At the risk of sounding morbid, it’s now possible to designate winners and losers in the heats of what will hopefully not become a new Olympic discipline: Russo-Georgian Warfare.
The ex-Soviet heat: Between Medvedev and Shakashvili, the winner’s clearly Russia’s new leader who, while having to initially share the stage with ex-president and former champion Vladimir Putin, was gradually allowed a greater role. Losers include ordinary Georgians and their government.
The ex-Warsaw Pact heat: Strong showing by the leaders of Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic states, but the medal goes to Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk who announced Thursday that his country had agreed to host 10 American missile-defense interceptors in return for enhanced promise of mutual defense between the U.S. and Poland. Poor showing by the Czech, Slovak and Hungarian leaders – memories of losses in the 1956 and 1968 heats clearly weighed down the contestants.
The US heat: Between Barack Obama and John McCain, the Arizonian comes out on top. On holiday, Obama issued the occasional and concerned-sounding press release while McCain talked daily and tough, building on his tough-guy image. Polls suggest McCain’s come out better than Obama. Worst of all did George W Bush who’s belated reaction to the war’s horrors – preceded by photographed bonhomie with Vladimir Putin – guaranteed a poor showing.
The European heat: The French president has clearly come out on top despite a strong early showing by Sweden’s Carl Bildt who likened Russia’s tactics to those of Nazi Germany. A surprisingly strong showing by Finland’s youthful foreign minister Alex Stubb. One to watch in future competitions.
There was no Middle Eastern, Asian or Central Asian heats whilst the UN pulled out at the last minute.
Correction: In reference to my earlier posting on Georgia’s reconstruction, it has been pointed out that the U.S did not steal a march on the EU’s reconstruction efforts. As David Ringrose, Head of the Information and Communication unit in DG External Relations of the European Commission, points out, the EU’s assistance arm provided € 1 million for medical assistance, water & sanitation, food, blankets, clothes, and shelter for victims of the conflict. I guess the U.S were just better at publicizing their contribution….
Alex is keeping us up-to-date on the British media’s efforts to tell us what is really going on around the Olympics, but here’s some even braver journalism. In this new clip Tamara Urushadze, a Georgian journalist, get shot in the arm but keeps broadcasting (mildly fuzzy clip, but not actually that gory).
Looks like the British press corps in Beijing is pretty pissed off about the manhandling of ITN’s China correspondent yesterday, at least if accounts of today’s IOC-Bocog press conference are anything to go by. Tonight’s Channel 4 News looks set to be interesting:
The IOC was … repeatedly asked by Channel 4 whether it was “in any way embarrassed” by the Chinese government “lying through its teeth” about keeping its promises to improve human rights and press freedom. The IOC communication’s director Giselle Davies prevaricated several times, claiming that “We have to note that there have been enormous steps forward in a number of areas” – but failing to answer the question.
But Channel 4’s Alex Thomson kept pressing, asking how the IOC felt about the “manifest failure of the Chinese government to keep their promises.” Davies again refused to directly answer the question. Instead she said that the IOC was “very proud about how these Games are progressing” before praising the “spectacular venues”.
“I’m not asking about how well the Games are being run, or how wonderful the Games are,” replied Thomson. “Are you embarrassed by China? I don’t think anyone thinks you have answered the question.” Davies smiled, before again talking operational details. “The Olympic Games is largely about the athletes and they have given us extremely strong feedback about how things are going.”
Thomson, by now resisting efforts from two volunteers to force the microphone from him, kept pressure. “We’re not getting anywhere are we?” he said. “Are the IOC embarrassed about the Chinese governments record on human rights? One more chance?” “We have to note the enormous steps in the wider area,” said Davies. “The world is watching and the IOC is appraising.”
Whilst the US has stolen a march on Europe by deciding to send aid with the US military, this will be palliative and humanitarian, rather than deal with the longer-term reconstruction requirements.
The EU has similarly released funds for humanitarian programmes – which will be needed to help and house the estimated 100.000 refugees. But for the longer-term, what’s needed is joint UN/World Bank Assesment Mission to survey the reconstruction requirements
Such a mission should then be followed up by a donor’s conference hosted by an EU state. There the US and EU can pledge aid and coordinate their contributions.
France, which has led mediation efforts and recently hosted similar events for the Palestinians and Afghanistan, are ideally prepared to lead the effort.
If the EU wants to play a larger role on the civilian side – given its likely subsidiary peacekeeping role – it would be logical to appoint an EU Special Envoy to lead a joint EU Council/Commission Reconstruction Mission with third-party participation ie the US (like ICO in Kosovo). Preferably UN-mandated but not strictly necessary as it could be by Tblisi’s invitation.
Adam Kobieracki, the Polish former NATO Assistant Secretary-General would be an ideal candidate unless the mandate of the current EUSR Peter Semneby is to be refocused from the South Caucasus (inc Armenia).
In most post-conflict scenarios, the host government is very weak and coordination therefore a task for the international community . This is patently not the case in Georgia and the sooner the Georgian president appoints someone to lead the reconstruction effort – or take the role himself – the better.
Two tricky questions, however, remain.
First, given the damage done to the Georgian security forces, it will be necessary to survey their state and propose an Security Sector Reform plan to rebuild these. Putting a plan together will require an assessment and a seperate donor conversation.
– although this will obviously be contentious with Russia. To start off, the US, Canada and the UK should field a joint mission which can report back to other donors.
Second, what to do about South Ossetia and Abkhazia? The fighting has clearly wrought considerable damage in the break-away republics and if the refugees are ever going to return, many of their houses will need to be rebuilt and the economy re-started.
But to what extent should this be Russia’s task as opposed to the EU’s? And if the EU gets involved – funding a large reconstruction programme – should this work be part of a quid pro quo over other issues, for example the role and independence of its peacekeepers? Any Assesment UN/World Bank mission should clearly spend time in the two break-away republics but the analyses should be seperate from the assesment of Georgia proper, not automatically be part of the donor’s conference and deal directly with the criminalised political economy of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
