Not That Hard, Apparently
Posted on April 18th, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
It is hard to overstate Georgia’s importance for the West. ~The Economist
Yet somehow The Economist always manages to do it. The same kind of argument could be made about Turkmenistan with more reason, since this is where some of the oil and gas going through Georgia comes from, but anyone who said, “It is hard to overstate Turkmenistan’s importance to the West” would be laughed out of the room, because no one really thinks Turmenistan is important to the West. So instead we pretend that Georgia is vital to Western interests, when, in fact, what the West cares about is access to the oil and natural gas. In other words, the reason we’re supposed to care about Georgia is so that we can have access to Central Asian resources that do not come under Russian control, but as The Economist points out in this very article the actual oil and gas-producing countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia on whom we are ultimately relying are far, far worse than Russia in terms of their domestic political arrangements. Meanwhile, Georgia is merely equal in its local despotism and one-party rule, which obviously makes it a beacon of freedom that must be defended. Pardon me if I don’t buy into this.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
It is hard to overstate Georgia’s importance for the West.
This is so only if the West’s proper mission is a high-stakes, long-odds game for global empire. If the West were content merely to remain the West, then, far from being hard to overstate Georgia’s importance to the West, it would be hard to perceive Georgia’s importance to the West.
One wishes the people of the nation of Georgia well, but it would be nice if The Economist would stop hyperventilating. The U.S would strike a far heavier, less costly, less risky blow for the Western cause merely by securing her own southern border. In the meantime, in Pat Buchanan’s wise words, we could improve our strategic position markedly in the region by “getting out of Russia’s face.”
Did any of The Economist’s editors actually serve in British or American military uniform during the Cold War; or, dreaming of James Bond, do they just pine for the vicarious thrill of Cold War at someone else’s expense? Don’t they get it? That Russia is no longer our foe is the answer to our earnest prayers, not a reason to prod the old Russian bear with a sharp diplomatic stick.
Howard