Out from confrontation

Caucasus suffers about US Cowboy policy

Georgia is one again failed example about US Foreign policy which aims to create classical “banana republic” to Eastern Europe where US controls crucial foreign and/or domestic policies of another nation through ties with its military and intelligence institutions. EU’s military, political, and corporate elites have already increasingly become dependents or confederates of the US military-industrial complex. While Russia wishes to safe its “inner courtyard” – sc “Russian World” US is doing the same with its MacWorld. However today it seems that those two worlds have more and more common zone: Many ex Soviet republics have joined or are dreaming of joining NATO, missiles and radars are coming closer and closer Moscow – it feels that new cold war, old polarization/confrontation, is coming.

The bluff of US Foreign Policy has normally been “western democracy” etc. However the record in Georgia was questionable. In one report, Human Rights Watch asserted that “the fragility of Georgia’s commitment to human rights and the rule of law were revealed on Nov. 7, 2007, when government forces used violent and excessive force to disperse a series of largely peaceful demonstrations in the capital, Tbilisi.” In the other report even (the Western nearly governmental elite lobby group) International Crisis Group warned of a creeping authoritarianism in Georgia and urged Western governments to pressure the regime in Tbilisi to respect democratic principles.

To show his admiration for the U.S. president, Saakashvili even renamed the main road to Tbilisi’s airport George W. Bush Street. It is good to think globally but better act locally. Like in Balkans before Caucasia is today suffering US cowboy policy which is creating unnecessary confrontation with Russia. There is maybe way out from banana republic status when local governments start to develop their policies more from domestic needs without too much adoring transatlantic short term games.

3rd way out

As a Finn I would like to ask if third way could be possible also elsewhere. Finland has over 1000 km common border with Russia, number of wars has been between us and Russia/USSR but also lot of good times like Autonomy time 1806-1917 as well last decades with increasing economic cooperation. With this background today more Finns are against than pro to join NATO and our dear neighbours in Sweden have similar results in opinion pools.

This neutral – unallied – position makes it possible to approach world politics, human rights, economical issues etc with critical way be that critics to east or west I do not mean that critics should be end in itself or the top priority for Caucasian countries. However I am from old school and believe that real progress can be made only after fresh debate, dialogue or at least tolerance between local stakeholders not copying values or practices e.g. from Bruxelles bureaucrats.

The unallied position is same time open to all kind of cooperation to all directions. The statements about world events are our own; they are not coming from Washington or Moscow. Personally I like this third way, is it possible also for Caucasus – I hope local stakeholders can decide.

For economical development EU has e.g. its Neighbourhood programmes for non-member states. EU can also make any kind of individual agreements such as customs, visa regime etc with non-members so they can enjoy many EU benefits without membership.


I do not know if my proposal is realistic. I know that my mother was fleeing from home when USSR occupied that part of Finland during WWII. I also know that I have found some of my best friends from Russia. Lesson learned – one can forget past wrongdoings and look forward. Dialogue and tolerance at local level is in my opinion the best quarantee for sustainable solutions. Collecting guns on the borders is from my point of view the worst scenario excluding use of them.


Bookmark this on Delicious
International Affairs Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory

2 Responses to Out from confrontation

  1. gk says:

    its not all it seems in the caspian:


    NGOIs in the Caspian and Darfur

    The American people have been subject to non-ending taxation for “national security” which invariably involves the use of American paid military expenditures to defend ”Democracy” and “Free Trade” specifically and most usually in the European Theatre. One wonders why in 2008 the United States must defend a larger and more populous country like the EU against Soviet, or now, Russian threats when these threats are now at least historically recognized to be fabrications. The Soviet Union and its heirs like Russia and the “Istans” of Central Asia have never had ambitions for influencing the prosperity of the American people, and their military expenditures have always, followed, and then lagged US military expenditures for forces surrounding their natural boundaries of security. So now today we see the EU-NATO, “Europe”, playing the good guy, while the American government does its bit to foster another cold war on the borders of Russia. Why and how is this achieved?

    Photo-Richard Armitage, alleged Iran Contra conspirator, Director, International Crisis group

    The answer lies less in the operations of US and EU military and intelligence agencies, then in the machinations of private, non-governmental, intelligence organizations, pretending to behave as philanthropic organizations. These organizations tend to be transnational, privately funded, and tied to certain economic interests in the areas in which they apply cultural pressure, sometimes even resulting in “regime change”, as we saw in the Colored revolutions which occurred in the republics of Georgia and the Ukraine. In both these cases, and in the other major casus belli, Darfur,-Sudan, this has involved the economic interests of a consortium of major European oil companies. In the Sudan, a major oil operating company once had the name of “BP Canada”, and in the Caspian region, it involved the BP led BTC pipeline consortium. We are told in the media that these companies are fierce competitors, but in every region of the geo-economic conflict areas of the planet, they operate together as various consortia; almost always involving the same EU companies, BP, Shell, ENI, or Total. These same companies then in turn fund directly, or indirectly, non governmental organizations, and foreign policy think tanks.


  2. John says:

    I am Dutch and I find that when several countries are together in a club, like the European Union, especially small countries, we need to stick together. We are all too small to provide fully for our own security, but together we can.

    Neutrality, is cowardice, it means that you are not willing to stand up for your friends when they are attacked. For example Finland would stand idly by if it’s EU partner and friend to the south, Estonia, was invaded by Russia (a country 100 times bigger than Estonia). That’s cowardice which ever way you turn it. You’ll simply not go against Russia out of fear what they might do to you if you did side with Estonia.

    During world war two several countries remained neutral, they could not decide whether to support freedom or fascism!!! What’s the honor in that? It is totally dishonorable not to be able to choose between right and wrong!

%d bloggers like this: