There have been thousands of posts all over the blogosphere and in the daily journals about Sarah Palin's jaw dropping interview with Charlie Gibson Thursday night. Terrifying, expected, pity-inducing and so mind-burning that it sends one reaching for the nearest bottle of anything to kill the pain are common themes. The greatest focus of many reports centered on the fact that Palin clearly had no idea what the Bush doctrine is. Her eyes told a greater story than her "blizzard of words". Sarah Palin is a joke.
A dangerous joke.
During the interview the following exchange took place:
GIBSON: Let's start, because we are near Russia, let's start with Russia and Georgia.Except that Russia has a different view and no amount of repeated Bush/Cheney rhetoric is going to change the fact that Georgia used force to try to prevent the secession of South Ossetia, despite prior warning from the Russians not to do so.The administration has said we've got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
PALIN: First off, we're going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep...
GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals.That's why we have to keep an eye on Russia.
No matter how hard people try to deny it, Russia still views the former Soviet states, now-independent countries of the Caucasus, as totally within its sphere of influence. All others can just bugger off. Right or wrong, no one is ever going to change the minds of the Russians as to who has and shall retain authority as the power in the region. When Gibson interjected with, "You believe unprovoked," it was because after the whole thing had washed out, it was clear that Georgia initiated the fight with Russia in the expectation that recent coziness with NATO would permit their hand-me-down army to operate in South Ossetia with impunity. And don't for a minute think that a certain amount of "ethnic cleansing" wasn't on the Georgian agenda.
However, Gibson then went deeper. Given that Palin is supposed to sit second chair on a presidential ticket, I doubt that Gibson was attempting to spring any form of trap. Whether that was his intention or not, that's precisely what happened.
GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?What Palin provided as answers were little more than partially memorized talking points. She clearly has no grasp at all as to the complications and conditions under which Georgia would enter NATO.PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.
GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.
PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.
Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but...
GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.
But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members. We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.
GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.
PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.
NATO, particularly for new members, is akin to a property insurance policy. In that regard, the underwriters of collective security weigh the risk of any prospective member. Not the prospective member's risk - the underwriter's risk, which in the case of NATO is the level of likelihood that they might have to respond as one under Article 5 of the NATO charter in an armed and deadly conflict.
Georgia presents an extremely high risk to the underwriters. So much so that Germany and France refused to include Georgia in any plan for inclusion in NATO until regional conflicts were fully resolved. Georgia has more than a border disagreement with Russia - it is dragging sabres over the cobblestones. Any way you read Georgia's desire to be included as a member of a western military alliance, until they have completely removed themselves from the issues over the secessionist regions such as South Ossetia the threat of war with Russia remains. That, to a property insurance company is like underwriting a fuel-oil refinery that employs arsonists. No underwriter would think of insuring someone who was clearly going to require a payout - NATO is never going to include a country that is assured of dragging the alliance into a war with Russia. That's not only stupid, it's just bad business. Unless Georgia could pay a huge premium, (a first-rank, modern army requiring little in the way of outside support, which Georgia does not have), the underwriters, particularly the European members, are not going to be willing to commit their forces as a guarantee against future conflicts.
There is another detail of which Palin is clearly not aware. That would be Article 10 of the NATO charter. Aside from the original members the only countries which may be invited into the alliance are European nations. To include Georgia would require a rewriting of the map and a redefining of what constitutes Europe. Georgia is on the wrong side of the Caucasus. It is in Asia - not Europe.
Palin's answer to Gibson was an outright repetition of the Bush administration's effort to include Georgia in NATO. It is arrogant at worst and erronious at best. Palin, knowing nothing of the treaty conditions of the alliance, assumes that the inclusion of Georgia in NATO is a US presidential decision requiring nothing more than Senate ratification. Nothing could be further from the truth. The US military contribution to NATO gives them no special status when it comes to the introduction of new members. The inclusion of Georgia as a member requires the unanimous approval of all members, and that has not and is not going to happen until Georgia divests itself of a conflict with Russia. And that will never happen - at least not in Palin's lifetime. The last thing the world needs is a US administration which repeats the last seven years. The last thing the US needs is a vice-president who understands less about the world than the collective Bush administration in its seventh year of office.
Palin, supposedly someone who could communicate "change", proved to understand the position of NATO at the same level of an elementary school student. If anything stood out, however, it was her belief that simply adding new nations, on Russia's doorstep, and then giving them military support was as simple as joining the yacht club. Every expansion of NATO brings military risk, but more importantly, it dilutes the political resolve of the alliance itself. NATO is not the United Nations. The treaty itself is a finely crafted document which allows a single country under threat to invoke UN article 51, the right of self-defence, with the assistance of a collective military force without violating the UN Charter.
Every time a new country is added the risk of a political rift exists. And the risk that a country will abuse the priviledges of membership increases.
Palin proved she understands none of this, but worse, that she does not care to. It is completely beyond what she can see across the Bering Strait.
--------
Additional reading: Putin warns the West against starting an arms race. (Thanks to Cat)
No comments:
Post a Comment