(Putin is NOT Hitler) Melos, Morals, Matryoshkas and Majorities: Of Sudetenland and South Ossetia

Newsvine ^ | 8-15-08 | jfxgillis

[chickadee]

And those conflicts are especially pernicious when an attempt is made to either apply a group identity (in some instances) or extinguish a group identity (in other instances) by force of arms. There is literally nothing Georgia President Saakashvili could do or can do to make the Ossetians feel Georgian against their will and despite their pre-existing sense of identity. Nothing except bloodshed or centuries can accomplish that. One people cannot vote for another people to surrender their sense of self. Artificially invented imaginary lines on a geo-political map do not create identities--shared experience does--language, religion, geography, history. There's nothing especially moral or immoral about any of those aspects of the human condition. We all speak one language or another, we're all churched or un-churched to one degree or another, we all live someplace and we all situate ourselves in a history of one sort or another.

I do not know why the Ossetians have the sense of identity they do, and I don't really care why. I just know that they do. Same for the Georgians, same for the Russians. Evidently, the Ossetians draw their sense of self in part in contradistinction to their neighboring Georgians (not, by the way, an especially unusual phenomena in human history). Thus, twice given the choice in plebiscites in the last 16 years, both times the South Ossetians voted overwhelming for separation from Georgia. They prefer Russia to Georgia. Again, don't ask me why, I don't know because I'm not Ossetian.

[jack gillis]

Author here. Newsvine notifies us when we get multiple hits offsite.

B Knotts, you were very correct and thank you for reading the whole article. I did indeed suggest that Putin was Hitler in a sense, but I think you missed the larger point I was making, which is that it doesn’t matter.

Whether it’s Hitler, Gandhi, Putin or Mandela, really doesn’t matter to my analysis.

That is, it’s about the people under duress, the people being denied their group sense of self by an overweaning government. One of the reasons I decided to show up on this thread is that the sentiment I just expressed is quintessentially conservative.

[B Knotts]

OK...I think I follow you. And I agree that self-determination is a fundamental right, which is rather selectively recognized.

The trouble comes in when self-determination is to some degree inauthentic, and is used as a mere ruse by an outside aggressor. That is what I see happening here, as well as what happened in 1930s.

Shall therefore we cede the southwest to Mexico? I think there will always be a tension between self-determination and territorial integrity.

[numberonepal]

In order to take Georgia's side, one has to deny South Ossetia its right to self-determination.

In order to take Georgia's side, one has to understand the fact that Russians in South Ossetia had been shelling Georgian Villages for two weeks before the "invasion". Russia set up the scenario and Georgia took the bait.

[jack gillis]

B Knotts:

I think there will always be a tension between self-determination and territorial integrity.

How ironic. We hit basically the same wall on my ""liberal" thread elsewhere.

It's a brutal, literally brutal judgment to have to make. Sometimes the group sense of self is both authentic AND exploited by an outside aggressor. Or it's partially authentic or even inauthentic until it becomes authentic due to outside agitation.

Armenians, Jews, Kurds, Palestinians, Ossetians, Kosovars, .... man, there's a spectrum of possibilities.

In general, I look for some indication that a group sense of self is authentic--common language, tight geographical location, whatever. If there's enough of those criteria, I simply apply self-determination as a First Principle.

You gotta start somewhere. "We need overflights to ensure the Iraqis the right of self-determination" strikes me as insufficent rationale for condoning Georgia's denial of self-determination to its Ossetians.

[numberonepal]

group sense of self

You'll have to explain that to a dumb ole boy from Bama someday.

[B Knotts]

The other issue, as I see you pointed out in the other thread, is: to what level do with take this?

I mean, ultimately, I could say that my right of self-determination gives me the right to my own sovereignty within my property line.

Perhaps we don’t take it to that level, but if not, why not? And where is the dividing line?

[jack gillis]

numberone:

Click the link at the top of this thread! I do at least begin to try to explain it in the article. But I concede I didn’t work it all out.

To adapt a trivial example I used in the article by alluding to the Green Bay Packers, if I say, “Go Tide!” doesn’t that touch a part of your self that connects you to group of persons to whom you feel attached?

[jack gillis]

B:

Actually, I’d say that’s exactly what Objectivists and other radical individualists or libertarians believe.

One rule of thumb I use, though, is surprisingly effective at drawing that line: Is the group/country/whatever water self-sufficent?

If you want to be radical individualist and prove it, move to the Rockies and live by a stream or dig a well.

I would actually be extremely curious to know whether the water in South Ossetia is pumped in from Georgia or down from Russia.

[B Knotts]

One could argue that the U.S. is not self sufficient (oil, manufacturing), so that’s kind of a strange criterion.

[Lijahsbubbe]

I think this situation can be resolved relatively peacefully

I don't think that the dead Georgians would agree if they could.

[B Knotts]

Oh...I missed a word. You said "water self-sufficient."

There are lots of people, including myself who fit that criterion, so I don't know that it narrows things down all that much. It also seems a bit arbritrary.

I am just suggesting that drawing that line is, as you previously suggested, difficult, so I think you have to take it on a case-by-case basis.

I will say this: Kosovo set the precedent for this situation.

[jack gillis]

B:

I will say this: Kosovo set the precedent for this situation.

I think you got that right. I supported the Kosovo campaign at the time, although I now think the recent U.S. insistence on official "independence" was a blunder. The status quo wasn't great, but it was tolerable. It's like we can't leave worse enough alone.

:^{)>

[numberonepal]

I see what you’re saying and I detect you mean individuals within a group. I don’t buy a group self.

[chickadee]

As it turns out, it was best to wait until more facts were in:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-western19-2008aug19,0,4354321.story