What is happening in the republic of Georgia is all too reminiscent of
what happened back in 1956, when Russian tanks rolled into Hungary--
and the West did nothing.
An argument might well be made that, realistically, there was nothing
the West could have done-- then or now-- that would have forced the
Russians out.
But there was bitterness, then as now, that the West may have
encouraged people to risk their lives, relying on us, when we knew from
the outset that we were not about to risk armed conflict with a nuclear
superpower over Hungary then or Georgia now.
The West has a long history of doing nothing, utilizing the United
Nations, and before that the League of Nations, to create the illusion
that they are doing something, when they make speeches and pass
resolutions.
Neither speeches nor resolutions are going to make any difference to
the Russians, to the Iranians or to any other belligerent nation. We
know it, they know it and the world knows it.
Apparently Barack Obama doesn't yet know it, judging by his initial
response to news of the Russian invasion of Georgia, which was to call
on "both sides" to cease fire and then go to the U.N.
Later he changed his position to correspond to John McCain's more
grown-up position that Russians have to pay a price if we expect them
to change their behavior.
The real question is whether we can force the Russians to pay a serious
price without ourselves paying a more serious price than we are
prepared to pay. The Russians have already pointed out that the United
States needs their cooperation on international problems.
These problems include the war on terrorism and perhaps the biggest
problem of them all, Iran's movement toward building nuclear weapons
that can be used either directly by Iran or-- more likely-- by turning
some of these nuclear bombs over to terrorists whom Iran has been
supplying with other weapons.
There are two problems: (1) What are we going to do? and (2) What are
we going to say?
There are lots of things we can do, if we don't care about the
repercussions-- but of course we do care. The only thing we have
complete control over is what we say.
We have been saying far too much already, especially in proportion to
what we were prepared to do. This is a problem that began long before
this administration. Sometimes it has seemed as if our foreign policy
is to speak loudly and carry a little stick.
American presidents, through several administrations, have been
publicly commenting moralistically on the internal affairs of other
countries around the world.
We have been criticizing friend and foe alike. Sometimes we have
sounded like the world's nanny.
This has been more than a bad habit. Our nagging our friends and
irritating our enemies has produced remarkably few benefits to anyone
and much ill-will among countries whose cooperation we either have
needed or will need.
Our butting into things that are none of our business has taken the
form of actions as well as words. Extending NATO right up to the
borders of Russia has been one of those feel-good actions, much like
our feel-good moralizing to other countries.
Are we really prepared to go to war with Russia if they send troops
into Latvia, a NATO member next door to them and thousands of miles
away from us?
Some people seem to think that, if we had already included Georgia in
NATO, Russia would not have attacked. But what if they attacked anyway?
Would we have done any more than we are doing now?
Would that have protected Georgia or would our inaction have just
brought the reliability of our protection of other NATO countries into
question?
If anything, we ought to be thinking about pulling out of NATO
ourselves. European countries already have the wealth to produce their
own military defense. If they do not have the will, that is their
problem. What American officials can do is keep their mouths shut if
they don't intend to back up their words.
