Saturday morning, President Dubya made a nice, short, statement about the conflict unfolding in S. Ossetia. S. Ossetia claimed autonomy from Georgia in 1990, because of their remaining loyalty to Moscow (under the Soviet Union, they had been "semi-autonomous" [BBC]). This has been a source of tension between Russia and Georgia, and on the 7th (friday), Georgian troops rolled into the region to try to regain sovereignty. Russian troops then responded by coming to the defense of the people of S. Ossetia, the result of which (updated on Al-Jazeera at 11:15 this morning http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2008/08/20088982119734993.html) is 1500 dead, and counting. When I got onto BBC and saw that our wonderous president had spoken this morning about the conflict, I was curious to see how he would respond. You can see the entire speech on BBC.co.uk (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7551375.stm)
First, he addressed what he called the "escalating conflict," pointing out the ""violence has endangered regional peace, civilian lives have been lost, [and] others are endangered," though he believes that "the situation can be resolved peacefully." He also commented on Russia's presence "Georgia is a sovereign nation, and its territorial integrity must be respected." As a result, "...we request an immediate halt to the violence, and a stand down of all troops... [and]we call for an end of the russian bombings and a return to the status quo." In an effort to expediate the process "...the united states is working with our european partners to launch international mediation [and] to [get the] countries to restart their dialogue," and he believes that "...Russia needs to support these efforts, so that peace can be restored as quickly as possible."
So, a little recap. The conflict is escalating, which has resulted in the deaths of at least 1500 civilian residents of S. Ossetia. Because of the continuing conflict, many other civilians are in danger of injury or death, but Dubya is hopeful that, through diplomatic dialogue, Russia and Georgia can solve this conflict peacefully. The United States is working with our European partners (the ones we have managed to maintain) to facilitate a return to normalcy for those civilians. The United States also recognizes the sovereignty of Georgia, and expects Russia to respect said sovereignty and remove their military from within Georgia's borders. Also, Russia should listen to this international mediation force and cooperate in the efforts towards peace.
All of this makes sense to me. The conflict endangers civilians, as all military engagements do, and the 1500 civilians who have died in the last three days deserve to be honored and should be recognized as a sign of the human cost of the conflict in S. Ossetia. I also believe in diplomacy and dialogue, and in using force only as the last possible option. I can understand the emphasis on national autonomy, especially after having so many conversations with so many libertarians for whom respect of autonomy was the biggest concern. I agree the the two of them can find a peaceable resolution (even though they may not both be happy with what S. Ossetia is looking for). This is why I am so angered by his comments.
Where is his concern for the 86,522 – 94,403 civilian deaths in Iraq, and the thousands of similar casualties in Afghanistan (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/) ? Why does he seem to think that increases in conflict (through "surges") is OK for us but not for them? Where was his concern for diplomacy and our "European partners" when we entered Iraq against the wishes of US citizens and the UN? And how can he possibly request that Russia should respect the autonomy of Georgia, when we have ignored the autonomy of countless countries within his time in office? His speech on the situation in S. Ossetia was just another example of the hypocrisy of the current administration, and also the hypocrisy inherent in our diplomatic policy as a country. Throughout our history, we have appointed ourselves as capable of discerning which sovereign nations deserve to be respected and which countries we, and other nations similar to ourselves, can completely disregard as sovereign.
You cannot give advice that is in direct opposition to what you yourself have done, on an international scale, and expect your words to be taken seriously.
Dear George W. Bush...
please, shut the FUCK up.
Loooove,
me
[For more information on the situation in S. Ossetia, check out these links.]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7550780.stm
http://news.smh.com.au/world/bush-calls-to-end-russian-bombing-in-sossetia-20080809-3squ.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Yes. Reminds me of a quote:
"Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival."
-Frederick Douglass
Also reminds me of an article about a book. Here's a quote from the article:
"Today, George W. Bush seeks the mantle of Goodness for his foreign and domestic policy, while at the same time trying to paint all opposition with the brush of Evil. American bombers destroy cities such as Fallujah in the name of justice and democracy, while people in the Middle East who actively resist U.S. dominance are portrayed as lacking a moral compass, driven by an Islamist ideology that runs counter to civilized social norms.
"The struggle to claim the moral high ground was in full swing during the 1930s when Leon Trotsky wrote Their Morals and Ours."
Post a Comment