Looks like things will be on a knife edge for a while longer yet.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/bush-sends-message-to-russia-with-aid-mission-to-georgia-894507.htmlWhy does take the US
Military to deliver humanitarian aid to Georgia? They will not be welcome in the break away regions of Georgia, they will not be welcomed by Russia (as the US would not welcome Russian troops in Mexico or Canada under this pretext). They will be welcomed in Georgia (outisde of the seperatist zones) but if you are being welcomed with open arms, why do you need military personnel (who are needed elsewhere no doubt).
What is wrong with the Red Cross or Peace Corps or any other number of organisations distributing US humanitarian aid......don't they trust they EU or the UN to distribute it for them? Of course they do, it is posturing pure and simple.
The US did not send troops when the fighting was taking place despite pleas from Georgia to NATO (read the USA). Now when a ceasefire has been agreed they are sent at the real risk of disabling the ceasefire - it will take one "rebel" to shoot one American or the other way around and there will be major problems.
As for this quote by Rice in the above article:
"This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten a neighbour, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed."
1. Russia did not occupy Tblisi for 1 second in this conflict, they did not overthrow the Government - what has 1968 got to do with it?
2. Serbia - NATO bombed it disproportionately for weeks, invaded a sovereign nation and then forcibley created and recognised Kosovo against the will of that sovereign nation. Russia did not go that far in Georgia - the last organistaion to do something like Russia did in Czechoslovakia in 1968 on the continent of Europe was NATO in Serbia in 1999.
3. The last significant Government to be overthrown was Iraq - by whom? The UN...no, NATO...no, the USA and the UK - both of which got their by misleading their populations over WMD. We can try and justify it now by saying Sadam Hussian was a monster that needed removing............but we have left Robert Mugabi in power in Zimbabwe since 1980 who has continued to run a regieme every bit as bad and evil as Sadam's ever was.
Of any military presence from the international community, the most unwelcomed by the breakaway regions and Russia would be the USA followed by it's trained "lapdog" the UK. With so many nations who can provide the "peacekeeping force" and distribute international aid on behalf of the continent, why does the US have to send
troops to distribute aid? Why not the French troops? - they want to be seen as having brokered the deal on behalf of the EU (not NATO it should be pointed out), they are trusted by both sides and have military forces to spare, as they are hardly over-stretching themselves via Iraq and Afghanistan (like the true NATO player they are
) and will not be seen a provocative to anyone involved.
Georgia's western "superpower" friends would not help them in the conflict, not with one soldier, but now this "superpower" can spare the troops to hand out tents and food?
In the eyes of many (when you read the international press) the US let Georgia down, now by sending humanitarian aid via the
military it will be seen by many to be both hypocritical and provocative no doubt.
The answer maybe in "securing" the 3 oil and gas pipelines (and proposed 4th) in the south of Georgia, but Russia did not make a "play" for them, so securing them from who would be the question.
The leaders of the world should sit down and look at the organisations of NATO, UN and others to decided if they are still "fit for purpose" as any business leaders would do when they become so disfunctional and slow. If they are no longer deemed "fit for purpose" then they should be changed so that they are.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/adrian-hamilton/adrian-hamilton-we-are-still-fighting-the-cold-war-894362.html
