by: SiegristRocks
Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:29:22 AM EDT
This is my first blog post so please bear with me…
What Liberals and Democrats should be saying about the connection between the Russian invasion of Georgia and the War in Iraq:
Russian foreign policy, specifically the recent military invasion of the sovereign nation Georgia would not have been possible in 2002. However, since the full scale invasion of Iraq- a sovereign nation- the united States adopted a strategy of preemptive war, opening the door for other nations to follow. And follow they did:
According to http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/FB19Ag02.html
On October 9, 2003, Putin said that Russia “retains the right to launch a preemptive strike, if this practice continues to be used around the world.” Defense Minister Ivanov said Moscow can use preventive military force in cases where a threat is growing and is “visible, clear, and unavoidable”. Ivanov added a key detail, saying that military force can be used if there is an attempt to limit Russia’s access to regions that are essential to its survival.
Russia also indicated it would act to defend regions beyond its own borders, encompassing large parts of the former Soviet Union, now the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Defense Minister Ivanov has said that, in case of “instability in the CIS” or a “direct threat” to Russian citizens, Russia can “hypothetically” use force if other means of coercion, like diplomatic and economic sanctions, fail.
So, what is clear is that in reaction to the unilateral unprovoked invasion of the sovereign nation, Iraq, Russia decided to follow suit. It is obvious he is speaking of the current administration when saying, “if this practice continues to be used around the world,” as the United States is the only nation to use preemption without a nod from the Security Council. What is more telling is the next part of the article.
The notion of preemption – the use of military and / or covert force to disarm an enemy before it can launch a strike of its own – has resurfaced since President Bush declared it a viable approach to the war on terrorism. Only the US has recently made use of first-strike military action, or “preemption”, against emerging threats abroad – an explicit part of its foreign policy – in Iraq.
Russia now seems to follow the US’ lead and reserve the same preemption rights. What remains to be seen is whether proliferation or the escalation of preemption could eventually ensue.
Well it has ensued, regardless of whether the author could have seen the approach five years ago.
Another important aspect of Russia’s foreign policy, post Iraq- dubbed the Ivanov Doctrine- is in another article published around the time:
Defense Minister Ivanov also attempted to explain Russia’s position in remarks on 6 October. Speaking at a news conference in Reykjavik, Ivanov said Moscow can use preventive military force in cases where a threat is growing and is “visible, clear, and unavoidable.”
Ivanov added a key detail, saying that military force can be used “if there is an attempt to limit Russia’s access to regions that are essential to its survival, or those that are important from an economic or financial point of view.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/10/mil-031014-rferl-171155.htm
So, economic reasons are a motive for preemptive war as well.
It is important to bring up the fact that the Iraq War has laid the ground work for the current situation in Georgia and that Bush foreign policy is continuing to destabilize the world. It appears as though we failed to ask the most critical question in the lead up to war: what if other nations act in the same way.
Leave a Reply