The Weekly N&C for August 4th, 2008

Why is it acceptable when *they* do it?

One of the great defining changes in the post-1948 world is the accepted association of a People with a given Territory. This tenet holds that even if dislocated by war, a populace is considered rightfully claimant of a “return” to the lands they are associated with. This matter is one of the most stridently argued issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and has been hauled out in almost every regional conflict in the last 50 years. A strong argument can be made that it was the issue of the intentional displacement of non-Serb population in the former Yugoslavia states during the wars of devolution that brought international intervention.

There has been Sectarian Separation, Displacement, Refugee Movements, and Ethnic Cleansing, usually all on sort of a sliding scale of doing what is needed to chase out (or worse) any significant rival for local population dominance. Sounds like a cut-and-dried case of aggression if not genocide, right? But wait…

One of the greatest tricks of “playing the system” in the post-1948 world is an improvement on the time-honored practice of creating a plurality of one ethnic group in a territory where few if any of that group existed over a longer period of history. With sufficient migration over time of a group that also does not integrate into the culture of the extant society in a territory, with demographic advantages such as a higher birth-rate than the locals in many cases, and with the cover of some larger event like warfare denuding the land of a portion of the local population, it is far too easy for the “new” group to claim that they are *now* the legitimate populace of the territory. One needs look no further than Kosovo to have seen such a thing in action.

Ironic, isn’t it? The very mechanism that has allowed for the existence of Israel, but in that day marshaled the opposition of the entire Arab world, in the case of Kosovo brought the forces of the Western world in support of the interloper. How the world changes, or does it…?

There is one country that has, since their glory days of empire, methodically chosen pieces of land near to its borders or in the hands of a weakened foe and given the first opportunity orchestrated the cultivation of an “indigenous” population of their predominant ethnicity. In times of overt war, they even hauled out the resident population and either expelled or killed them. In more peaceful but hegemonic times, they encouraged massive influxes of their group into lands where the locals had lost control of the levers of power. Some insidious plan, perhaps the Han Chinese migrations into Tibet, you say? Mere amateurs compared to the case I am about to make and besides, there is considerable international attention drawn to Tibet. Same goes for the Sudanese efforts to displace populations in regions of the country not of the governing culture or ethnicity. Both of those struggle to make a dent in the massive population and long cultural history of the “real” indigenous population. Those are both foul and under current interpretation “illegal” efforts, and as long as they remain in the public eye, have no more hope of long-term success than the Partitions of Poland.

But one ongoing effort, almost indiscriminant as to who is victimized, has run almost without hesitation since the dying days of the Second World War: Russification. This is the determined, grinding, never-yet-reversed effort to hold every piece of ground taken by the then Soviet Union that wasn’t a whole-cloth Imperial conquest or the “liberation” of an ally. Yes, stories of one place or another make the news-wires from time to time. The most recent ones, if you noticed them as they flashed by in the cloud of other news, speak of places like South Ossetia. But if this and other matters are to be resolved, it will take as big a change in the thinking of the Russian government as happened when they realized that the “Internal Empire” of the Soviet Union was no longer viable. So long as the Putin-Medvedev government draws a big part of its patriotic support from proud rejection of the claims of perceived lesser-states, that isn’t going to happen any time soon. But this isn’t 1948 any more, and given the shifting alliances and new precedence of Kosovo, don’t expect this to just go away, either.

Here’s a brief look at the places you might want to perk up and notice when the rare news coverage goes by. Some of them are in a peaceful stasis, in others things could flare up or have already started to:

Old News:

Kaliningrad: used to be Konigsburg, Germany. “Native” Germans all fled, died, or were expelled. But even with all the Russians brought in, the Lithuanian locals still don’t concede to being a part of Russia. It is no longer contiguous to Russia since the Baltic States gained regained their independence.

Northern Territories, Sakhalin and the Kuriles: Respectively Japan, both Russia and Japan, and traded a couple of times between them over 150 years. Although there was never much population in the far north, what Japanese that lived there were killed or forcibly expelled. The four islands of the Northern Territories have *never* been claimed by any other nation than Japan.

Post-Soviet Issues:

Ukraine: massive ahistorical presence of Russians in the eastern 1/3 of the country, plus the longstanding Russian population of Crimea. No military intervention, but lots of economic, political and subversive things happening. The Party of Regions is the Russian faction in this drama.

Moldova: with about one-tenth the area of the country a functional Russian protectorate (that would be the part with all the industry and valuable stuff) it is a wonder that we even speak of Moldova instead of just a part of Russia. The local Russian Army commander pretty much runs the pro-Russian part. In a particularly ironic moment, when the Government of Moldova asked for E.U. to condemn the Trans-Dniester breakaway, Romania used the discussion to renew *their* claim to the other part of Moldova. At least they haven’t invaded yet.

Georgia: no, not that Georgia, the one on the coast of the Black Sea. Three districts are actively up in arms against the Government of Georgia, and have been so since the early 1990’s. They get away with it because they “did it right”: Beat the daylights out of the legitimate government’s army and then burned and murdered and panicked into refuge the entire “native” Georgian population, and they did it while no one was watching. No one remains there but Russians now. The problem seems to be, Moscow can’t figure out how to get away with outright annexation since Georgia regained some of its ability to stand up for itself starting about three years ago. But Russian Army “Peacekeepers” are on the ground in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in numbers, to “protect” the ethnic Russians… who are also now Russian nationals as Moscow has issued passports to them all.

This is the one to watch, by the way. The Georgians have advanced by leaps and bounds in their capability to defend themselves over just the last six years. Think of them as if they were the Colombian Army in South America: Once famous for losing wars to villagers, they are getting help in equipment and are hardened from years of fighting on their own soil against mortal peril. The Georgians are still no match for the Russian Army, but that isn’t the measure: All they need to do is keep making things so hot for the ethnic Russian interlopers in Abkhazia that the Russian Army has to keep intervening, which gets them bad press in Europe, which gets Georgia more support to get stronger. The danger, of course, is that someone miscalculates and Georgia and Russia end up at war.

My prediction: The Russians aren’t going to get away with the land grab this time. The Government of Georgia may fight to reclaim the territories, may make political noises, may even offer a political buy-off to some of the interlopers to get them to go back to being loyal Georgians again, but they are not going to quit. So expect to hear lots more about this one, but look with a jaded gaze upon claims of "aggressive" Georgian Army attacks on Abkhazia or South Ossetia. Like I argue with folks about any possibility of Japan “fighting” to take back the Northern Territories, “It isn’t aggression if you are fighting on your own damn land.”