This is a guest post by our old friend Noah Tucker.
Even Yahoo has taken upon itself to inform the Western world that Russia was pooh-poohed by the SCO this morning in Dushanbe as all members (with the exception of Iran, an observer-only state in the alliance) and Medvedev went home without recognition for the independence of South Osettia and Abkhazia that it had been pushing for behind the scenes already before the conference began.
What is less visible and generally overlooked, with the exception of NPR’s All Things Considered today, is that the Russian media has generally treated this completely differently (as usual). NPR in the first hour of ATC had only one Russian media source as reference for their story, so out of curiosity I dusted off the long-neglected section of my brain where Russian major newspaper URL’s were stored (I stopped reading Russian papers about a year ago because propaganda can only be entertaining for so long) and did a quick overview. Much to my surprise, the story was not so much rewritten as pro-Russia propaganda (ORT-Channel 1 is reporting that “influential Asian countries support Russian actions in South Ossetia”) as it was buried under celebrity gossip and stories about Yuschenko supposedly shaking in his boots and sputtering about Crimea in papers like Moskovskii Komsomolets and Izvestia, which didn’t even mention the conference in its headlines.
Of the major papers, only Kommersant (which has a reputation for failing to toe the line, even though it’s owned by our friend Usmanov) led with the story that Dushanbe had been a failure for Russian foreign policy.
Novaya Gazeta, former home of the late Anna Politkovskaya and the last truly independent paper in Russia (with support from Gorbachev’s NGO, to make things complicated as they always are in Russia), also doesn’t cover the conference at all as far as I could find, though they do bring up the problem that several of the papers are starting to wake up to: the potential consequences of boycotts on Russian natural gas in the EU.
Thanks to the miracle of satellite TV, I’m actually watching ORT news right now, and they’re leading with a long clip of Putin in his CNN interview today hinting that he thinks the US provoked the conflict in order to influence its own presidential election.
Things are looking very lonely in Russia today, though perhaps not as lonely as it feels to be an Ossetian or Abkhazian nationalist. The irony of Russia supporting breakaway regions after so much condemnation for NATO intervention in Kosovo and so much blood and treasure spent over a decade to retain Chechnia is perhaps finally sinking in as the possibility of not even Venezuela and Cuba joining the Russian side of the table on this one.
—By Noah Tucker.
This post was written by...
Joshua Foust – author of 1771 posts on Registan.net.
Joshua Foust is a Fellow at the American Security Project and the author of Afghanistan Journal: Selections from Registan.net. His research focuses primarily on Central and South Asia. Joshua is a correspondent for The Atlantic and a columnist for PBS Need to Know. Joshua appears regularly on the BBC World News, Aljazeera, and international public radio. Joshua is also a regular contributor to Foreign Policy’s AfPak Channel, and his writing has appeared in the New York Times, Reuters, and the Christian Science Monitor. Follow him on twitter: @joshuafoust
{ 11 comments }
Kazakhstan has wholeheartedly endorsed Russia’s actions in Georgia.
Oops, screwed up the link. I’ll try again:
Kazakhstan has wholeheartedly endorsed Russia’s actions in Georgia.
Actually, this is only a slightly more middle of the road way to spin the conference towards the Russian side. Russia came to the conference asking the whole organization to reckognize Abkhazian and Ossetian independance… and given that Kazakhstan–unlike China, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan–has no potentially breakaway or autonomous region, this still amounts to doing only a fraction of what the Russian delegation actualy wanted from them.
The diplomatic brouhaha will blow over. What, after all, is involved here? The “right” of a small country to trace its borders around “territories” where it is despised, and over which it has not exercised political or military control for many years? The shattering of the illusion that great powers will allow their essential interests to be governed by the “consensus” of the “international community”? Perhaps we’re the ones who need to step back and ask ourselves how we got tangled up in this ethnic hatchet fight, and reflect long and hard on whether we really need to wrestle with the bear in his own den.
Or perhaps, archon, the right of tiny countries propped up by Moscow to be “independent”?
There’s a recent op-ed in the Moscow Times which accuses Putin of keeping South Ossetia afloat, for use as a cat’s paw. But if Putin is willing to shell out the dough, and they are pleased to accept, on what basis do we say “This shall not be!”?
Venezuela appears to be supporting Russia:
“Seizing on other issues with the United States, Mr. Chávez reiterated an invitation to the Russian Navy to visit Venezuela and said his government would buy a long-range missile system from Russia to complement its Russian-made Sukhoi fighter jets.”
I think Asian Times missinterpreted Nazarbaev’s statements. As far as I know Nazarbaev would never say something that would make him or Kazakhstan to be committed in anything that would involve taking sides in a conflict.
I think his words were rather: “OK, year, we support Russia, that Georgia must not have attacked South Osetia, and that Russia did good beating them back.” Simply because what happened that happened. However he said clearly that Kazakhstan is not supporting Abhazia and South Osetia independence. He would never commit to stay shoulder to shoulder with somebody in something other countries would condemn.
Noah & Oldschool — It’s nice to think that Nazarbayev would take a position that reflected some sympathy for the Georgian side, but it’s just not true. (Not recognizing Abkhzia and S Ossetia doesn’t count because no one will do this.) These are Nazza’s formal statements, cut and pasted from the Kremlin website. I don’t see how he could be much less full-throated in his support.
“I am amazed that the West simply ignored the fact that Georgian armed forces attacked the peaceful city of Tskhinvali. Therefore my assessment is as follows: I think that it originally started with this. And Russia’s response could either be to keep silent, or to protect their people and so on. I believe that all subsequent steps taken by Russia have been designed to stop the bloodshed of ordinary residents of this long-suffering city. Of course there are many refugees, many homeless. Guided by our bilateral agreement on friendship and cooperation between Kazakhstan and Russia we have provided humanitarian aid: 100 tonnes have already been sent. We will continue to provide assistance together with you. Of course, there was loss of life on the Georgian side – war is war.”
Bakinets, everything Nazarbaev said is post-factum and is rather politician’s “bla-bla-bla”. He rebukes West for letting Saakashvilli start the war. For you it may imply support to Russia, but you will not find even a word that would unequivocally put him factually backing Russia in their attempt to break Georgia apart. Believe me, he will never support Abkhazian and S Ossetia independence. Humanitarian aid is not political support.
It is not just Nazarbaev’s position, as far as I understand China is strongly against any separatism. I think another bad news for Russia after this war is that they lose their leadership in Shanghai organization to China who gained more simpathy from Central Asian republics for its firm stance not to support A & SO independence.
“Or perhaps, archon, the right of tiny countries propped up by Moscow to be “independent”? ”
Goose, kettle, gander, black.
Not like Kosovo at all then? Please stop, my kidneys are hurting from laughing so much!
Maybe Russia’s recognition actually draws a line under unilateral recognitions of territories outside the 1975 Helsinki Final Act (though this would have to be stated publically by the West and Russia). The West thought it could get away with Kosovo scott free because no one was powerful enough to face them down, but it is no longer a ‘unique’ (at least as a single) event. There is now a large element of doubt over repeating the same ‘unique’ policy in any future crises. Or, will it only occur where there are boots on ground and can be backed physically up??? There’s also the question of not insignificant $$$ subsidy and open ended commitment.
There’s still all to play for.