Responding to South Ossetia

China's Xinhua Press is reporting that China welcomes the Georgia-Russia peace plan regarding South Ossetia on Wednesday, with optimism that the ceasefire would generate dialogue that would bring both nations on a common path to a solution. China's position on the conflict favors an agreement between both parties, and has remained netural as far as documentation and media is concerned. Although it is confirmed that Georgia approached China to ask the country to use its weight to influence Russia's participation in the peace agreement process, a response from China to Georgia remains unclear. Last week, Georgia's ambassador to China, Zaza Begashvili, met with China's foreign minister. His pitch to China was spoke to a nation that would empathize with a country looking to protect its borders as an independent state and  member of the UN. Begashvili appealed to China as a member of the UN's Security Council, to “express its opposition to this aggression against an independent state.”

The response issued by China's Foreign Minister later simply relayed that this conflict would be resolved through dialogue.

A stronger US response to Russian military activity has been widely documented, with one particular highlight being Bush's condmenation of Russia's “disproportionate” military response to South Ossetia, via its bombing of another, separate province – Abkhazia. An American ally, Georgia supported the US-led invasion of Iraq — in soldiers — which it is now seeing a (rather disappointing) return on, as the US agreed to airlift these very troops back to fight for their own motherland.

With Russia peeved by Americans backing its opposition, the justification of the US remains: “Who shot whom first?” is an obsolete consideration. DAS of State Matthew Bryza comments: “I don't know if we’ll ever know the answer to that question. . .  Russia has escalated so brutally” that the international community cannot help but to respond against it.

What does this mean for the intersection of US-China relations? It seems the ball is in-court for the US. Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations breaks it down: "You still need Russia to deal with Iran. . . You want to integrate, as much as you can, Russia into the international order." Yet, rallying with China is as good as money in pocket. In his WSJ article, Gerald Seib estimates that Americans will be dealing with a miserable, resentful Russia, and that she will no longer tolerate vying with China for affection. There will be no repeat of playing hard-to-get between the “two Communist behemoths during the Cold War. ”