Multilateralism in the context of Russia’s invasion of Georgia.

I don’t know who the neo-coni-sh unilateralists are on the issue of Russia’s invasion of Georgia. I suspect they do not exist.

Rather, most of the hard work in processing the politically bankrupt Soviet Union has been done by the old democracies of Europe — Britain, France, Germany, and Italy. Three classes of reforms, each more profound than the last, integrated members of the former Warsaw Pact solidly into the European scene. A free trade area, a free movement of labor area, and even an integration into Europe’s internal political machinery changed the war that western Europeans do their work, live their lives, and even pass their laws.

Throughout this, America’s contribution has been easier but still important. We expanded NATO, providing the ‘security guarantees’ necessary to make it easier for European connectivity to flow.

Moving forward, the struggle against Russia (which has reverted to behaviors typical of a gap state stuck in time) will continue to be heavily multilateral. The actions that America can perform on its own are limited, the most serious being granting security guarantees to the seam states on Russia’s edge. However, real victory will come from working with Europe. Tying the European Seam to the European Core will be the job of Europe, as it integrates Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Moldova into the multilateralist institutions that have been post-War Europe’s greatest achievement.

Keep faith with our friends. Don’t give in to an isolationist unilateralism on Europe, where we abandon the Seam to the Gap in exchange for a return to the pre-8/8/08 world. Closing our eyes and keeping to ourselves is not a good way forward. Rather, we should work through multilateral institutions, keep patience, and focus on integrating Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Armenia into the European Union and NATO.

6 thoughts on “Multilateralism in the context of Russia’s invasion of Georgia.”

  1. speaking of keeping faith with our friends, did you see how our BFF britain instituted sharia law? i think instead of coopting iran against russia, we ought to do it the other way around: join (nominally orthodox) russia against islam, and divide up the ME.

  2. Doug,

    Russia (or Orthodox Civ if you prefer) is in no position to dominate or project imperially into the Middle East. Their economic base has shrunk (they are being fooled by high oil prices) and they are in a demographic collapse.

    The presence of a Russia threat does give the US something…a nice security reason for the US an Europe to work together for mutual benefit in bringing the EuroEast into the EuroCore.

    This gives a mission for the EU and a rational for NATO (which keeps European armed forces somewhat in sync with the US armed forces).

    Now as far as the Islamic 4GW/5GW that Europe faces. I would think that is best countered by European centered 4GW/5GW, or perhaps by a US directed 5GW on behalf of the EuroCore.

  3. Doug,

    It’s my understanding that any individuals can agree to mediation or arbitration in a sharia court in the United States, which appears to be what Britain has instituted as well. If so, I welcome the recent increase in religious freedom for the British.

    Purpleslog,

    The presence of a Russia threat does give the US something…a nice security reason for the US an Europe to work together for mutual benefit in bringing the EuroEast into the EuroCore.

    This gives a mission for the EU and a rational for NATO (which keeps European armed forces somewhat in sync with the US armed forces).

    Brilliant!

    Soob has some more on the EuroCore and the RussoGap [1], as well.

    [1] http://soobdujour.blogspot.com/2008/09/this-is-not-cold-war-redux.html

  4. agreed mediation for civil cases is one thing (although i would think that some of the results could still be unconstitutional); i understood that britains could be covered under sharia law if one of the parties requested, civil or criminal.

  5. It appears to be a method of alternative dispute resolution, forcing both parties to agree to seek Sharia arbitration in the original contract, and not conflicting with the governing laws of England and Wales [1]:

    “So far as the law is concerned, those who live in this country are governed by English and Welsh law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts.”

    In the most controversial section, Phillips said: ” It was not very radical to advocate embracing sharia law in the context of family disputes, for example, and our system already goes a long way towards accommodating the archbishop’s suggestion.

    “It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law. Those who, in this country, are in dispute as to their respective rights are free to subject that dispute to the mediation of a chosen person, or to agree that the dispute shall be resolved by a chosen arbitrator or arbitrators.

    “So a Muslim woman who divorced according to Sharia principles would be free to marry again, but not if she only went to a civil court.

    Henvry VIII’s establishment of the Church of England has caused great damange to British society. Hopefully this is a step toward disestablishment, and religious freedom.

    [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/04/law.islam

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *