on Georgia, self-determination, and hypocrisy

There is no easy way to decide whether the secession of South Ossetia from Georgia should be recognized or not, in principle. The question appears to hinge on whether we prefer to view the status quo ante automatically as a good thing, which we can hardly do consistently, or whether we favour the unfortunately incoherent idea of “self-determination”, which we absolutely cannot do consistently.

(Suppose a minority of the people of country A live in the region B. Suppose, further, that a majority of people in B wish to secede, while the rest of the people in that region wish to stay with A. How can we simultaneously grant the right of self-determination to the majority and the minority? If the majority of the people of B should rule the fate of that region, then how can we justify the dismemberment of A based on the wishes of a minority? If A should be dismembered, why not B also? And how exactly should the borders of breakaway fragments be drawn? Inevitably, the idea of “self-determination” crumbles under its own weight.)

A war in the early 1990s led to an awkward compromise, in which (most of) South Ossetia became a de facto independent state, but no one (then) recognized it, apart from two other small breakaway states with similar status. Peacekeeping forces, comprised of Ossetians, Georgians, and Russians, were assigned to South Ossetia by the CIS.

Not an ideal solution, of course. We like our maps to depict the world’s land as divided neatly among a bunch of well-defined countries. Sorry, but the real world does not always work that way.

In practice, less-than-ideal solutions are often the least bad of a bunch of bad options. Usually, anything involving further warfare is worse. So it is hard to approve of the Georgian decision to launch a military campaign in South Ossetia this summer.

Moreover, there were Russian citizens among those fired on by Georgian troops. How could Russia not respond to that? So what is the basis for the condemnation of Russia that is so widespread in the West? Is it simply the use of military force without the approval of the United States?

It may be that the Russians have overreacted. But the West has no moral high ground from which to denounce them. The Russian treatment of Georgia this year has been far less brutal than NATO’s pummeling of Serbia in 1999, to name just one example.

The rhetoric from the Bush Administration (of all people!), scolding Russia for invading a sovereign country, and asserting that Russia’s standing in the international community has been damaged, is nothing less than hilarious. Western governments are protesting Russia’s new recognition of South Ossetia’s independence, citing Georgia’s “territorial integrity” as something that must be respected – but these are the same governments that have rushed to recognize an independent Kosovo!

Hypocrisy abounds.