Georgia - war of words
As we are watching the war in Georgia, another war in taking place behind the scenes. War of words. It is indeed debatable which one is more important from the strategic point of view. As the Russian army 'withdrew' from Georgia and the international community shakes its finger and shrugs its shoulders at the new noncompliant Russia, the story is already slipping of the news headlines.
What is notable though, is that while the physical battlefield has finally died down, the verbal battlefield is only in its opening stages. I would predict more is to come. While the Georgian president is making regular appearances speaking in Georgian and in his no less fluent English, explaining the events, defending himself, asking for help. Aside from communicating to his compatriots, his communication is aimed at addressing questions of the journalists.
On the Russian side the story is predictably much more colourful. A quick view on the international press over the last two weeks shows that the Russian government has been in a full time PR phase. PR phase, Russian government? This does not all seem to sit to fall together in one sentence. The soviet regime has a tradition of 'communicating' with its citizens through the solemn proclamations from behind the pedestal. This was the usual propaganda, nothing exciting. What's interesting is that more recently the Russian government (and by that I mean all the marrionettes collectively controlled by Putin) has launched a proactive international media campain to spread the propaganda beyond the ranks of already brainwashed comrades.
On August 20th, Lavrov affirmed quiet bluntly in the Wall Street Journal of all places that "America must choose between Georgia and Russia" (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121919150258855111.html?mod=googlenews_wsj), the basic premise of which was to say in not such roundabout fashion that whatever you little people believe it, you have to choose between us or them (the 'black asses' as Putin allegedly refers to Georgians in diplomatic discussions). In a little more subtle piece published a few days later (August 26), Medvedev himself explains to all of us who might have misunderstood what has gone all over the last couple of days (that Russia annexed Georgian territory) "Why I had to recognise Georgia's breakaway regions"(http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9c7ad792-7395-11dd-8a66-0000779fd18c.html ). Even more well crafted, the article explains to the Western audiences that their leadership has ignored the "delicacy of the situation" and "Russia's repeated warnings".
Chapeau, as the french would say. The Russians seem to have recognised the power of international media - after all, it's just another way of publishing propaganda. During the Cold War, the propaganda machine was for internal consumption only, and the KGB was busy making sure no one would get the wiff of news outside, god forbid from BBC news. Now, they have woken up to reality that they can 'explain themselves' internationally. Wow, it's like the Cold War, but better!
Maybe it's my black sense of humour, but I cannot wait for the day when Sarkozy or Bush or Merkel or...writes an article explaining why the Russian government lies and manipulates. Such an article would provide some much needed background to the headlines of Russian papers such as this one, from today's Pravda ('truth' in Russian): 'georgia is dreaming of stealing Sochi from Russia.' Well, if Georgians are still able to dream about anything aside having a roof over their heads, it is certainly not about stealing Sochi. With what amunition? Oh, I forgot the Americans and the 'zionist entity' have provided Georgians with prenty.
Or take another headline from a paper similarly titled Komsomol'skaya Pravda (or something like communist truth'): "Nazarbaev says that he supports the actions of Russia." Well, while the title is not a lie per se, it is certainly not news - we all know that the Russians support the crazy leadership of Khazakstan. In light of all this, I have to say I am really looking forward for a retaliation from the west in this 'war of words' from the US, Canada, France, Germany, etc. Condoleeza Rice, with her PhD in Soviet history, seems well positioned to write one.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Sunday, August 10, 2008
The cat and mouse game between Russia and Georgia
The first territorial conflict with Russia since the end of the Cold War. It is slowly gaining the headlines amid the hype surrounding the Olympics. The CNN actually drew a formal link between the two events by showing a Russian and a Georgian athlete embracing each other during the Games. And just like this, CNN reluctantly switched from the Olympics, watched all over the world, to the Russia-Georgia conflict, which does not get the same amount of advertising revenue. Surely, many people around the world have never heard of South Ossetia or Abkhazia. Ironically, the sea of the disinterested and ignorant seems to include Wolf Blitzer, the senior CNN correspondent, charged with conducting the role with the Georgian President Saakashvili today (August 10, 2008).
He seemed to confuse the two territories during the interview, asking Saakashvili about 'south Abkhasia' instead of 'south Ossetia', and interrupting him constantly to ask irrelevant questions. Finally, he top beating around the bush pretending that the viewers are interesting to know what is happening in Georgia and got to the point, asking Saakashvili whether it is true that two thousand Americans are living or travelling in Georgia at the moment. Indeed, what are the measures his government intends to take to secure the safety of Americans in Georgia? Pity the President seemed to have other preoccupations at the moment. Though this seems like an abhorrent question to ask of a man whose country and very capital, Tbilisi, is under an attack from the Russian army, that was not all coming from Blitzer, who also inquired whether the President believes that the Georgian army is as powerful as the Russian. I wonder wheather and when he checked the basic statistics: Georgia's population stands at four million whereas that of Russian at over one hundred and fourty million.
At the same time that I watched the CNN question the Geogrian president, the Russian president declared that he does not wish to talk to his Georgian counterpart. As Russia's ambassador to the UN pointed out, what would they have to discuss at this juncture?! I don't know, but how about Russia's bombarment of the Tbilisi international airport (half an hour after the French Foreign Minister landed in Tbilisi)? How about Georgian's offer for immediate cease fire? How about Russia's bombing of Georgian civilian targets, which Russia's UN ambassador denied with foam coming out of his mouth and employing less that diplomatic Russian terms? (Pity that the UN translators do not dare to translate word for word, giving the rest of the world the impression that those sent by Russia do no speak in the language of a local bouncer at a night club). How about Russia's demand of the UN to withdraw observers from the region? How about Russia's deployment of the marine forces via the Black Sea (resisted by Ukraine), which according to the same infamous ambassador to the UN, does not amount to a military blocade?
Or how about Russian president refusing to talk to his Georgian counterpart? Of course, instead of Medvedev or Putin (sorry, the character play is still confusing) picking up the phone to talk to Saakashvili, Russia continues to bombard Georgia, which, anyways, it sees as an extension of its own backyard. At the UN, it almost said so in a long-winded explanation about the 'historical' roots of the conflict going back to 1991. The reference to 1991 is not circumstantial - this is when the referendum on the idependence of Georgia took place. Today, 17 years later, Russia's ambassador the UN referred to this event as a 'historic mistake', yet this has probably missed the ears of many observers who are unaware of the significance of this reference.
In a kind of childish logic "you took my toys first", Moscow is pointing the finger in the direction of Georgia for starting the conflict. It is a funny logic given that south Ossetia's government is led by a illiterate (and here I do not mean figuratively, but literally - a man who knows neither how to write nor how to read) was put in place by the Russian government to stir up problems in lieu of Georgia's accession to NATO. And, by the way, this top secret came out yesterday from an interview with a French MP. The Russian reasoning on the order of events which have unfolded in Ossetia has failed not on one, but on two occasions. Speaking on the point of ending violance, the Russians are demanding that Georgia withdraw from South Ossetia before they can consider a cease-fire (i.e. stop bombing Georgian civilian targets). The thing is, it has withdrawn.
The arrogant and racist as-ever Russia is letting its true colours show once again. On the occasion of the extraordinary Security Council session it asked of Georgia and (in the brakets of the US), what it should do given the role of the former in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans? The implications being: if you can mess in other country's playgound's, why can't we mess in yours? True, why can't they? It is not like the European Union, at the footsteps of which all this is taking place, will do anything. China is busy with the Olympics, and can't give a damn anyways. "Hello, US, are you ready for Cold War, part II?"
The first territorial conflict with Russia since the end of the Cold War. It is slowly gaining the headlines amid the hype surrounding the Olympics. The CNN actually drew a formal link between the two events by showing a Russian and a Georgian athlete embracing each other during the Games. And just like this, CNN reluctantly switched from the Olympics, watched all over the world, to the Russia-Georgia conflict, which does not get the same amount of advertising revenue. Surely, many people around the world have never heard of South Ossetia or Abkhazia. Ironically, the sea of the disinterested and ignorant seems to include Wolf Blitzer, the senior CNN correspondent, charged with conducting the role with the Georgian President Saakashvili today (August 10, 2008).
He seemed to confuse the two territories during the interview, asking Saakashvili about 'south Abkhasia' instead of 'south Ossetia', and interrupting him constantly to ask irrelevant questions. Finally, he top beating around the bush pretending that the viewers are interesting to know what is happening in Georgia and got to the point, asking Saakashvili whether it is true that two thousand Americans are living or travelling in Georgia at the moment. Indeed, what are the measures his government intends to take to secure the safety of Americans in Georgia? Pity the President seemed to have other preoccupations at the moment. Though this seems like an abhorrent question to ask of a man whose country and very capital, Tbilisi, is under an attack from the Russian army, that was not all coming from Blitzer, who also inquired whether the President believes that the Georgian army is as powerful as the Russian. I wonder wheather and when he checked the basic statistics: Georgia's population stands at four million whereas that of Russian at over one hundred and fourty million.
At the same time that I watched the CNN question the Geogrian president, the Russian president declared that he does not wish to talk to his Georgian counterpart. As Russia's ambassador to the UN pointed out, what would they have to discuss at this juncture?! I don't know, but how about Russia's bombarment of the Tbilisi international airport (half an hour after the French Foreign Minister landed in Tbilisi)? How about Georgian's offer for immediate cease fire? How about Russia's bombing of Georgian civilian targets, which Russia's UN ambassador denied with foam coming out of his mouth and employing less that diplomatic Russian terms? (Pity that the UN translators do not dare to translate word for word, giving the rest of the world the impression that those sent by Russia do no speak in the language of a local bouncer at a night club). How about Russia's demand of the UN to withdraw observers from the region? How about Russia's deployment of the marine forces via the Black Sea (resisted by Ukraine), which according to the same infamous ambassador to the UN, does not amount to a military blocade?
Or how about Russian president refusing to talk to his Georgian counterpart? Of course, instead of Medvedev or Putin (sorry, the character play is still confusing) picking up the phone to talk to Saakashvili, Russia continues to bombard Georgia, which, anyways, it sees as an extension of its own backyard. At the UN, it almost said so in a long-winded explanation about the 'historical' roots of the conflict going back to 1991. The reference to 1991 is not circumstantial - this is when the referendum on the idependence of Georgia took place. Today, 17 years later, Russia's ambassador the UN referred to this event as a 'historic mistake', yet this has probably missed the ears of many observers who are unaware of the significance of this reference.
In a kind of childish logic "you took my toys first", Moscow is pointing the finger in the direction of Georgia for starting the conflict. It is a funny logic given that south Ossetia's government is led by a illiterate (and here I do not mean figuratively, but literally - a man who knows neither how to write nor how to read) was put in place by the Russian government to stir up problems in lieu of Georgia's accession to NATO. And, by the way, this top secret came out yesterday from an interview with a French MP. The Russian reasoning on the order of events which have unfolded in Ossetia has failed not on one, but on two occasions. Speaking on the point of ending violance, the Russians are demanding that Georgia withdraw from South Ossetia before they can consider a cease-fire (i.e. stop bombing Georgian civilian targets). The thing is, it has withdrawn.
The arrogant and racist as-ever Russia is letting its true colours show once again. On the occasion of the extraordinary Security Council session it asked of Georgia and (in the brakets of the US), what it should do given the role of the former in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans? The implications being: if you can mess in other country's playgound's, why can't we mess in yours? True, why can't they? It is not like the European Union, at the footsteps of which all this is taking place, will do anything. China is busy with the Olympics, and can't give a damn anyways. "Hello, US, are you ready for Cold War, part II?"
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
My neighbourhood in Paris, Saint Germain des Près has been home to the artistic community of the city and beyond, and therefore subject to movies, paintings, sketches, books, and outright legends. To the point that some of its hallmarks such as Le Deux Magots and Café Flore, in other contexts snobby cafés with more than usual number of Vuitton bags per capita, have become historical hallmarks, tellingly - not only for the tourists but still, for the parisiens et parisiennes. I realise I cannot do justice to this little paradise in Paris in the same way at the famous french writers have, but I after three years of inhabiting here, I cannot help but humbly provide my view of it.
Wondering the perimeter of the 6th arrondissement this afternoon from Saint Sulpice, to Jardin Luxembourg to the gallery district, I couldn't help but thinking that I prefer an attic in the sixth to a stadium in any other corner of the city. Attics in the sixth may be blessed with leaking roofs and crazy hot temperatures in the summer, but equally with an incredible charm of wood beams on the ceilings. And when the tenants of the same attics and appartments in old buildings with no elevators descend the creaking stairs, passing by garbage cans situated in the middle of their courtyards, and the elderly neighbours who seem to spend their life complaining about each other or the concierge (collectively known as 'hell'), they arrive directly in paradise.
Paradise which contains....galleries overflowing with medieval relics, modern art, photographs nestled between designer shops, both much less pretensious than they counterparts across the river. Restaurants with four side-by-side miniscule tables where I am so often tempted to take a cheapter version of the black mud (called expresso here) just to get the flavour of the conversation of the day. Courtyards which range to from chic closed spaces with offices to half ruined and cracked wooden doors, which feature either the name of the resident doctor, or a description of the historical significance of the building. Photo galleries the likes of the new, luminous and innovative Lumas which takes the space of the old Lagerfeld store, which I imagine left to where it belongs more - rue Saint Honoré. Stores which specialise is selling the most banal things under the pretense of being chic: straw hats, socks, baby printed t-shirts, hair-pins.
Note: in any other spot of France, they would undoubtly and promptly go bankrupt, not so in the sixth where everything manages to have its own charm, and therefore survive. Take for instance, this store which seems to sell baby beds and accessories. I couldn't resist taking a picture of this as an example of my point. Looking from the outside in, this place seems to sell nothing, a few funny shaped and crafted pillows and a couple of baby blankets? No, dear friend, I ought to correct you: the store sells dreams and wishes and fuzzy thoughts that over-eager mammas will surely consumer without a second thought. And thus, the charm of the stores of the sixth lives on...
Door to 'little heaven'
For all its priciness bordering onto pretense, the sixth is nothing like its truly chic counterparts - the first or the eighth across the bank, streaming with glitter and tourists. It is neither the grassroots of the third or the fourth, both of course charming in their unique ways. It has the undeserved reputation of being snob, owing to lack of a populist character and some landmarks like the Bon Marché with its service voiturier. And yet it is neither the sleepiness of the sixteenth or the seventeenth with its large buildings and family style living, where one must keep drinking coffee in order to keep awake. The sixth has a character of a young lady, the history of an old man, the structure of a long labyrinth, the style of a fashion house. And yet it is unassuming in its own way.
Perhaps therein lies its charm. The boutique of Yves Saint Laurent in a building with old white shutters reminding passerbys of its history. The chic boutique of famous chocolatier Pierre Herme in a tiny space with a winding queque. The leather bags with prices high enough to make me want to confuse it with a serial number, being seemingly thrown on some ikea looking hooks. And finally its inhabitants, who may be wearing the local supermarket brand at ten euros or the latest Armani dress, and look equally and mysteriosly elegant in both. All that being said, I am guessing you might be started to get bored with my laundry list description, but today, on this fine august day, and despite the general state of closure of everything in the sixth, I felt like delivering an ode to it. Adios.
Wondering the perimeter of the 6th arrondissement this afternoon from Saint Sulpice, to Jardin Luxembourg to the gallery district, I couldn't help but thinking that I prefer an attic in the sixth to a stadium in any other corner of the city. Attics in the sixth may be blessed with leaking roofs and crazy hot temperatures in the summer, but equally with an incredible charm of wood beams on the ceilings. And when the tenants of the same attics and appartments in old buildings with no elevators descend the creaking stairs, passing by garbage cans situated in the middle of their courtyards, and the elderly neighbours who seem to spend their life complaining about each other or the concierge (collectively known as 'hell'), they arrive directly in paradise.
Paradise which contains....galleries overflowing with medieval relics, modern art, photographs nestled between designer shops, both much less pretensious than they counterparts across the river. Restaurants with four side-by-side miniscule tables where I am so often tempted to take a cheapter version of the black mud (called expresso here) just to get the flavour of the conversation of the day. Courtyards which range to from chic closed spaces with offices to half ruined and cracked wooden doors, which feature either the name of the resident doctor, or a description of the historical significance of the building. Photo galleries the likes of the new, luminous and innovative Lumas which takes the space of the old Lagerfeld store, which I imagine left to where it belongs more - rue Saint Honoré. Stores which specialise is selling the most banal things under the pretense of being chic: straw hats, socks, baby printed t-shirts, hair-pins.
Note: in any other spot of France, they would undoubtly and promptly go bankrupt, not so in the sixth where everything manages to have its own charm, and therefore survive. Take for instance, this store which seems to sell baby beds and accessories. I couldn't resist taking a picture of this as an example of my point. Looking from the outside in, this place seems to sell nothing, a few funny shaped and crafted pillows and a couple of baby blankets? No, dear friend, I ought to correct you: the store sells dreams and wishes and fuzzy thoughts that over-eager mammas will surely consumer without a second thought. And thus, the charm of the stores of the sixth lives on...
Door to 'little heaven'
For all its priciness bordering onto pretense, the sixth is nothing like its truly chic counterparts - the first or the eighth across the bank, streaming with glitter and tourists. It is neither the grassroots of the third or the fourth, both of course charming in their unique ways. It has the undeserved reputation of being snob, owing to lack of a populist character and some landmarks like the Bon Marché with its service voiturier. And yet it is neither the sleepiness of the sixteenth or the seventeenth with its large buildings and family style living, where one must keep drinking coffee in order to keep awake. The sixth has a character of a young lady, the history of an old man, the structure of a long labyrinth, the style of a fashion house. And yet it is unassuming in its own way.
Perhaps therein lies its charm. The boutique of Yves Saint Laurent in a building with old white shutters reminding passerbys of its history. The chic boutique of famous chocolatier Pierre Herme in a tiny space with a winding queque. The leather bags with prices high enough to make me want to confuse it with a serial number, being seemingly thrown on some ikea looking hooks. And finally its inhabitants, who may be wearing the local supermarket brand at ten euros or the latest Armani dress, and look equally and mysteriosly elegant in both. All that being said, I am guessing you might be started to get bored with my laundry list description, but today, on this fine august day, and despite the general state of closure of everything in the sixth, I felt like delivering an ode to it. Adios.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)