Let’s play a game called semantics

As a Salon.com article recently pointed out, regardless of whether or not Russia’s unilateral action against Georgia was justified, it is clear that certain precedents facilitated such a move.

Russia assaulted Georgia with a devastating blitz of air power and ground forces to not only retake the province of South Ossetia but to “shock and awe” Georgia and pound it into submission. Russia did not go through the U.N. Security Council to approve its actions, ignored international protestations against them, and has used the situation to extend its influence in an important strategic region. Russia has leveled claims of genocide and war crimes against Georgia’s president and are quietly talking about a need to remove him from power. Any of this sound familiar?

An emboldened Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin sarcastically likened Russia’s actions to Bush’s foreign policy. Pointing to the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Putin said, “Of course, Saddam Hussein ought to have been hanged for destroying several Shiite villages … And the incumbent Georgian leaders who razed 10 Ossetian villages at once, who ran over elderly people and children with tanks, who burned civilians alive in their sheds — these leaders must be taken under protection.”

While Putin’s cynicism is a bit over the top, the Salon.com piece correctly highlights that after the War in Iraq, the United States’ right to criticize unilateral military action has been rightly called into question.

Rather than focus on the War in Iraq, however, I would take it a step further. The American reaction to the the Georgian conflict in both government and the press almost perfectly mirrors the Russian reaction to NATO’s 1999 military intervention in Serbia. Concretely, these two conflicts are nearly identical, the difference — semantics.

Serbia in 1998-99 was waging a bloody campaign to fight Albanian separatists in Kosovo. NATO began a massive bombardment campaign of Serbia targeting not only military targets, but bridges, television stations and telecommunication centers, all designed to force a Serbian withdrawal of Kosovo. Slobadan Milosevic was detained at the Hague under investigation for war crimes in the bloody campaign against Albanians. NATO then occupied Kosovo, and pushed through its independence, violating international law and bringing about fierce condemnation from Serbia and Russia for ignoring Serbia’s sovereign territorial integity.

On August 7, Georgia violated a cease-fire to retake the separatist region of South Ossetia, killing 1,500-2,000 civilians, and possibly (though unconfirmed), 10 Russian peacekeepers with shelling overnight. Russia responded by pushing into Georgia with tanks and infantry accompanied by an air campaign to cripple the Georgian military and infrastructure. Russia is now pushing an investigation of war crimes against Saakashvili for the surprise assault on South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali, which caught civilians totally off-guard and unable to evacuate. Russia continues to occupy South Ossetia and Abkhazia, claiming they should be granted independence as well, despite fierce condemnation from the United States and NATO for ignoring Georgia’s sovereign territorial integrity.

Granted some of the information above is disputed, and we won’t know the whole story until weeks or months from now. It remains to be said, however, that when NATO attacks a country it’s “military intervention,” when Russia does the same thing it’s an “invasion.” When our opponent is a popular, but not-quite-democratic leader, he’s a “nationalist dictator,” when Russia’s opponent is the same, he’s a “pro-Western democratically-elected president.” When NATO extends it’s influence by literally creating bases and allies within pro-Russian anti-Western countries, we’re spreading democracy. When Russia does that to anti-Russian pro-Western countries they are “aggressively conquering, and stamping out democracy.”

My point here is not to advocate for Russia, or suggest that Russia is even necessarily right in this conflict. I merely seek to point out the spin and hypocracy of the American position in the matter. Involving ideology in these matters is a smoke-screen. Georgia is barely if at all more democratic that Russia is, it is, however, pro-Western. What all this amounts to is vying for influence and allies between NATO and Russia where neither side is righteous, both are simply competing.

By all means, make your own judgment about Russia and NATO’s involvement in these conflicts, but do not be fooled by tricks of word choice. It’s all a game. A game called semantics.