NEW YORK - As predicted in these columns last month, the Cold War is hotting up at the United Nations, precipitated, this time, by a new crisis that has resulted in another political deadlock in the Security Council -- the turmoil in Georgia.
When US Ambassdor Zalmay Khalilzad sought a response from Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin on whether or not the Russians were bent on violating the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia, Churkin said he had already provided an answer to the question.
Maybe, he added rather sarcastically, the US representative had not been listening when Churkin had given his response. "Perhaps he had not had his earpiece on," he added.
Speeches laced with sarcasm and personal insults are rare in the Council chamber. But Cold War rhetoric has always remained an exception.
The only open discussion on the crisis in Georgia last week triggered a verbal showdown between the Russians and the Americans harking back to the days of the US-Soviet confrontation in the 1960s.
When Khalilzad asked Churkin whether Russia's intention in Georgia was to "change the leadership in Georgia," Churkin shot back by using a phrase popularized in the US over the removal of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Churkin said "regime change" was an American expression which Russians did not believe in.
After weeklong consultations behind closed doors, the Security Council not only failed to agree on a draft resolution (which never surfaced into the open) but also failed to put out the customary presidential statement.
The Security Council, which has remained deadlocked over Iran, Myanmar (Burma), Palestine, Zimbabwe, Kosovo and Sudan, has a new crisis on its hands. The current stalemate, triggered by a Russian-American confrontation at the UN, will only make it even more difficult for Security Council approval for several politically sensitive issues high on the agenda, including counter-terrorism, nuclear non-proliferation, Iran and Palestine.
When Kosovo declared its independence, the US and the Western world were quick to recognize the new country, even though the Russians sided with the Serbs who describe Kosovo as a breakaway province. And that stalemate has stalled all attempts to admit Kosovo as a new UN member state.
In Georgia, the Russians are backing the separatists in South Ossetia. But if South Ossetia succeeds in breaking away from Georgia and seeks UN recognition, the US and Western powers will retaliate and block such a move. A political tit-for-tat.
The current turmoil in Georgia also has far reaching political and diplomatic implications. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates warned last week that Russian behaviour (in Georgia) will have "profound implications" for existing security relationships between the US and Russia. "If Russia does not step back from its aggressive posture and actions in Georgia, the US-Russian relationship could be adversely affected for years to come," he said.
Besides the battle between the Western powers and Russia in the Security Council, Churkin also opened a second front when he accused the UN Secretariat of not taking an objective view of the problems in Georgia. It is rarely that member states criticise either the Secretary-General or his senior officials.
He implicitly accused Lynn Pascoe, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs and a former American diplomat, of bias. After Pascoe's briefing on Georgia last week, Churkin said that "unfortunately, the content of Mr. Pascoe's briefing had shown that the Secretariat and its leadership were unable to adopt an objective position, as required by the substance of the conflict."
The charge brought strong rejoinders not only from the US and Britain but also from the Secretariat which said that UN officials are international civil servants and have no political loyalty to their home countries when they serve the UN.
Meanwhile, the rightwing neo-conservatives in the US are using this as an opportunity to point out that the Bush administration was wrong in trusting the Russians, in the first place. When President Bush first met the then Russian President (and now Prime Minster) Vladimir Putin back in 2001, he said that he looked in the eyes of Putin and "got a sense of his soul." But apparently Bush was wrong.
Already, there are proposals to throw Russia out of the Group of Eight most industrialised nations (which comprises the US, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan and Russia); deny membership in the World Trade Organisation; and promote a US- European boycott of the 2014 winter Olympics in the Russian resort city of Sochi: a threat recently faced by China. China, which has safeguarded its own economic and military interests, has been cautiously protecting countries such as Sudan, Zimbabwe and Myanmar. Finding strength in company, China joined Russia in exercising double vetoes rejecting international sanctions against Myanmar and Zimbabwe.
Still, the Chinese have been walking a diplomatic tight rope during the last few years with one major political motive: to ensure the successful completion of the summer Olympics currently underway.
By ensuring the presence of President George Bush at the opening ceremonies of the Olympics last week and by stalling moves by human rights organisation to boycott the games in Beijing, China has so far succeeded in its Olympic diplomacy.
But once the Olympics are over, it is very likely that China would be more politically and diplomatically assertive in the Security Council and perhaps join Russia in taking a tougher stance against the West.
At the Security Council meeting last week, Khalilzad posed the question: what could the Security Council do to stop the violence in Georgia and return to the status quo prevailing before 6 August?
|
E-mail