Insightful article by veteran Israeli politician and activist Uri Avnery. It contains much wisdom that seems to be been forgotten by our present day political leaders.
Ed Corrigan
Hottentot Morality
Uri Avnery - "If he steals my cow, that is bad. If I steal his cow, that is good" - this moral rule was attributed by European racists to the
Hottentots, an ancient tribe in Southern Africa.
It's hard not to be reminded of this when the United States and the
European countries cry out against Russia's recognition of the
independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the two provinces which
seceded from the Republic of Sakartvelo, known in the West as
Georgia.
Not so long ago, the Western countries recognized the Republic of
Kosovo, which seceded from Serbia. The West argued that the
population of Kosovo is not Serbian, its culture and language is not
Serbian, and that therefore it has a right to independence from
Serbia. Especially after Serbia had conducted a grievous campaign of
oppression against them. I supported this view with all my heart.
Unlike many of my friends, I even supported the military operation
that helped the Kosovars to free themselves.
But what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as the
saying goes. What's true for Kosovo is no less true for Abkhazia and
South Ossetia. The population in these provinces is not Georgian,
they have their own languages and ancient civilizations. They were
annexed to Georgia almost by whim, and they have no desire to be
part of it.
So what is the difference between the two cases? A huge one, indeed:
the independence of Kosovo is supported by the Americans and opposed
by the Russians. Therefore it's good. The independence of Abkhazia
and South Ossetia is supported by the Russians and opposed by the
Americans. Therefore it's bad. As the Romans said: Quod licet Iovi,
non licet bovi, what's allowed to Jupiter is not allowed to an ox.
I do not accept this moral code. I support the independence of all
these regions.
In my view, there is one simple principle, and it applies to
everybody: every province that wants to secede from any country has
a right to do so. In this respect there is, for me, no difference
between Kosovars, Abkhazians, Basques, Scots and Palestinians. One
rule for all.
THERE WAS a time when this principle could not be implemented. A
state of a few hundred thousand people was not viable economically,
and could not defend itself militarily.
That was the era of the "nation state", when a strong people imposed
itself, its culture and its language, on weaker peoples, in order to
create a state big enough to safeguard security, order and a proper
standard of living. France imposed itself on Bretons and Corsicans,
Spain on Catalans and Basques, England on Welsh, Scots and Irish,
and so forth.
That reality has been superseded. Most of the functions of
the "nation state" have moved to super-national structures: large
federations like the USA, large partnerships like the EU. In those
there is room for small countries like Luxemburg beside larger ones
like Germany. If Belgium falls apart and a Flemish state comes into
being beside a Walloon state, both will be received into the EU, and
nobody will be hurt. Yugoslavia has disintegrated, and each of its
parts will eventually belong to the European Union.
That has happened to the former Soviet Union, too. Georgia freed
itself from Russia. By the same right and the same logic, Abkhazia
can free itself from Georgia.
But then, how can a country avoid disintegration? Very simple: it
must convince the smaller peoples which live under its wings that it
is worthwhile for them to remain there. If the Scots feel that they
enjoy full equality in the United Kingdom, that they have been
accorded sufficient autonomy and a fair slice of the common cake,
that their culture and traditions are being respected, they may
decide to remain there. Such a debate has been going on for decades
in the French-speaking Canadian province of Quebec.
The general trend in the world is to enlarge the functions of the
big regional organizations, and at the same time allow peoples to
secede from their mother countries and establish their own states.
That is what happened in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia,
Czechoslovakia, Serbia and Georgia. That is bound to happen in many
other countries.
Those who want to go in the opposite direction and establish, for
example, a bi-national Israeli-Palestinian state, are going against
the Zeitgeist - to say the least.
THIS IS the historical background to the recent spat between Georgia
and Russia. There are no Righteous Ones here. It is rather funny to
hear Vladimir Putin, whose hands are dripping with the blood of
Chechen freedom fighters, extolling the right of South Ossetia to
secession. It's no less funny to hear Micheil Saakashvili likening
the freedom fight of the two separatist regions to the Soviet
invasion of Czechoslovakia.
The fighting reminded me of our own history. In the spring of 1967,
I heard a senior Israeli general saying that he prayed every night
for the Egyptian leader, Gamal Abd-al-Nasser, to send his troops
into the Sinai peninsula. There, he said, we shall annihilate them.
Some months later, Nasser marched into the trap. The rest is history.
Now Saakashvili has done precisely the same. The Russians prayed for
him to invade South Ossetia. When he walked into this trap, the
Russians did to him what we did to the Egyptians. It took the
Russians six days, the same as it took us.
Nobody can know what was passing through the mind of Saakashvili. He
is an inexperienced person, educated in the United States, a
politician who came to power on the strength of his promise to bring
the separatist regions back to the homeland. The world is full of
such demagogues, who build a career on hatred, super-nationalism and
racism. We have more than enough of them here, too.
But even a demagogue does not have to be an idiot. Did he believe
that President Bush, who is bankrupt in all fields, would rush to
his aid? Did he not know that America has no soldiers to spare? That
Bush's warlike speeches are being carried away by the wind? That
NATO is a paper tiger? That the Georgian army would melt like butter
in the fire of war?
I AM curious about our part in this story.
In the Georgian government there are several ministers who grew up
and received their education in Israel. It seems that the Minister
of Defense and the Minister for Integration (of the separatist
regions) are also Israeli citizens. And most importantly: that the
elite units of the Georgian army have been trained by Israeli
officers, including the one who was blamed for losing Lebanon War
II. The Americans, too, invested much effort in training the
Georgians.
I am always amused by the idea that it is possible to train a
foreign army. One can, of course, teach technicalities: how to use
particular weapons or how to conduct a battalion-scale maneuver. But
anyone who has taken part in a real war (as distinct from policing
an occupied population) knows that the technical aspects are
secondary. What matters is the spirit of the soldiers, their
readiness to risk their lives for the cause, their motivation, the
human quality of the fighting units and the command echelon.
Such things cannot be imparted by foreigners. Every army is a part
of its society, and the quality of the society decides the quality
of the army. That is particularly true in a war against an enemy who
enjoys a decisive numerical superiority. We experienced that in the
1948 war, when David Ben-Gurion wanted to impose on us officers who
were trained in the British army, and we, the combat soldiers,
preferred our own commanders, who were trained in our underground
army and had never seen a military academy in their lives.
Only professional generals, whose whole outlook is technical,
imagine that they could "train" soldiers of another people and
another culture - in Afghanistan, Iraq or Georgia.
A well developed trait among our officers is arrogance. In our case,
it is generally connected with a reasonable standard of the army. If
the Israeli officers infected their Georgian colleagues with this
arrogance, convincing them that they could beat the mighty Russian
army, they committed a grievous sin against them.
I DO NOT believe that this is the beginning of Cold War II, as has
been suggested. But this is certainly a continuation of the Great
Game.
This appellation was given to the relentless secret struggle that
went on all through the 19th century along Russia's southern border
between the two great empires of the time: the British and the
Russian. Secret agents and not so secret armies were active in the
border regions of India (including today's Pakistan), Afghanistan,
Persia and so on. The "North-West Frontier" (of Pakistan), which is
starring now in the war against the Taliban, was already legendary
then.
Today, the Great Game between the current two great empires - the
USA and Russia - is going on all over the place from the Ukraine to
Pakistan. It proves that geography is more important than ideology:
Communism has come and gone, but the struggle goes on as if nothing
has happened.
Georgia is a mere pawn in the chess game. The initiative belongs to
the US: it wants to encircle Russia by expanding NATO, an arm of US
policy, all along the border. That is a direct threat to the rival
empire. Russia, on its part, is trying to extend its control over
the resources most vital to the West, oil and gas, as well as their
routes of transportation. That can lead to disaster.
WHEN Henry Kissinger was still a wise historian, before he became a
foolish statesman, he expounded an important principle: in order to
maintain stability in the world, a system has to be formed that
includes all the parties. If one party is left outside, stability is
in danger.
He cited as an example the "Holy Alliance" of the great powers that
came into being after the Napoleonic wars. The wise statesmen of the
time, headed by the Austrian Prince Clemens von Metternich, took
care not to leave the defeated French outside, but, on the contrary,
gave them an important place in the Concert of Europe.
The present American policy, with its attempt to push Russia out, is
a danger to the whole world. (And I have not even mentioned the
rising power of China.)
A small country which gets involved in the struggle between the big
bullies risks being squashed. That has happened in the past to
Poland, and it seems that it has not learned from that experience.
One should advise Georgia, and also the Ukraine, not to emulate the
Poles but rather the Finns, who since world War II have pursued a
wise policy: they guard their independence but endeavor to take the
interest of their mighty neighbor into account.
We Israelis can, perhaps, also learn something from all of this:
that it is not safe to be a vassal of one great Empire and provoke
the rival empire. Russia is returning to our region, and every move
we make to further American expansion will surely be countered by a
Russian move in favor of Syria and Iran.
So let's not adopt the "Hottentot morality". It is not wise, and
certainly not moral.
0 Have Your Say!:
Post a Comment