Mark Ames has a balanced account of the various issues and sources of conflict in Georgia and South Ossetia. He notes that the Western Media have largely ignored the Ossetians, their beefs with the Georgians, their treatment in Georgia’s initial campaign of bombardment, and their mutually exclusive appeals to justice that are in direct conflict with those of the Georgians. The following passage is particularly insightful:
At the root of this conflict is a clash of two twentieth-century guiding principles in international relations. Georgia, backed by the West, is claiming its right as a sovereign nation to control the territory within its borders, a guiding principle since World War II. The Ossetians are claiming their right to self-determination, a guiding principle since World War I.
These two guiding concepts for international relations–national sovereignty and the right to self-determination–are locked in a zero-sum battle in Georgia. Sometimes, the West takes the side of national sovereignty, as it is in the current war; other times, it sides with self-determination and redrawing of national borders, such as with Kosovo.
Subscribe To This Feed
“Particularly insightful”? Eh. First of all, “national” (he means “state”) sovereignty is more a 16th-19th century principle than a 20th century one, which is the whole problem.
Second, this contradiction between national self-determination and state sovereignty, and consequently the possibility of appealing to one or the other depending on your interests, has been noted as far back as (I’m estimating here) about five minutes after the principle of self-determination was formulated.
Third, Ames’s “concentric David and Goliath narratives” are nothing special either. It’s just a relatively powerful irredentist state supporting “self-determination” in a weaker state.
I thought it was pretty good and clear, if not novel.
And while the principle of the integrity of borders may be old, the idea that there is something inherently objectionable with changing them by force is very 20th Century, as evidenced not least by WWII and the Gulf War.
The overlay of popular nationalism is the important factor at work then and today that makes sovereign states’ claims more resonant and less amenable to compromise than in, say, the 18th Century. Today it’s not just the king who is concerned with losing territory but the whole people guided by their own nationalism and fear of being ruled by strange and hostile peoples.
It is a pretty basic observation, which makes it all the more strange that it gets so little acknowledgment.
Does anyone understand why we are so inconsistent on this point?
Mr Roach, this is a little off topic, but are you still writing for Taki Mag? Would be a shame if we did not see any more of your essays there.
No mas. It was a reasonably amicable breakup as far as these things go, but I think the Bathhouse Conservatives had enough of me.
Roach-
Having read your posts and politics for some time, including at Chi/Law, I’d recommend that you visit this site, below. Worth a glance, anyway.
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/
-resh
That is not good news to me at all. I thought you were one of the best writers there.
I appreciate the support gentleman. Well, I’ll still be writing here and do my best to keep up the good work.
Bathhouse Conservative or Paleo Lib or are they the same thing? Taki Mag got alot less interesting.
Chris (Mr. Roach) I missed you at Takimag.
What is a “bathhouse conservative” ???
“These two guiding concepts for international relations–national sovereignty and the right to self-determination–are locked in a zero-sum battle in Georgia. Sometimes, the West takes the side of national sovereignty, as it is in the current war; other times, it sides with self-determination and redrawing of national borders, such as with Kosovo.”
–Mark Ames
Regarding this issue; the US, UK and the EU
lost any credibility they had on the world
stage with the recognition of an independent
Kosovo. Not to mention the invasion of Iraq
(the US and the UK).
{Afghanistan is another matter UBL was
living in Afghanistan and the “government” was (and maybe still is…)non-existent.
The “country” is the graveyard of Empires”}
Russia is building a causway to the Crimea (“for erosion control”) Georgia is a practice run.
Obviously the Russians aren’t going to
“give back” S. Ossetia and Abkhazia. We would be wise to encourage Georgia to forget about NATO membership and encourage EU membership.
Perhaps we should encourage many Georgian students to come to the USA on scholarships.
The uber-nationalistic (ethnic) agenda of Georgia’s president is an ugly sight to see.