For a great many of us the term Ossetia is new on the ear. It’s the sort of noise one might hear briefly on mainstream news in the context of an earthquake or flood or ‘senseless’ war, before returning to the reality of London or Hollywood. Only with Russia’s recent incursion has Ossetia become worthy of elevation into media and public consciousness.
Such background ignorance is a gift to propagandists. The less we already know on a subject the more scope there is to bend or invert our understanding. If we have no will or desire to probe any deeper the message on Ossetia is simple: It’s the bloody Russians. They have invaded Georgia, a neighbouring sovereign state. They have broken international law.
All other details then take the form of supporting evidence. We can be reminded of Russia’s history of invading its neighbours – Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and of course the baseless cold-war fear of Russian tanks rolling over Western Europe. The invasion of Georgia fits perfectly with this rekindled world-view. Russia is simply up to her old tricks.
Likewise the West can be painted in its traditional colours, as the defender of freedom. The only questions to be asked relate to our integrity in standing up to this criminality. “What can we do to contain Russia?” implore the leader-writers. “Countries need to know that their territorial integrity is absolutely secure” insists the British Foreign Secretary, “Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century” adds the American President” both presumably with straight faces. Russia, we are told, must face the consequences of this “blatant aggression”.
You could leave it there – and to the great relief of our government and media many do. But pan-out a little and certain absent facts modify this simple moral landscape. A hint comes from Russian mainstream news. According to these propagandists the Russian invasion was a humanitarian intervention to protect the people of South Ossetia from Georgian war crimes. Naturally “humanitarian intervention” should ring alarm bells for anyone familiar with modern history. Invading to protect has been the cynical pretext for war-crimes from Czechoslovakia to Vietnam to Iraq. Nevertheless it is a testable claim.
Firstly, regardless of Russian motives, it certainly is a fact that Georgia was pummelling the people of South Ossetia prior to the Russian invasion. No mention or condemnation of these war-crimes from Milliband or Brown.
Secondly, the people of South Ossetia certainly have voted by an overwhelming majority to become independent of Georgia (99% in favour with a turn-out of 95%). This fact seems particularly pertinent and particularly suspicious by its absence in western news reports. After all, haven’t we just been told that breakaway autonomous states are a good thing? Haven’t we just been sold the wonder of Kosovo’s autonomy from Serbia? If that was a miracle of democracy and self-determination, why not so in South Ossetia?
Even if Russian motives are wholly cynical surely these facts could only add to public understanding. Instead, on the odd occasion we hear of the Ossetian referendum it is only in the context of its supposed invalidity and illegality. South Ossetia is not recognised by the “international community” i.e. the UN, NATO the EU and all the other international bodies that can usually be relied upon to rubber stamp western interventions and atrocities.
And it doesn’t stop there. Another potentially illuminating but suspiciously absent fact is the enormous oil pipeline running through Georgia. Might this not be helpful in explaining the West’s indifference toward the wishes of South Ossetia’s inhabitants and its toleration of Georgia’s crimes? Likewise the fact that the West is pushing for Georgia to enter NATO – in strict violation of promises made to Russia. Might this not be useful in explaining Russia’s actions more than its supposed malignant desire to begin a new cold war? (For these and copious other inconvenient facts see Chomsky here.)
No doubt such thinking will be written-off as paranoid nonsense. To even entertain such thoughts is to be suckered by Russian propaganda. But note that nothing here is in dispute. You don’t have to believe anything Vladimir Putin believes that Condoleezza Rice wouldn’t also admit to. It’s only that our government and media have decided that these particular facts are not relevant to our understanding of the situation. For one reason or another ignorance of these topics is seen to be preferable to knowledge of them. We can only wonder why.
