alright, conceded a workmate from a Communist Party family background, the invasion is heavy-handed; but Georgia’s actions were a provocation and Saakashvili should have seen it coming.
Meanwhile, the former Trot union official I had a beer and a curry with last night informed me that while he felt sorry for the people of Gori, the blame for their misfortune rests entirely with their leadership.
Assorted blogosphere Stalinists and semi-Stalinists go further and take an openly pro-Soviet – sorry, I meant to say pro-Russian - line. In their eyes, Moscow’s invasion of South Ossetia and Abkhazia essentially amounts to humanitarian intervention. Not that they would ever use the term, but you see what I mean.
This is purest hypocrisy. The Kremlin is not motivated by any desire to defend Plucky Little South Ossetia and its Russian passport holders. If you want a graphic illustration of Russia’s true attitude to self-determination, remember all those pictures of the ruins of Grozny.
Its principle concern seems rather to undermine Georgia’s pro-western orientation and scupper Tblisi's chances of joining NATO, the better to further the strategic aim of securing political dominance in the energy-rich Caucasus.
It would take a peculiar kind of doublethink to designate such blatant acts of imperialism as somehow ‘anti-imperialist’, simply because the Russian game plan may cut across the interests of the US. But many leftists are more than capable of seeing things that way.
For instance, they point to the fact that Georgia’s armed forces are equipped and trained by the US, and jump from that to the conclusion that Georgia was acting as a US proxy in its initial incursion into South Ossetia. According to the semi-official online mouthpiece of Respect, the fighting thus amounts to ‘a war made in Washington’.
Such circumstantial evidence is hardly enough to establish the case. There seems no persuasive logic in the attribution of any external causality to what is essentially only the latest manifestation of tensions with deep historic roots.
None of this seeks to paint Georgia as somehow the heroic defender of democratic values, either, as Saakashvili clears tries to do an his op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:
This conflict is therefore about our common trans-Atlantic values of liberty and democracy. It is about the right of small nations to live freely and determine their own future. It is about the great power struggles for influence of the 20th century, versus the path of integration and unity defined by the European Union of the 21st.
Georgia is clearly the aggressor in this instance, and seems to have deliberately attacked Tskhinvali in the belief that the world would be otherwise engaged watching the Olympics opening ceremony on the telly.
Once, a fairly wide section of the left would have avoided lining up behind either the Russian or the Georgian ruling class, and restricted comment to a demand for the end of the fighting.
The only solution to the underlying problem is a political settlement based on the freely expressed wishes of those living in the territories concerned. That includes the right to affiliate to the Russian Federation if that is what the people wish. But vicarious cheerleading for the Red Army will not get us there any faster.
Posted at 12:10, 12 August 2008
Comments (47)
I agree that you don't have to take sides but it seems that the right is very much taking Georgia's side. To listen to Bush and co you would think the attack by Georgia never happened. There was an appalling article by Denis MacShane in the Telegraph. The strongest criticism he has of Georgia is as follows:
"To be sure, the efforts of the democratically elected government in Tbilisi to establish its control over all of its territory was clumsy."
Likewise, Paul Anderson, former editor of Tribune is recommending an article by someone called Marko Hoare who wants to send troops to Georgia.
If Russia were to go on and conquer Georgia, then there would definitely be an internationalist case against the action. As it is, their actions (including, obviously, attacking Georgian military targets outside of the disputed regions) seem consistent with securing South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia's wider strategic aims seem exactly what you say they are, and I find it hard not to see these as defensible and defensive, given the nature of US and UK imperialist aims in the region and more generally against Russia, which they are obviously not finished with yet.
There is no doubt that the bombastic - but democratically elected - Sakashvili was drawn into a careful Russian trap when he sent in troops to South Ossetia. But it should be noted that this happened when - in violation of an earlier agreement - Russian backed separatists launched an artillery bombardment on Georgian villages inside South Ossetia. When Tiblisi protested to Moscow, they were told that the attacks were launched by units "no longer under Russian control." There are reports of subsequent attrocities by Georgian troops against non Gerogian civilians in South Ossetia. There are no gounds for the left "taking sides" in this conflict. But by far the greatest danger to any kind of democratic resolution of the highly complex minorities problems in Georgia (Abkhazians, Mingrelia and Akarians) and indeed in the Causcusus as a whole is presented by the current Russian state nationalism's determination to reassert ints influence in its "near abroad".
Dave, excellent article, it touches on all of the issues, particularly that cod anti-imperialism, which characterise much of the poverty of analysis, to be found on some Left blogs.
you should do more international stuff.
Russia's wider strategic aims seem exactly what you say they are, and I find it hard not to see these as defensible and defensive, given the nature of US and UK imperialist aims
Sigh, some things never change. If there are left or right wing positions on the current crisis, I don't want to know about them.
Good article Dave, very sensible.
I was struck by this part of the comment by Ken
"given the nature of US and UK imperialist aims in the region"
Which are what? I'm curious.
Jim: it seems pretty obvious to me that the invasion of Iraq, the expansion of NATO to Russia's borders, etc etc are all about oil and strategic advantage, and in the long term reducing Russia to something less than an independent power.
Yes it's typical that Socialist Unity should support Russia. Odder that the SWP posters on their do too.
Georgia was the aggressor, but Russia is an imperialist power, have now used that stupid attack to achieve their objectives in the region. Georgia will now be disarmed, the government reduced to whatever Russia decides and Russia's power completely consolidated.
Excellent article, Dave! Agreed with it 100% (so there's your cred shot to pieces, mate). Seriously, though, can I pug the debate on this very subject currently raging over at Shiraz Socialist? There you can read the masterly comments of John G (of the SWP and Lenin's Tomb),and others, confirming everything you've written above about the "default position" of "passive sympathy with Russia", even of people who are nominally "Trotskyist". Amazing, isn't it, how these Stop the War semi-pacifists (I know they're not really, but they use pacifist arguments) suddenly think that a superpower invading a much smaller nation and bombing civilians is...well...sort of...OK?
Before the usual posters here go mad about their far left rivals hypocrisy at being "pro-Putin" look at the Lenins Tomb last posting
"While I have no more sympathy for Saakashvili than I do for Putin, the real victims of Russia's attacks will be not only the civilians cut down by their bombs, but also the Saakashvili regime's opponents, who have repeatedly bore the brunt of the state's crackdown whenever there is a flare-up of rivalry with Russia. If Saakashvili somehow survives this crisis, the opposition will probably be demolished. If Russia had effected 'regime change', the prospects for real change would probably have been even worse."
Matthew: Lenny "Seymour" Tomstone seems to have (in his latest post, from which you quote) pulled back from the stance of his earlier earlier postings(this, for instance:
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/08/putin-wins-probably.html
...which were decidedly pro-Putin, whist stopping just short of outright support. I'm glad Seymour thought better of it, and adjusted his 'line'. Perhaps he frightened himself
good article ... an interesting statement from revolutionary syndicalists in Russia on the war can be found here: http://avtonom.org/index.php?nid=1926
That nice Mr Galloway told the readers of the Daily Record yeaterday that -
"... the Russian army were an awesome sight on the march into the two breakaway Caucasus enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. All that military aid from the US and the Israelis to the Georgian army seems to have been wasted money.
"... The Russians, who have an international peace-keeping mandate in the territory, have intervened to stop the slaughter - and are denounced by Bush and Britain as the aggressors. Georgia is itself a break-away, of course, from the former USSR."
Georgia is, of course, nothing of the sort. A state formed in the 11th century, forcibly annexed by the Russian Empire in 1800, and only getting a few years of freedom in the 1920s before being engulfed again in the Soviet Empire in which it stayed unil breaking away at the end of the cold war.
Galloway, and I have no doubt many others on the "left", clearly feel the past twenty years or so have bwen a historical irrelevance and look forward to the recreation of what to them must have been the greatest empire ever.
Yes, it is one of those times to take sides, and I am proud to be on the other side of George Galloway.
I agree.
Perhaps this should be our slogan?
Neither Tiblisi nor Moscow but International Socialism?
I agree with your post completely Dave.
Perhaps this should be our slogan?
Neither Tiblisi nor Moscow but International Socialism?
whoops! never post comments from a moving train...
you may repeat yourself
Statement on South Ossetia
CWI in CIS (former Soviet Union)
As the Olympic Games in China open, attracting the attention of the world’s mass media, the conflict over the recognition of the republic of South Ossetia in Georgia exploded into open military conflict. The pro-American president of Georgia, Mikhail Saakashvilli, sent troops to attack Tskinvalli, the capital of South Ossetia, and other places, with, according to South Ossetia’s president, the loss of over 1,000 lives. At least 15 Russian “peacekeeping troops”, who were based in South Ossetia were killed. In response, Russia sent in tanks and started air attacks, not only on Georgian troops, but, according to Saakashvilli, air bases, ports and even civilian areas away from South Ossetia. Sakashvilli has now declared that Georgia is in a ‘state of war’ and is calling up reserves.
Many residents in South Ossetia will, undoubtedly, look at intervention of Russian troops as a means to defend the peaceful South Ossetia population from the aggression of the Georgian army. However, as the experience of the bloody ethnic conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere shows, the use of troops can not guarantee the safety of peaceful citizens. The Russian “peacekeeping mission” that was based in South Ossetia failed, and the current conflict threatens to pull in nearby unrecognized republics such as Abkhazia and Nagorno- Kharabakh. The Caucuses face the threat of a full scale regional war, with the possible involvement of other world powers.
The powers in both Russia and Georgia will use this conflict for their own ends. The Kremlin will blame ordinary Georgians, the Saakashvilli regime will blame ordinary Russians, and the people, who suffer, as always, will be ordinary people, Ossetins and Georgians. In the next period, there will be a new racist campaign against Georgians in Russia. But it is these very powers that are to blame for the death and destruction. These measures will be used to divide the peoples of Georgia, Russia and Southern Ossetia on ethnic lines. We must not let them defend their interests at the expense of ordinary people.
We call on all worker and left activists in Russia, Georgia and South Ossetia, and, of course, in other countries, to demand that military activities are immediately halted. Workers can not rely on the uncontrolled actions of their governments or intervention by some outside forces to solve the conflict; they can only rely on their own forces.
* For the immediate stop of military activities and the withdrawal of troops from South Ossetia
* For the right of South Ossetia, and the other unrecognized republics, to self determination without military intervention.
* For united actions by the working masses of Georgia, Russia and South Ossetia to overthrow those governments who wage war against ordinary people
* For the establishment of governments which will defend workers’ interests, overcome poverty and ensure peace in the region; for a democratic socialist federation of the Caucuses
I disagree with Galloway more than usual with regard to this one. We've got Georgian ethnic nationalism (going back to Gamsakhurdia), in response to which Ossetian separatists (irredentists?) pump up varying combinations of cultural distinctiveness into something worth fighting for. In response to that, Saakashvili and his fellow adventurists gamble on their friends in the West backing a bit of mailed-fist restoration of order; in rsponse to that, Russian imperialists looking at Kosovo and conclude that great powers can redraw the map these days (or at least that if they try to do so the US won't have the face to object). I'd condemn the Russian incursion on the same grounds that the Left condemned the Kosovo bombing campaign - those lines on the map aren't there for any reason, but they are there - but I'd condemn the rest of 'em at the same time. There are no horses worth backing here.
I'm only glad that Russia sent their "peacekeeping forces" rather than those horrible bastards they have in Chechnya. I expect they send most of their time chanting Buddist prayers and dishing out brightly coloured flowers.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that the US has "imperialist aims" in the region as an imperialist nation its aims are always imperialist - I just find it odd how the imperialist aims of Russia are somehow irrelevant to the discussion, or at least are seen as less bad in some way.
(incidentally someone mentioned a few years of "freedom" around 1920, I think they're refering to the period of the civil war when the region was occupied by British troops who were keeping it free from the revolution)
So Georgia backs an independent Basque state (viz WSJ editorial)? Autonomy for regions inhabited by minority language speakers? Does the EU concur with those aims? Does the US? Where does the US and the EU stand for self-determination inside the UK? If Kosovo should be free, why not the Basque people? The Welsh?
Aside from the fact that I'd love to see the end of "great" Britain in favor of states free from London and the aristoplutocracy, obviously the claims of both sides are just so much silly propaganda. No one can stand on principle in international politics because none of the parties have any principles.
Divide and conquer is still working very well for capital's reactionary sockpuppets (including George Galloway).
Don't take Galloway too seriously on this.
He seems to have typed the entire column with one hand, while the turrets of Russian Tanks penetrated the countryside.
Its all a bit end of the pier with George now.Still aroused from the Red advance obviously,
Here's the full page from yesterday.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/comment/columnists/lifestyle-columnists/george-galloway/
GEORGE Clooney famously said he could never run for the presidency of the United States because he had "slept with too many women, done too many drugs and been to too many parties" - a bit like myself, apart from the drugs.
George then went on to attack John Edwards for using his wife in a political campaign, lying about adultery, and referring to Edwards wifes cancer.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/comment/columnists/lifestyle-columnists/george-galloway/2008/08/11/edwards-caught-out-by-lies-and-adultery-86908-20692379/
Can anyone think of a Politician who would do such a thing?
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/575/galloway.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387286.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1501498/Former-wife-is-now-a-cancer-patient.html
Caption competition, who said;
"There has never been either a democratic, or a peaceful, or an independent, or a neutral Georgia. There was a Georgian fortress in the all-Russian class struggle. That fortress is today in the hands of the victorious proletariat."
What the fuck are you on (about), Nooman? You born-again-Stalinist?
by the way Dave
It would be rather more impressive if you could dispute with other peoples' ideas without first misrepresenting them, and using insults like "stalinist"
Andy
I don't refer to you as a Stalinist. Reread the post.
But if the cap fits ...
Now I known what the High Command's line I shall patiently defend the correct Oslerite position to the masses. In sooth it is the only rational left response.
Two points though. Don't those patriotic Georgian hyper-mouthy hysterical speakers get on yer tits, not to mention their Western misery-gut supporters? Next, has this issue reached the People - the touchstone of Marxist practice? When I was at the Waterfront Residents' Committee Meeting on Monday night. The assembled (largely) proletarian popular masses were not vexed and anxious to discuss the situation in Georgia and South Ossetia. They preferred to talk about transport issues.
Andrew
But what did the WRC have to say about the really important issue of today, viz the Matgamna-CPGB barney? Now that is important.
The WRC follows the initiative of the Tendance Coatesite Internationale (Suffolk Sealf-Dwelan Gemoot, Faction 3). It takes a stand of armed neutrality, unconditional but critical support, and calls for an international workers' Committee of Honour, Chaired by John Rees, John Ross, and Hilary Wainwright, to organise a truce until September.
It clear that the Russian intervention has dealt a huge blow to NATO expansion and with it, US global strategy. The latter no socialist can mourn. But this certainly does not mean that the Russian state is in some sense anti-imperialist. What we are witnessing is the return of traditional great power rivalry. Two kinds of opposed, but mutually re-enforcing illusions need to be scuppered. One is the widespread illusion on the liberal left about Pax Americana being a basis for the enforcement of a global human rights regime, through the mechanisms of global governance underpinned by US power. The other is the belief that we live in a unilateral world in need of 'balencing' in which powers like China and Russia will counteract US power allowing space for independent political trajectories for countries in the global south. As is argued on the Tomb the world has just become a much more dangerous place. In the west our first duty is to oppose the dangerous hegmonic ambitions of our own rulers. In Russia and elsewhere the duty of progressives is to oppose the chauvinisms of their own. But the new multi-polarity is still asymmetrical, and the driving force to war in the world today comes from our rulers. It is they, after all, who have been expanding military alliances and interventions all around the world.
Interestingly here is a British diplomat who seems to have gone AWOL:
This is a letter from the British honoury cosul in Abkhazia in the Times today:
Sir,
Writing from Abkhazia, I have to say that the western reaction to events in South Ossetia and Abkhazia presented in discussions to the UN Security Council and news channels such as CNN has been unacceptably biased.
Those, such as the US and the UK representatives of the UN and a host of commentators across the media, whose main concern seems to be the upholding of Georgia's territorial integrity and the associated removal therefrom of Russian forces should be required to answer one simple question. Since it is a logical conclusion of this position that the authorities in Tbilisi would enjoy carte blanche to shell, slaughter and displace the South Osstetians and Abkhazians (and the other minorities who live in these regions, and, let there be no mistake, other parts of Georgia), as the Saakashvili regime demonstrated to be its aim in South Ossetia on August 7th, where in the balence of principles and priorities do they place the rights of ethnic minorities, when the state in which the international community has determined that they should live has lost all moral authority by its actions over almost two decades to excercise its right to rule over them.
Professor George Hewitt
UK honoury consul for Abkhazia.
Diplomatic reshuffle in Abkhazia I imagine.
John G
So, strip out the IR jargon; would you agree with the proposition that the left should not take sides?
Socialists should take sides against their own ruling classes. Russian socialists should oppose the chauvinism and hegmonic ambition of their rulers and we should oppose NATO and EU expansion and the aggressive push east by US and Britain. Not taking sides is not an excuse for taking the side of your own sides imperialist ambition. You need therefore to be very clear in opposing them.
Well, so long as not taking one's 'own' side does not degenerate into active support for the other side, we might have agreement.
Dave,
You will *never* get a straightforward or even coherent answer from Father John G. Coughlin on this or just about any other topic (except how progressive religion is): but it's clear that even though he doesn't claim that Russia is "anti imperialist" (!!!)...he's rather pleased by what they've done in Georgia. As is his little chum and comrade Lenny "Seymour" Tombstone.
Dave,
Well if you read Lenin's tomb or SW I don't think you could find a shred of evidence that we supported Russia. I think there are two reasons why people can sound like this. The first is an awareness of ridiculous hypocrisy. Who could keep a straight face when Bush used the phrase 'disproportionate'. The second is from people who believe that we live in a unilateral world and viewed the fall of the Soviet Union as leading to endless US domination. The last five years seemed to fulfill the worst nightmares of such a prediction. I don't think holding these beliefs makes someone a monster but I think they're wrong.
What worries me rather more is the other kind of position that has been developing on some sections of the liberal left that I referred to. They would encourage us to identify with various global and european institutions of governance, in actual fact underpinned by American power, and therefore, whilst often decrying the worst excesses of imperialism, basically identify with its institutions. Its this which explains the extraordinary hypocrisy of the media coverage. Their worse excesses exist in extreme sect-like form in the AWL:
Jim,
Someone who would refuse to condemn a nuclear strike on Iran, who refuses to call for an end to the occupation of Iraq by US forces, etc, etc can hardly claim 'not to take sides' in current global conflicts. What I have said is perfectly clear. For me 'not taking sides' doesn't mean supporting the EU and NATO and condemning both Russia and Georgia equally. A position which seems to be the default position of the bourgoise media you praised in an earlier post, although you preferred in the end, an article by Robin Cook's old press secretary who effectively wanted a re-run of the cold war.
Duck and cover, Duck and cover, Duck and cover.
Are we heading for war?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7559263.stm
Ah, Father Coughlin! You've finally answered my question (over at Shiraz Socialist) re: your reference to a "neo con hawk" that you claim I quoted approvingly. By "neo con hawk" you meant, it emerges, David Clark. I hold no brief for Mr Clark but it really is a bit nutty to describe this Guardian columnist and former advisor to Robin Cook as a "neo con", let alone a "hawk". It just shows what a crazy, paranoid world you live in.
P.S: Clark's article (Graun Aug 11th) in no way argues for "a re-run of the cold war." But then, you can't read, can you? You think Sean Matgamna called for a nuclear strike against Iran!
No Jim. The article is neo-con politics through and through. I've just seen Bush's speech. He'll kill us all. And you support this crap. No war with Russia. No American troops in Georgia. No British support for American troops in Georgia. If you don't support these slogans you'll kill us all with your stupid crap.
I note JohnG doesn't mention Russian troops in Gori.
Why should he.
Like Russian troops in Gori is in any way as significant as what JohnG is talking about!
Actually, on that specific point (Gori) I'm far more concernned about the local and regional militias (Ossetian, Chechen and Cossack) in and around Ossetia than Russian troops. If the Russians are not patrolling Gori (abandoned by the Georgian army) they should be, to keep these militias in check.
"If you don't support these slogans you'll kill us all with your stupid crap": father John G. Coughlin has fianally gonr completely mad. As well as making it clear that, in reality, he *does* support Putin's imperialism.
Haven't we been here before?
power politics between massive states, the quest for resources and using national/ethnic disputes to engineer conflicts?
seems a bit silly not to notice Putin's power plays for what they are? exerting control over neighbouring states, spheres of influence and ultimately control of natural resources
Yes we have been here before. 1914. Presumably Jim Denham would be backing plucky little Belgium. How he concludes I support Putin I have no idea. I am against a war. He is clearly backing Washington and suggesting that anyone who doesn't is backing Putin. The standard AWL line.
modernity: seems a bit silly not to notice Putin's power plays for what they are? exerting control over neighbouring states, spheres of influence and ultimately control of natural resources
Quite so. And recognising the same on the US side is 'cod anti-imperialism'.
Ken, you old conspiracy theorist, fancy imagining that the global hegemon is concerned with anything else then standing up for civilized values and decency. Isn't it about time that socialists dropped all critical analyses of US foreign policy and simply quite properly supported the extension of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to the Black Sea in order to ensure the spread of global democracy?
How can anyone speak using such old fashioned terms as 'imperialism'? Especially given that the last six years have surely demonstrated definatively that such talk is old hat? Think of all the good work thats been done bringing peace and democracy to some of the most unlikely places! For goodness sake lets move fowards into the 21st century and fight the good fight against Soviet Totalitarianism.
You know it makes sense.
(this message has been bought to you by duck and cover productions. Next week: Campaign for Nuclear Disarmenment: Lets bomb Iran).
Ken wrote:
"Quite so. And recognising the same on the US side is 'cod anti-imperialism'."
I thought that the motives of the US ruling elite were bleeding obvious? not much different from the Russian ones, which in turn is not that dissimilar from the British, etc
still I'd suggest that 'cod anti-imperialism' is not even that,
Rather it seems mostly to be a lazy form of anti-Americanism without much political content no dialectic, no complexities, no interactions, vulgar, no depth. Trying to reduce everything to a slogan.
but it has its fans, as it doesn't require too much thinking, no sense of history is required and you can jettison four decades of thought without worry.
still you'd have to ask a cod anti-imperialist to get their real views, that's only what I see from afar and I might be wrong :)
So you are opposed to US imperialism then Modernity, but in a complex way? What form does this opposition take? Exposing complexity?
So, Johng,
Which Mafia gang do you prefer? Do you take sides in gangland wars as well?
Personally, I oppose gangsterism by opposing gangsters, but maybe I should back the Bonannos against the Luccheses?