http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jul/23/whokilledshamilbasayev

You’ve presumeably got to hope that Milliband is putting his shoulder to the idea that we – the UK – should not act without a UN mandate. The more nations that sign up for that, the better. (Subject to sorting out the Security Council veto, obviously). I somehow doubt you are going to get the pleasure of seeing him say what you want him to say. He’s just another politician, after all.

Here are a couple of pieces that I wrote while I was working there:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jul/23/whokilledshamilbasayev

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jul/18/letterfromthecaucasus

And a good piece from the Economist:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?source=most_commented&story_id=11920701

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11955660&source=features_box_main

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11955660&source=features_box_main

I do not always agree with them, but from my own experiences, Russian interference in the Caucasus has been largely malign

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jul/18/letterfromthecaucasus

One of the few conspiracy theories that I do give credence to is the faking of the appartment bombings to justify the second invasion of Chechnya

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jul/23/whokilledshamilbasayev

Firstly, it would be stupid to imagine that Russia is motivated by little but liberal humanitarianism. One can condemn Georgia’s intervention into Tskhinvali under ‘provocation’, but it’s an action very similar to those that Russia has taken in Chechyna.

Presently – despite scaling down their casualty figures – Russia is alleging that Georgia committed genocide in South Ossetia, while Human Rights Watch are apparently suggesting that “dozens of people had died there“, and that the capital was subject to “indiscriminate shelling and severe destruction in residential areas“.

Secondly, I would argue that ‘blame’ is irrelevant while Russian forces remain in uncontested Georgian territory. There are a few positive signs with regards to that, as there have been reports of Russian troops leaving Gori and Poti.

Thirdly, European nations must play a major role in the continuing diplomacy and the diplomacy that (hopefully) will follow Russian withdrawl. Georgia is undeniably a ‘project’ of the United States and it would be laughable to claim that they would enter talks with an objective attitude.

Ben

“Cameron’s proposals would also sends entirely the wrong signals to both Russia and the rest of the world. As Miliband notes, excluding them from the G8 “would encourage Russian sense of victimhood, fuel Russian revanchism, and allow the Russians to position themselves as the champion of reform for those currently outside”. Russia needs positive international partnerships and the west has good reasons to engage with it.”

And the encirclement of Russia by NATO, an organisation it once wished to join, and the American deals with Poland/the Czech Republic to host missile receptors they hilariously claim to be aimed at dealing with weapons that Iran doesn’t have won’t lead to any of those things listed above?

Miliband’s article is indeed a vast improvement on anything Cameron has ever said, but that’s not saying much. The Guardian’s leader line is the right one.

“The Georgian crisis is about more than vital issues of humanitarian need and rule of law over rule of force. It raises a fundamental issue of whether, and if so how, Russia can play a full and legitimate part in a rules-based international political system, exercising its rights but respecting those of others. . . it has blatantly violated the sovereignty of a neighbouring (and democratic) country. China and the Non-Aligned Movement will be surprised by this new position. . . . . [does] Russia sees its future as part of a rules-based international system. . . . together we are Russia’s energy market, and while it is a dominant supplier negotiating with 27 separate countries, it is far less powerful in the face of a concerted European negotiating position.

“On the international stage, the UK favours reform of the G8 – notably expanding its membership to reflect the modern realities of the economic balance of power, and the position of countries such as India and China. I do not support Russia’s expulsion from the G8: that would encourage Russian sense of victimhood, fuel Russian revanchism, and allow the Russians to position themselves as the champion of reform for those currently outside the G8. Instead we should use the G8 to work on issues where Russia can be a partner – whether on climate change or nuclear decommissioning. But we should also be prepared to act as a G7 when Russia acts in flagrant breach of international law and flouts our values.”

States do not get to pick and choose which bits of international law they are going to abide by and Blair – both by violating international law and shattering the attempts to build a common European foreign policy – significantly weakened the development of an international rules-based system and Britain’s influence in the world.

In that they care in the slightest about the Eurasian fringes? Bollocks indeed.

In that they’re a dissolute rich elite seeking to preside over a society which features appalling poverty and inequality; unrepresentative government with a much-reviled figurehead; and the beginnings of open social revolt? Check.

These nutcases shouldn’t be let near the foreign office.

Miliband and Cameron are irrelevant when it comes to realpolitik. They can only make themselves available to diplomatic efforts to restate the timeless lines of classical diplomacy to take advantage of their relative positions.

Neither Miliband nor Cameron has said anything which this country hasn’t been saying forever – these articles may as well have been written by a senior civil servant or ambassador. In fact they probably were and only personalised to sound more authentic.

They can either accept the FCO line or they can get bogged down in an interminable internal dispute which they’d waste time losing. Both these articles appeared in the Times because it fulfills a secondary function as formal outlet for unofficial diplomatic communications from the British establishment. That they appeared on consecutive days suggests a collaborative and complementary approach against any Russian attempts to divide, dissuade or distract.

There is no trump card to be played whilst bidding at bridge, only a question of demostrating effective partner play.

What ‘leverage’ does Miliband mean? We need Russia more than Russia needs us and we are powerless against hard Russian power.

Miliband appeals for China to align rather than making any serious statement of ability or intent. That’s not a foreign policy, that’s a declaration of capitulation.

I think the major issue here is peace,. I hope both nations are brough into the EU.