A Wake-up Call from Georgia

By AMIEL UNGAR
Extract from an article in Issue 11, September 15, 2008 of The Jerusalem Report. To subscribe to The Jerusalem Report click here. The debate in the U.S. following the brief war in Georgia was illuminating. For once it was difficult for the Democrats to mount an effective critique of the Bush administration. The usual palaver about the overly confrontational approach was undermined by the fact that George Bush had tried his best to engage his "Mr. Puti-Poot," Russian strongman Vladimir Putin. Moreover, NATO's earlier expansion into Eastern Europe, in countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Bloc or the USSR proper, was the handiwork of the Clinton Administration. The intervention in favor of the Muslim parts of the former Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia was similarly a Democratic initiative, with Richard Holbrooke, a prospective secretary of state in a Democratic administration, playing point man. Therefore, the sharpest criticism of Bush and his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice emanated from the currently marginalized neo-Conservatives: Richard Perle claimed that the Bush Admin-istration was as bankrupt as the Carter Administration had been following the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and John Bolton taunted Rice for treating Georgia as a flood relief casualty rather than a rape victim. The classic response to the temporarily re-empowered neo-cons is that realism dictated cozying up to Putin, since the United States and Europe could not take on the Islamic threat and Putin's Russia simultaneously. The problem with such realism is that when an autocratic Russia is courted by Western democracies, it displays no natural affinity for them; rather it relishes its role as the tertius gaudens, the jubilant power in the middle capable of playing both sides off against each other and opening a bidding war. This was Stalin's gambit in 1939 when he believed that Hitler had more to offer than Britain and France. His tactics were "rewarded" by the 1941 German invasion of Russia, and Moscow may also come to regret its flirtation with dictators Iran and elsewhere. The point is that Russia has not rewarded Bush or former British Prime Minister Tony Blair or any Western leader, for dealing with Putin as a hardheaded but eligible partner. In the Iran crisis, Moscow has not only blocked effective U.N. sanctions, but has been only too pleased to take the place of those Western businesses which, in line with their government's policies, have pulled out of Iran. In addition to economic benefits and arms sales, Russia is counting on Iran to stay on the sidelines when it comes to Moscow's confrontation with its sizable Muslim minorities. In Israel, Haaretz's ever original pundit Ari Shavit has actually advised the U.S. to shelve the confrontation with Islamic extremism, a threat he considers evanescent, and concentrate on containing a resurgent Russian nationalism. But for Islamic fundamentalists, the Great Satan remains the United States and the values it represents. For more traditional despots, it makes good sense to seek friendship with countries that will not prove meddlesome by prodding for democratic reforms. Indeed, friends, such as Russia and China, can even cast useful vetoes in the Security Council, thus allowing their fellow autocrats to continue their repressive measures. Fortunately, there is a magic non-belligerent bullet that would be effective against both Putin's Russia and Muslim extremists - energy independence. The Israel importer of Nissan automobiles was recently compelled by Arab pressure to yank a commercial showing oil sheikhs attacking Nissan's energy efficient vehicle in frustration. It is time to transform that commercial into a reality show for Putin and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Soviet Russia rode high in the 70s following the spike in oil prices. Flush with oil revenues, Russia could cajole the Europeans into breaking with the United States and signing trade deals, including an oil pipeline. It was also able to keep Eastern Europe submissive with low energy prices. But when price trends reversed in the 80s, the Soviet economy tanked and the empire's collapse quickly followed. It will not be enough to wait for petroleum to hit realistic levels, the way it did in the late 1980s. Then China and India had not really joined the industrialization club. Today the only way to bring down prices is to create an oil glut by drastically reducing demand. The solution should be eclectic: Throw any solution that even partially works at the problem. Nobody in oncology would pose an either-or choice between surgery or chemotherapy. And the same logic should apply in the fight for energy independence. For example, U.S. Republican Presidential candidate John McCain's nuclear reactor and renewed coastal drilling plans don't obviate the importance of the 3% savings through correct tire pressure, recommended by his Democratic rival Barack Obama. Tax incentives and disincentives could also help concentrate the mind of the Western consumer. Similarly, everybody should be welcomed into the broad energy conservation tent, whether the motivation is ecological to counter global warming or geo-strategic to weaken the nasties. Indeed, if the Western democracies get serious, both policy-wise and budget-wise about energy, they may one day thank Putin for the wakeup call in Georgia. • Contributing editor Amiel Ungar is a columnist for the Makor Rishon daily and the national religious monthly Nekuda. Extract from an article in Issue 11, September 15, 2008 of The Jerusalem Report. To subscribe to The Jerusalem Report click here.