According to Human Rights Watch, “Georgian military used indiscriminate and disproportionate force resulting in civilian deaths in South Ossetia. The Russian military used indiscriminate force in South Ossetia and in Gori district, and has apparently targeted convoys of civilians attempting to flee the conflict zones.”¹

The knowledge, that thousands have died, bled and suffered, is even more painful because we know that the Georgia-Russia war is not a sudden, surprise development. It is even more frustrating because we know that the international community could have averted this by intervening on time. When I talk to Sabine Freizer, of the International Crisis Group, she notes that her organization has been talking about a possible conflict between Georgia and Russia for the past few years, “A cat and mouse game was going on, and there were early warnings.” In fact, it was calling for urgent conflict-prevention measures even a month before the war erupted.

On June 5 [2008], the group reported, “With the dispute between Georgia and Russia in a new, dangerously confrontational phase, the risk of war in the South Caucasus is growing. Concerned by NATO’s plans for further extension to former Soviet republics and Kosovo’s unilateral but Western-orchestrated independence, Russia has stepped up manipulation of the South Ossetia and Abkhazia conflicts. Georgia remains determined to restore its territorial integrity, and hawks in Tbilisi are seriously considering a military option.”²

The report recommended that the EU, the US and the wider international community “call on all sides to refrain from hostilities and return to negotiations, while emphasizing the negative consequences if conflict erupts.” “The EU should promptly implement European Commission confidence-building measures,” it added.

Given the pathetic failure of international diplomacy in preventing the conflict, it is absolutely ludicrous that the West, led by the US, is now squarely blaming Russia as the root of all evil. Truth remains that Mikhail Saakashvili or Condoleezza Rice are not angels either.

“There are no good guys in this conflict,” Matthew Rothschild, writes in the Progressive magazine. “Mikhail Saakashvili was reckless to send in the military to subdue the Russian-leaning province of South Ossetia. And Russia… responded with unnecessary force… the United States has been eagerly allying with Georgia, arming it, training it, which Washington knew was an irritant to Moscow. Why didn’t Condoleezza Rice restrain Saakashvili? Perhaps because there are many powerful Republicans who yearn for a rerun of the Cold War.”³

“This is the New Cold War,” veteran journalist Pepe Escober tells me. “Russia is back and it will not tolerate any intimidation, any interference in its sphere of influence. It has emerged back as the only superpower that can challenge the US. On the other hand, Georgia is a dysfunctional mafia state. A US client-state, with an American stooge as its president.”

What we are witnessing right now is indeed a rerun of the Cold War. A close analysis will tell us that it is actually a proxy war between the US and Russia. In fact, Georgia is just a pawn in yet another expansionist misadventure by the Bush administration. Interestingly, the European response to this misadventure is rather confusing.

One typical example of this is how Sweden is responding. Since the war broke out, foreign minister Carl Bildt has issued four statements, one after another, putting all the blame on the Russian side. Just before he flew to Tbilisi to register his support for Georgia, he even compared the Russian action to Hitler’s invasion of Central Europe. In the latest development, Stockholm has frozen its military ties with Moscow.

One wonders how confrontation and empty rhetoric will help Sweden play any constructive role. What Carl Bildt is obviously missing here is the special position Sweden holds. This country is neither a part of US-led NATO, nor a Russian partner. If Cold War returns to Europe, we expect Sweden to maintain its historical role of a neutral state, take a principled stand and act as a facilitator of peace between all the conflicting sides. Unfortunately, Sweden has resorted to an one-eyed approach instead.

“A little more dangerous than an one-eyed approach,” says F William Engdahl, veteran commentator on geopolitical issues, best known for his authoritative analysis on US expansionism. “If Europeans don’t understand what danger this will bring for Europe, then that is a problem. The US plan for NATO expansion in former Soviet states, is not constructive for world peace. It is the obvious trigger for the New Cold War. Some NATO members, like France and Germany, are already aware of this. And then, Europe’s future in Eurasia depends on good economic ties with Russia.”

In this backdrop, it is imperative that Sweden emerges as a peace-maker. Given their unique position of influence and partnership in the region, Swedish diplomats can play a constructive role in this. The answer to the crisis must be negotiation and engagement, not isolation of Russia.

1. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/08/16/georgia-international-groups-should-send-missions
2. http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5469&l=1
3. http://www.progressive.org/mag/wx081108.html