Department of "Huh?"

Tom "Airmiles" Friedman writes a column:

[S]ince we had finally brought down Soviet communism and seen the birth of democracy in Russia the most important thing to do was to help Russian democracy take root and integrate Russia into Europe. Wasn’t that why we fought the cold war — to give young Russians the same chance at freedom and integration with the West as young Czechs, Georgians and Poles? Wasn’t consolidating a democratic Russia more important than bringing the Czech Navy into NATO?...

No, said the Clinton foreign policy team, we’re going to cram NATO expansion down the Russians’ throats, because Moscow is weak and, by the way, they’ll get used to it. Message to Russians: We expect you to behave like Western democrats, but we’re going to treat you like you’re still the Soviet Union. The cold war is over for you, but not for us...

Clive Crook says that Friedman is pretty much wrong:

FT.com | Clive Crook’s blog | Friedman and Ignatius on Georgia: I don’t think we fought the cold war to give young Russians freedom, actually, but put that aside.

The risks of humiliating Russia after the Wall came down were perhaps given too little weight. The dilemma was certainly understood by advocates of Nato enlargement, and there were attempts at outreach through various forms of partnership between Russia and and the alliance, though perhaps this seemed like adding insult to injury. But bear two other points in mind. One, Nato was not enlarged all the way, out of concern for Russia’s reaction: Ukraine and Georgia have been sort of promised membership, but with no timetable. Two, the question was, what were we to say to Poland, Hungary, and then-Czechoslovakia, desperate for release from Russo-Soviet imperium and for the protection of the West? Remember also that the success of their post-socialist transition to market economics was very much in doubt. This was a finely balanced argument.

The real mistake, to my mind, was in taking too long to admit the Eastern Europeans to the European Union–and that in turn owed everything to the fact (a grave mistake in its own right) that the EU had deepened its political integration too fast and too far. A shallower economic union, rather than a United States of Europe in progress, would have been able to embrace Poland and the others more eagerly. As it was, the only fast-acting institutional support for the East European reformers was Nato, a military alliance explicitly created to confront the Soviet Union, and implicitly still aimed at Russia. Friedman accuses the Clinton and Bush foreign-policy teams of “rank short-sightedness” in all this. He makes a good point, but the error was not as clear-cut as he says...

But Clive Crook also says that this is a "[v]aluable column."

I say: "Huh?"

Clive also enthusiastically and I think correctly praises David Ignatius for writing:

There’s a moral problem with all the pro-Georgia cheerleading, which has gotten lost in the op-ed blasts against Putin’s neo-imperialism. A recurring phenomenon of the... [Eisenhower-Nixon-Dulles administration] was that America encouraged oppressed peoples to rise up and fight for freedom — and then, when things got rough, abandoned them to their fate.... After the brutal suppression of the Hungarian revolution in 1956... [the Eisenhower-Nixon-Dulles administration] learned to be more cautious, and more honest about the limits of American power.

Now, after the Georgia war, McCain should learn that lesson: American leaders shouldn’t make threats the country can’t deliver or promises it isn’t prepared to keep. The rhetoric of confrontation may make us feel good, but other people end up getting killed.

Clive says:

I think Ignatius is absolutely right about this. The empty threat is a very bad way to conduct foreign policy. Now, recognizing this gets you only so far. It does not tell you whether Nato enlargement–in effect, a threat backed up with tanks–was a good idea. Does Georgia ever join? What about Ukraine? Should Poland have been brought in? Should Nato have been shut down altogether after the collapse of the Soviet Union? Those hard questions don’t go away. But in the meantime, as Ignatius says, the diplomatic zinger is best avoided.

Given that making empty threats seems to be McCain's foreign policy SOP, it sounds like Clive Crook comes down on the Obama side.

His colleague Gideon Rachman last month made what he describes an an accidental endorsement of Obama:

I wasn’t consciously sitting down to write an endorsement column.... There are a few subjects on which I prefer McCain. Trade is the most obvious.... But I think that Iran is shaping up as the biggest foreign-policy dilemma facing the next president. And there - as far as I’m concerned - Obama is clearly the better choice. In fact, the McCain position is downright dangerous. Does that amount to an endorsement of Obama? Just about, I suppose...

The logic of events appears to be leading Clive Crook down the same road...

Comments

[Ken Houghton]

What world does Little Tommy inhabit? It's been a while since I spoke with a former CA official, but the last time I did, they were saying that the reason we didn't do what Little Tommy suggests is that RWR's eight years made the budget look like Verdun or the Somme, and they didn't dare spend the amounts it would take on foreign entities.

(Of course, this is the same Administration that ignored the advice of its smartest member--the President's wife--and decided that it needed to pass NAFTA before National Health, so its demonstrated ability to calculate political implications ran close to nil from an early date.)

[bakho]

"There’s a moral problem with all the pro-Georgia cheerleading"

I think this is correct, but the article misses the more fundamental moral and human rights problem. The FSU was a conglomeration of ethnic minorities that still do not necessarily get along. The current Georgia-Russia conflict involves an ethnic minority (Ossetians). Since the breakup of the FSU, S Ossetia has objected to being part of Georgia and operated as an autonomous regions with Russian, Ossetian and Georgian peace keepers. Why? Ossetians do not believe that Georgia will protect their minority rights. What is the proof? Georgia used its military to invade the capital of S Ossetia sending over 30,000 refugees streaming into Russia.

According to Bush, elections ("Democracy") are what make America great. Bush believes that elections empower a president to do whatever he wants. Most people would disagree. What makes America great is its system of checks and balances that institutionalize the protection of individual, human and minority rights from tyranny of the government or the majority. According to Bush, Georgia is a great Democracy because they elect their leaders. According to American standards, Georgia fails to protect the rights of its minorities and goes so far as to use its military against its minorities.

Whatever solution there is to the current conflict, protection of minority rights is key to a sustainable peace. This argument is lost in the cheerleading. There is plenty of blame and wrongdoing on all sides.

The key issue is not the political alignment of any of the states of the FSU. The key issue is providing these states with advanced weaponry that Russia sees as a threat and a provocation. Countries with weapons find ways to use them and may be tempted to use their weapons instead of using the political process as in the recent case of Georgia.

Why are we arming these countries?

Why do they need these weapons if they are inadequate for defense and merely provoke Russia or get diverted into military action against internal ethnic minorities?

Would these countries be better off if they focused on economic development and did not waste so many resources on their military?

Why do people think the solution should be more weapons rather than fewer weapons?

All war is the failure of diplomacy.

[bakho]

I would add what Matt said:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/08/blaming_nato_expansion.php

[Dilbert]

"Whatever solution there is to the current conflict, protection of minority rights is key to a sustainable peace." - bakho

And one could argue, the most important requirement for true democracy.

Beautifully written, bakho.

[Maynard]

Seems to me there's an important difference between admitting Poland, Czech, etc. - nations that had been formally independent but under the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union - into NATO, and inviting Ukraine and Georgia - newly independent states that were formerly part of the Soviet Union. Clinton's decision to admit the states of Eastern Europe into NATO may have been overly aggressive but it was preferable to leaving them high and dry waiting for Russia to recover and begin reasserting itself. Bush's decision to invite Ukraine and Georgia to join was a much more serious provocation and a worse policy decision. Imagine our response if Mexico joined the Warsaw Pact versus our response if the newly independent nation of Texas joined the Warsaw Pact.

[Kaleberg]

What ever happened to "Speak softly, but carry a big stick"? Modern Republicans are all noisy talk, but they aren't willing to back it up. It makes them look ridiculous. What are they trying to do? Make Putin die of a fit of schoolgirl giggles?

[derrida derider]

Bakho is spot on. Even at a pragmatic level you surely reduce seperatism by making sure that life as a minority in a big democracy rewards the things people care about more than life as a majority in a Sparta.

On NATO enlargement it has long seemed to me that they've pursued the worst of both worlds. They enlarged it enough to cause Russian paranoia without enlarging it enough to limit the consequences of that paranoia.

And yes EU political integration has been silly. For example imagine how much easier the issue of Turkey's admission would be if the EU was only about trade barriers.

[Maynard Handley]

"Bakho is spot on. Even at a pragmatic level you surely reduce seperatism by making sure that life as a minority in a big democracy rewards the things people care about more than life as a majority in a Sparta."

And yet the US spent 90 yrs from Reconstruction till the Civil Rights era... (not to mention slavery before then).
And yet the US appears to be determined to turn itself into Brazil (with all the downsides that implies, not just for the poor but also for the wealthy; at some point isn't the threat of kidnapping more of a detriment to your life than a lower tax rate?)
And yet Israel continues with its Palestinian plans which make as little long-range sense to an outsider as the logic behind the invasion of Iraq.

There is a fundamental insanity hardwired into human beings, and while outsiders can see a sane solution to these sorts of problems, that's very different from believing that the solution will be imposed.
The US has, I suspect, precious little credibility in negotiating with/suggesting to Russia or Georgia a sensible way to handle these problems. The EU may have more luck (if they don't screw up by refusing to practice this ideal in a sensible way with their Muslim population).

[centrist]

Here is a little snippet that shows what would happen to a nation after joining NATO or like US backed organisation. The money involved is staggering. All the fancy policy talk is just window dressing or a distraction.

http://armchairgeneralist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/08/the-companies-w.html

[athEIst]

Well, I don't know about it joining the Warsaw Pact but the idea of a independent Texas is excellent. And not because I'm a Texan cause I'm not.