The recent conflict in Georgia has seen an explosion of propaganda and rhetoric on both sides of the newly re-descended Iron Curtain. Perhaps some clever commentator will coin a new term for Russia's indignant flexings, but I will leave that to better poets. Regardless, I hadn't really given much thought to the strategy behind the words being bandied about, but this article from the Christian Science Monitor interprets those words in the context of international ... law is not the right word ... understandings(?) governing the use of force. It's probably better to just read the article.
But to encapsulate the story, a few years ago, the UN passed a resolution (or something) that in essence post-facto legitimized the NATO intervention in Bosnia, which originally was not authorized by the UN. It did so by generally stating that the international community must act to prevent genocide, and must do so over the interests of sovereignty. After the international community finished singing kumbayah, it left countries wondering what would trigger accusations of "genocide" and what the limits of this new invade-first-ask-questions-later resolution would be.
Well, the Russians have cloaked their military "intervention" in Georgia in the mantle of this genocide-prevention resolution by alleging that the fighting in South Ossetia was "genocide." Now, there are conflicting reports about who started what fighting (with the Russians saying the Georgians began military operations against separatists, and the Georgians saying the separatists attacked first on the urging of the Russians) and there were hundreds of civilian casualties in the fighting.
The rest of the article is more about scolding the Russians and highlighting tensions that have arisen than it is about the standards involved so I won't bore you. Regardless of right or wrong in this case, the Russian example has proven that the international standard for intervention is A MESS. Apparently the only clear standard is the old truism: might makes right. In that vein, can the U.N. do anything right?
On a separate note, I think it's hilarious that the Russians looked to China for help in backing their play to assist separatists in another sovereign nation. Ummm... Uighurs and Tibetans and Taiwanese? I mean, the general antipathy or at least suspicion towards the U.S. aside, Chinese diplomats have shown one card constantly ~ they will not support any precedent for foreign intervention in domestic security affairs, especially on the grounds of human rights relief. Love 'em or hate 'em, the Chinese are dependable on that.
