The war between Russia and Georgia is having reverberations in Middle East geopolitics. Israel has become a major worldwide supplier of arms and security services. Georgia is an important client.
The collapse of the Georgian offensive against the Russia supported province of South Ossetia was another blow to the myth of Israeli military prestige and prowess which had already suffered from their failures during the 2006 war with Lebanese Hezbollah.
The key Israeli liaison with Georgia was Brigadier General Gal Hirsch who resigned from the IDF after being severely criticized by the Winograd Commission investigating the Lebanese war. Israel was taunted by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah saying that it was no wonder that Georgia was defeated since they were trained by Hirsch.
It is apparent that US adversaries in the Middle East are taking advantage of Russian annoyance with Israel for supporting Georgia. Syrian President Bashir Assad is visiting Russia this week for the stated purpose of “expanding military ties”. Moscow and Damascus are reportedly preparing a number of deals involving anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles.
Secretary of State Rice called the Israeli overreaction which resulted in destruction and killing in Lebanon and Israel “the birth pangs of the new Middle East” whereas she called the destruction and killing caused by the Russian overreaction in Georgia a “return to 1938”.
In fact the Georgia war may have been the “birth pangs” of the old Cold War Middle East: US diplomatic and military support for Israel and Russian support for the Arab states.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
The Georgian Mess
I had dinner Sunday evening with a former US ambassador to Moldova who described his conversation that afternoon with a retired US ambassador to Georgia. The latter’s take on the situation in Georgia was that Mikheil Saakashvili was an aggressive Georgian nationalist who had promised in his electoral platform to restore control over the entire territory of the former Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic. Saakashvili may have felt empowered by the prospect of NATO membership and the "you are our democratic beacon in the Caucasus" rhetoric that was coming from Washington. He appears to have discounted repeated private warnings from US officials that the West would not come to Georgia’s aid in the event that Georgian actions provoked a Russian military response.
The Russians have been upset with the US over our support for an independent Kosovo and our rapid recognition of Kosovo after its declaration of independence from Russian ally Serbia. The Russians told US officials that if the principle of ethnic self-determination applies to Kosovo, the same principle applies to South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The US argued that Kosovo was “a special case that did not create a precedent,” but as the ambassador noted, there had been at that time a widespread feeling outside the US government that “you guys inside the Beltway can call this a special case, but nobody in the real world thinks that it is. This is going to be a problem.”
Despite disagreements within the Republican Party between those who wanted an aggressive approach to Russia (John McCain and his advisers being among them) and those who felt that Russia had legitimate security interests in the region, the US ambassador to Georgia and other senior US officials repeatedly told Saakashvili, "If you do something stupid, don't count on us to bail you out.” Saakashvili apparently didn't listen and did something stupid and now must face the consequences.
Incidentally, with regard to the breakaway Moldovan province of Transnistria, another focus of a “frozen conflict” in the former Soviet Union, my interlocutor said there are significant differences with the territorial disputes in Georgia. One, Moldova has no common border with Russia; Ukraine is in the way, making Russian military intervention more difficult. And two, if Russia forced Moldova to relinquish its claim on Transnistria, there is a good chance that the remainder of Moldova would opt to join Romania in the interest of securing the benefits of membership in the European Union. An extension eastward of the EU’s border would presumably not be in Russia’s perceived interest.
The Russians have been upset with the US over our support for an independent Kosovo and our rapid recognition of Kosovo after its declaration of independence from Russian ally Serbia. The Russians told US officials that if the principle of ethnic self-determination applies to Kosovo, the same principle applies to South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The US argued that Kosovo was “a special case that did not create a precedent,” but as the ambassador noted, there had been at that time a widespread feeling outside the US government that “you guys inside the Beltway can call this a special case, but nobody in the real world thinks that it is. This is going to be a problem.”
Despite disagreements within the Republican Party between those who wanted an aggressive approach to Russia (John McCain and his advisers being among them) and those who felt that Russia had legitimate security interests in the region, the US ambassador to Georgia and other senior US officials repeatedly told Saakashvili, "If you do something stupid, don't count on us to bail you out.” Saakashvili apparently didn't listen and did something stupid and now must face the consequences.
Incidentally, with regard to the breakaway Moldovan province of Transnistria, another focus of a “frozen conflict” in the former Soviet Union, my interlocutor said there are significant differences with the territorial disputes in Georgia. One, Moldova has no common border with Russia; Ukraine is in the way, making Russian military intervention more difficult. And two, if Russia forced Moldova to relinquish its claim on Transnistria, there is a good chance that the remainder of Moldova would opt to join Romania in the interest of securing the benefits of membership in the European Union. An extension eastward of the EU’s border would presumably not be in Russia’s perceived interest.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Dealing with tribalism
The western media has, in general, portrayed the recent spate of internecine conflict in Gaza and the West Bank as a political conflict between Fatah and Hamas. Although there is a political component to the conflict, there is also a strong tribal component. One of the things that I quickly learned in my travels in the region is that tribal loyalties trump most other considerations. In Jordan the government defers to tribal leaders to settle many legal disputes.
A few weeks ago in Gaza, following a bombing that killed 5 Hamas fighters and a little girl, the Hamas led government cracked down on the Fatah associated Hilles clan, arresting many of their members and causing others to flee to Israel. Although Hilles members are associated with Fatah, some are Hamas members and in general they act in the best interest of their tribal brothers.
Western leaders have a long history of lack of understanding of tribal loyalties and the complications that they bring to political situations.
In the US this lack of understanding manifested itself early on in relations with Native American tribes. On the Flathead Reservation in Montana, the US government put two tribes, the Salish and Kootenai, historical rivals, on the same reservation and then wondered why they didn’t get along.
The tribal loyalty component that under girds Diaspora Jews’ support for Israel has long been ignored. Judaism began as a tribal religion of place, the Israelite tribe in Palestine. God chose the Israelites as his people and he lived in Jerusalem. After the exile, Judaism lost its attachment to place (although this is returning with the effort to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem so God will have a place to live), but retains its tribal character. Even Christian Zionists appeal to this tribal loyalty. Pastor John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel, said in a recent speech “Christians have a debt to Jews for providing the foundation of their religion, because God made a covenant with Israel”.
The arming of Sunni tribes in Iraq against al Quada is a risky strategy because it is not clear to me what the impact will be once al Quada and the US forces are gone and old tribal conflicts resurface. We may be arming all sides of a future civil war.
Until western policy makers exhibit a greater understanding of the influence of tribalism in the Middle East and Africa and take these complications into account, they will continue to “stumble and bumble” through these regions. Things are never as simple as they seem.
A few weeks ago in Gaza, following a bombing that killed 5 Hamas fighters and a little girl, the Hamas led government cracked down on the Fatah associated Hilles clan, arresting many of their members and causing others to flee to Israel. Although Hilles members are associated with Fatah, some are Hamas members and in general they act in the best interest of their tribal brothers.
Western leaders have a long history of lack of understanding of tribal loyalties and the complications that they bring to political situations.
In the US this lack of understanding manifested itself early on in relations with Native American tribes. On the Flathead Reservation in Montana, the US government put two tribes, the Salish and Kootenai, historical rivals, on the same reservation and then wondered why they didn’t get along.
The tribal loyalty component that under girds Diaspora Jews’ support for Israel has long been ignored. Judaism began as a tribal religion of place, the Israelite tribe in Palestine. God chose the Israelites as his people and he lived in Jerusalem. After the exile, Judaism lost its attachment to place (although this is returning with the effort to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem so God will have a place to live), but retains its tribal character. Even Christian Zionists appeal to this tribal loyalty. Pastor John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel, said in a recent speech “Christians have a debt to Jews for providing the foundation of their religion, because God made a covenant with Israel”.
The arming of Sunni tribes in Iraq against al Quada is a risky strategy because it is not clear to me what the impact will be once al Quada and the US forces are gone and old tribal conflicts resurface. We may be arming all sides of a future civil war.
Until western policy makers exhibit a greater understanding of the influence of tribalism in the Middle East and Africa and take these complications into account, they will continue to “stumble and bumble” through these regions. Things are never as simple as they seem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)