As Russian tanks move deeper into Georgia in defiance of the ceasefire agreement The New York Times’ On This Day section reminds us that it was on this day in 1961 that Berlin was divided as East Germany sealed off the border between the city's eastern and western sectors. The original report from The New York Times can be found here. The Russian advance into Georgia has sent a chill through many of the former Soviet Republics in Eastern Europe who now enjoy freedom and membership (or potential membership) in the EU and NATO. They worry that Russia is seeking to restore the Russian Empire, or at the least, carve out an area of influence (Russia's near abroad) that they will have no choice but to be a part of.
To allay these fears the leaders of the West must act quickly or risk accepting a new division of Europe. Secretary Rice will soon depart for Europe to consult with European allies and seek a coordinated response with the EU and NATO. Western leaders will be forced to aggressively assert the power and influence of these alliances. This would be a positive response, a more punitive response would be to expel Russia from existing alliances, both formal and informal. There has been talk that expelling Russia from the G8 is under active consideration.
As originally conceived the G8 was to be an economic group of Western industrialized countries, more of a study group or a steering committee really, an annual opportunity for the largest Western economies to consult on economic policy and chart a safe course through economic turbulence. In contrast to NATO and the EU, the G8 is an informal alliance, it was not founded by treaty. Over the years the agenda grew as the membership grew and now that Russia is a member there has been been talk of expanding the G8 to include the major emerging economies of Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa. The G8 summit agenda has grown to include environmental, humanitarian and energy issues far beyond the original focus on economic policy. Still, for all of that change, the G8 still retains the character of a group of democracies. Expelling Russia with a terse statement noting undemocratic trends in Russia would further define the G8 as a “democracies only” club and establish clear guidelines for aspiring members. It's not clear though how damaging this would be for Russia, though it would send a strong signal.
Still, there's no denying that this response is merely shuffling memberships in international organizations, there is at this point no talk of intervening in the Georgian crisis or doing anything to challenge Russia on the ground. Even the diplomatic effort to secure a Security Council resolution is thwarted by the threat of a Russian veto. The institutional inability of the U.N. to act as a collective security organization when a veto wielding permanent member challenges international peace and security has undermined the credibility of the U.N. in the eyes of many. This is an institutional flaw of the U.N. system and no reform is under consideration to change it. If the U.N. can't act and the EU has a minor military capability and will not act, NATO is limited by the fact that Georgia is not a member of that alliance, and the U.S., already stretched thin with engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq is reluctant to directly challenge Russia when cooperation is needed in other areas (like Iran), then what is to be done? Is the U.S. as “leader of the free world” left to speak loudly and carry a small stick (with apologies to Teddy Roosevelt)?
One proposed solution has been to formalize the “coalition of the willing” concept and create a League of Democracies that would be capable not just of economic action, like the G8, but also of collective security action like the U.N. or NATO in support of democratic states. This would be a new international treaty organization with a new mandate: democracies coming to the aid of other democracies. This sounds like a great idea, but is it needed? Would it undermine or duplicate the efforts of other existing organizations? To gain insight into such questions the Atlantic Community recently offered a pro-con analysis of the idea, with Ethan Arrow laying out the arguments and counterarguments. I recommend this resource to you as we are bound to hear more about this idea in the coming weeks and months as the world adapts to a new (yet familiar) geostrategic reality in Europe.
