English Assignment 3A
fire treaty because some of the matter was already covered in the deal of Aug. 12-according to the
president of Georgian. Russia had received a new success in diplomatic with the recognizing of Nicaragua
to the 2 breakaway region. On Monday, the 2 country – Russia and Georgian has carried their dispute
over the breakaway enclaves to the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Georgian requested for
an injunction ordering Russia to stop “terrorizing” ethic Georgians and to allow refugees to return homes.
Russia challenged the court’s jurisdiction and asked it to dismiss the Georgian application as expected.
9-9-08 (RIA Novosti)
II.1.9.We did everything right, and I’m proud of it – Medvedev.
In a frank talk with members of the Valdai Discussion club, President Medvedev has reavealed how
Russia will deal with this conflict. He said that this is a hard decision to use force, no one want war, but
he need to do what he need to do. Mr Medvedev compared the incident of August 8th with 9/11 of
America. “George Bush would do the same” he said. He blamed the US for this diplomatic mistake, for
the encouragement they have put into Saakashvili’head : do whatever you want, the Russia won’t meddle.
That leader, according to Mr Medvedev is a drug abuser, unpredictable pathological, fussing like a pooch,
and won’t be recognized as a partner by Russia. About the energy field, he stressed that Asian ties bring
stability to the Western countries; Russia has enough gas to provide what Europe needs. To solve the
ahead problems, both sides: Russia and the West must sit back together and discuss to find out the
common interest and to understand each other more.
13-9-08 (Russia Today)
II.1.10Georgia violated UN charter – UN Assembly chief
At the Opening of the UN General Assembly, for the 1
st
time, a UN Assembly chief has said some thing
in Russia’s favor: Georgia violated UN charter by invading South Ossetia. Russia’s ambassador to the Un
Vitaly Churkin accused Tbisili for trying to prevent humanitarian aid to its breakaway region. Moreover,
he called for the US to issue visas to officials from South Ossetia and Abkhazia so they can attend a
Security Council meeting this October.
17-9-08 (RIA Novosti and AP)
II.2.Discussion
In the series of things that happened after the incident of August 8
th
, the most important is Russia
recognized 2 breakaway regions: South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This is the most expected move of Russia
within the conflict.
II.2.1.Why is it the most important
This recognizing and the strike back of Russia on Georgian forces and prospects earlier, like somebody
said that they marked the resurrection of a super power of the world. And also, it is a deep, hard impact on
the international laws and the world’s order. But there was a new Cold War threat ahead, and changes in
A1-K15 of Tourism Faculty – Hanoi Open University 5
English Assignment 3A
relationships between Russia and the rest of the world. From now on, everything will not happen the way
it was before. That is why, this pieces of news is chosen the most important one among 10 other pieces.
II.2.2.The Influences
The current Russia-West bilateral relationship is at an extreme low. And the often asked question about
the return to a new Cold War misses the point. A return to the Cold War is simply impossible. The same
historical, ideological, and political imperatives do not exist today. However, the conflict brewing
between Russia and the West could become far worse than the US-Soviet standoff of the past.
The world survived the Cold War because there was a set of rules both the United States and the Soviet
Union accepted. The most important rule was to avoid - at all costs - direct confrontation. The Cuban
missile crisis was a lesson learned by both the Russians and the Americans – both understand how direct
confrontation could end. With direct confrontation out of the question, promoting and backing of proxy
conflicts was the plan of action. And we saw this happen all over the world. When Russia unilaterally
withdrew from the Cold War conflict and ended communist rule (and ideology) that global conflict came
to an end – peacefully.
The Soviet collapse gave Russia a new lease on life. Russia eagerly embraced market capitalism, started
its own democracy project, and desired to be integrated into international institutions. And the West
encouraged this. However, there was a catch: Russia would enter Western institutions on terms that suited
the West. Like a schoolboy, Russia would be judged every step of the way.
While Russia was weak, Moscow had little choice. Russia made countless concessions to the West
(primarily to Washington). Moscow’s Western partners did not make a single concession. The
concessions Russia made covered issues related to security, trade, investment, and involvement on the
world stage. That all changed with the rise of Vladimir Putin. (And for all the sceptics – no, it is not only
because of high energy prices!).
What Putin recognised and Dmitry Medvedev is continuing to recognise is the fact that the US will not
accept any limits on its global reach. Washington is not interested in having any equal partners. And it
uses terms like “democracy promotion” when in fact democracy is the least of Washington’s real
concerns. We have repeatedly seen how the US will turn a blind eye on a country’s democracy (like
Georgia’s) when it suits America’s geopolitical and economic aims. This is not new. But what is new is
far more frightening than what we saw during the Cold War.
Georgia’s aggression against South Ossetia is disturbingly new and very dangerous. No matter how you
see it, this aggression was somehow sponsored by Washington - an American string-puppet all but
attacked Russia. This never happened during the Cold War. This has changed everything. Any level of
trust the between Moscow and Washington has been destroyed. From now on, Russia will not only be
overtly and openly suspicious of the US and its controlled institutions (like NATO), but it will - without
hesitation - go eye-to-eye with Washington when the time and place is right.
The West’s toolbox to punish Russia for having an independent foreign policy (and home grown
democracy) is very limited. And it is going to find this out more and more as time passes. The West’s
support of and the commentaries’ free pass for Saakashvili’s brutal regime has long term consequences.
For years I have said that Russia can help the West when it wants to but can also be very unhelpful when
it chooses to. It never should have come to this. Now we are left with the new reality of deep-seated
A1-K15 of Tourism Faculty – Hanoi Open University 6
English Assignment 3A
suspicions separating natural allies. It is Washington’s Soviet-like neuron ideological genetic code that is
getting in the way.
This is how all of this seen from Moscow: The US supported a direct attack against Russia. That attack
failed. Nonetheless, the aggressor is rewarded and the victims blamed. This will be remembered.
We are not returning to anything resembling the Cold War. What we are seeing unfold is a very different
and challenging conflict. The US has demonstrated yet again that it refuses to acknowledge Russia’s own
self-defined interests (in every sense) and it will even use military force to undermine any country that
defies Washington’s unilateralism.
Yes, we are seeing a new Russia-West conflict. And the script is being written by the West. If Russia
again is to be the enemy, then be wary. Today’s Russia is not an enemy to be trifled with. As I see it,
there are no winners in this scenario. Unlike the Cold War, there are no rules agreed to. It is this
uncertainty that should worry us.
II.2.3.Opinion
In my humble opinion all of this happened because the West no longer sees the need for international law
after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It claims it won the Cold War and now can do what it wants – even
if that means ignoring international law or making it up as it went along. We have seen this time and
again – be it the illegal invasion of Iraq or the dubious recognition of Kosovo. The consequences of this
are grave and unpredictable.
I find all of this interesting. International law probably helped us avoid a major Cold War confrontation.
What can’t it be of use today when the past Cold War rivalries find former foes having so many common
international interests? I don’t have the answer(s). However, it is clear to me that Russia has come to the
conclusion that if international law is not interpreted universally its new default position is the respect of
human rights.
Russia recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia because of its understanding of international law (and still
does not recognize Kosovo for the same reasons). However, there is an important caveat. Russia has
brought human rights – the right to not be killed in an aggressive war – back on the table. The Saakashvili
regime is not repentant. Just the opposite, its aggression has been rewarded by its Western backers. This
called for action – particularly as Russia is always impacted by violence on its borders.
Russia has done the right thing. Sadly international law doesn’t stop wars (and sometimes it is ignored to
start them). Until international law again has any salient meaning, falling back on what is undeniably
important should be respected. And that is the protection of human rights.
Since the end of Cold War the West has used and abused international law to advance its geopolitical
advantage (and usually against Russia’s legitimate security interests). The human rights factor is not part
of the West’s international legal equation. But alas, at least the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia can
now sleep at night knowing Tbilisi is no longer a threat to them.
If this is Russia’s understanding of international law, then I agree with it.
A1-K15 of Tourism Faculty – Hanoi Open University 7
English Assignment 3A
III. Conclusion
As one of the hottest topic in the world wide media, the information about the Russia-Georgian conflict is
huge and various. One day, there were at least 4 to 5 reports of differences newspapers and channels.
Each of them had their own views over this crisis. The Western media often focus on Russia invasion and
stand at the side of Georgian, while the Russian media usually criticize Saakashvili, and show sympathize
with the sufferings of South Ossetia people. To be objective, you must find information as various as
possible to get the right overview. To find 10 suitable pieces of news took us quite a lot of time.
The assignment itself contains a lot of mistake, both in grammar and logic. In the discussion, the lack of
vocabulary caused us tons of troubles expressing what we want to say. However, just in 10 pieces of
news, and the limit times from August 20
th
prevent us from showing a full view of the conflict. In fact,
only a very small part of this crisis has been revealed.
5 members of us, each person have differences skill in English, some are good at writing, some are good
at searching, and everybody has his/her own opinion. We can’t satisfy everyone, so a discussion to choose
what topic, which idea, which point of view to represent the group is needed. After all, we choose
Russia’s side and try to focus on this. However, we have not yet learned the way to cooperate, and to
discuss in English. Every single idea is first showed in Vietnamese and will be translated to English later.
On the contrary with the last assignment, we show that we made some progressive. But the old problems
are still remaining and it seemed that we need a long time to fix them. And we are sure that our work in
the future will only get better and better.
IV.References:
1.Russia Never Wanted a War
By MIKHAIL GORBACHEV
Published: August 20, 2008
THE acute phase of the crisis provoked by the Georgian forces’ assault on Tskhinvali, the capital
of South Ossetia, is now behind us. But how can one erase from memory the horrifying scenes of
the nighttime rocket attack on a peaceful town, the razing of entire city blocks, the deaths of people
taking cover in basements, the destruction of ancient monuments and ancestral graves?
Russia did not want this crisis. The Russian leadership is in a strong enough position domestically;
it did not need a little victorious war. Russia was dragged into the fray by the recklessness of the
Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili. He would not have dared to attack without outside
support. Once he did, Russia could not afford inaction.
The decision by the Russian president, Dmitri Medvedev, to now cease hostilities was the right
move by a responsible leader. The Russian president acted calmly, confidently and firmly. Anyone
who expected confusion in Moscow was disappointed.
A1-K15 of Tourism Faculty – Hanoi Open University 8
English Assignment 3A
The planners of this campaign clearly wanted to make sure that, whatever the outcome, Russia
would be blamed for worsening the situation. The West then mounted a propaganda attack against
Russia, with the American news media leading the way.
The news coverage has been far from fair and balanced, especially during the first days of the
crisis. Tskhinvali was in smoking ruins and thousands of people were fleeing — before any
Russian troops arrived. Yet Russia was already being accused of aggression; news reports were
often an embarrassing recitation of the Georgian leader’s deceptive statements.
It is still not quite clear whether the West was aware of Mr. Saakashvili’s plans to invade South
Ossetia, and this is a serious matter. What is clear is that Western assistance in training Georgian
troops and shipping large supplies of arms had been pushing the region toward war rather than
peace.
If this military misadventure was a surprise for the Georgian leader’s foreign patrons, so much the
worse. It looks like a classic wag-the-dog story.
Mr. Saakashvili had been lavished with praise for being a staunch American ally and a real
democrat — and for helping out in Iraq. Now America’s friend has wrought disorder, and all of us
— the Europeans and, most important, the region’s innocent civilians — must pick up the pieces.
Those who rush to judgment on what’s happening in the Caucasus, or those who seek influence
there, should first have at least some idea of this region’s complexities. The Ossetians live both in
Georgia and in Russia. The region is a patchwork of ethnic groups living in close proximity.
Therefore, all talk of “this is our land,” “we are liberating our land,” is meaningless. We must think
about the people who live on the land.
The problems of the Caucasus region cannot be solved by force. That has been tried more than
once in the past two decades, and it has always boomeranged.
What is needed is a legally binding agreement not to use force. Mr. Saakashvili has repeatedly
refused to sign such an agreement, for reasons that have now become abundantly clear.
The West would be wise to help achieve such an agreement now. If, instead, it chooses to blame
Russia and re-arm Georgia, as American officials are suggesting, a new crisis will be inevitable. In
that case, expect the worst.
In recent days, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President Bush have been promising to
isolate Russia. Some American politicians have threatened to expel it from the Group of 8
industrialized nations, to abolish the NATO-Russia Council and to keep Russia out of the World
Trade Organization.
These are empty threats. For some time now, Russians have been wondering: If our opinion counts
for nothing in those institutions, do we really need them? Just to sit at the nicely set dinner table
and listen to lectures?
Indeed, Russia has long been told to simply accept the facts. Here’s the independence of Kosovo
for you. Here’s the abrogation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, and the American decision to
place missile defenses in neighboring countries. Here’s the unending expansion of NATO. All of
these moves have been set against the backdrop of sweet talk about partnership. Why would
anyone put up with such a charade?
A1-K15 of Tourism Faculty – Hanoi Open University 9
English Assignment 3A
There is much talk now in the United States about rethinking relations with Russia. One thing that
should definitely be rethought: the habit of talking to Russia in a condescending way, without
regard for its positions and interests.
Our two countries could develop a serious agenda for genuine, rather than token, cooperation.
Many Americans, as well as Russians, understand the need for this. But is the same true of the
political leaders?
A bipartisan commission led by Senator Chuck Hagel and former Senator Gary Hart has recently
been established at Harvard to report on American-Russian relations to Congress and the next
president. It includes serious people, and, judging by the commission’s early statements, its
members understand the importance of Russia and the importance of constructive bilateral
relations.
But the members of this commission should be careful. Their mandate is to present “policy
recommendations for a new administration to advance America’s national interests in relations
with Russia.” If that alone is the goal, then I doubt that much good will come out of it. If, however,
the commission is ready to also consider the interests of the other side and of common security, it
may actually help rebuild trust between Russia and the United States and allow them to start doing
useful work together.
Mikhail Gorbachev is the former president of the Soviet Union. This article was translated by Pavel
Palazhchenko from the Russian.
From NewYorkTimes
2.Once Its Rationale, Collective Defense Poses New
Challenges to a Larger NATO
A1-K15 of Tourism Faculty – Hanoi Open University 10
English Assignment 3A
Yves Logghe/Associated Press
Bernard Kouchner, France’s foreign minister, center, at a NATO meeting on Tuesday attended by
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, left, and their Greek counterpart, Dora Bakoyannis.
By HELENE COOPER
Published: August 20, 2008
BRUSSELS — NATO foreign ministers strengthened their ties to Georgia on Tuesday and called
for Russia to observe a cease-fire and withdraw its troops immediately, vowing that until it does
the alliance “won’t continue with business as usual” in its relations with Moscow.
But the NATO ministers, at a rare emergency meeting, failed to agree on any specific punitive
measures, despite pressure from the United States that NATO at least threaten Russia with
unspecified “consequences,” and pleas from the Czech Republic, Poland and NATO’s Baltic
members that it take a tough stand.
Instead, NATO issued a tepid response, promising to establish a NATO-Georgia Council to
strengthen ties — a far cry from Georgia’s goal of full NATO membership. And it ignored pleas
from nervous Eastern European members for a strong, “don’t even think about it” warning against
military intervention there.
All of which raised a critical question: What, exactly, is membership in the nearly 60-year-old
alliance worth today?
“It is worth what it has been worth since 1949,” the NATO secretary general, Jaap de Hoop
Scheffer, snapped when a reporter posed the question during a news conference. “That’s my short
answer.” He called it “pathetic” that Russian officials had threatened to aim ballistic missiles at a
NATO member, Poland, in response to the Bush administration’s plan to locate an antimissile base
there.
A1-K15 of Tourism Faculty – Hanoi Open University 11
English Assignment 3A
The trouble is, back in 1949, the alliance was formed with a central tenet of collective defense. The
famous Article 5 of the NATO Charter stipulates that an attack on one NATO member is an attack
on all, a principle that assured Western Europe during the cold war that America would come to its
defense if Moscow encroached.
But the notion of collective defense is a more complicated matter now that NATO has expanded to
include 26 countries, foreign policy experts said, including former Soviet republics like Latvia,
Lithuania and Estonia, not to mention the Czech Republic and Poland. Although some said that
NATO might at least try to rustle up a defense for those countries if they were attacked, the
concept of collective defense falls apart completely in the case of Georgia and Ukraine — both
smack in Russia’s backyard and sphere of influence — even if they were NATO members.
“If Georgia was in NATO now, would we be defending them? I don’t know,” said Charles
Kupchan, a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations. “The alliance needs to make sure
that when it takes on pledges of collective defense, it is prepared to stand by them.”
European officials said they were not about to get into a military confrontation with Russia over
Georgia. That is why European countries have blocked the Bush administration’s efforts to bring
Georgia and Ukraine into the alliance, said a senior European diplomat involved in the NATO
emergency meeting on Tuesday.
While the NATO statement did promise to consider the idea of beginning Georgia’s accession to
NATO in December, the diplomat said that in reality, the prospects were virtually nil. “It’s
impossible,” he said, speaking on the condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic procedure.
The alliance’s charter, he pointed out, stipulates that potential NATO members have to resolve
outstanding border issues before joining. That alone would block Georgia’s entry. In addition, he
said, European countries are not interested in granting Georgia membership just to spite Russia.
Similarly, it is doubtful that the United States, its military stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, would
go to war with Russia to defend Georgia even if it were a member of NATO, said George
Friedman, chief executive of Stratfor, a geopolitical risk analysis company.
“The assumption that everybody made was that a mere guarantee by NATO would preclude any
threat because the Russians would never dare displease NATO or the United States,” he said.
Except now, he said, Russia has called the West’s bluff.
Tuesday’s emergency session brought the fractures in NATO into sharp relief. Even before the
meeting started, the French, Germans and even the British were saying that they had no intention
of seeking to isolate Russia. “We asked others not to stop relations between NATO and Russia,”
Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, said in an interview. “We have to talk to them, but
if they don’t implement their promises, we have to react and stand up strongly.”
Still, he said: “We need firmness, not threats. We must not threaten them, because it will not work.
Because everyone knows we are not going to war.”
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave a long discourse about not letting Russia off the hook.
“If we do, it will come back to haunt us,” Ms. Rice said, according to the official.
But that was as far as she went, he said. “Rhetorically, it was very good,” he said, “but it became
clear that she does not want to start a cold war either.” He added that the Americans knew that with
A1-K15 of Tourism Faculty – Hanoi Open University 12
English Assignment 3A
the exception of Poland, the Czech Republic and the Baltics, Europe was resisting even a slight
increase in the pressure on Russia.
That was in sharp contrast to the nations of the “new” Europe. The Czech Republic’s foreign
minister, Karel Schwarzenberg, spoke for them when he responded that Europe was already in a
new cold war, and that NATO had to act, according to diplomats in the room.
But in the end, all NATO could muster was the establishment of the NATO-Georgia Council
(which American officials billed as a slap in the face of Russia because it contained the words
“NATO” and “Georgia” simultaneously). It also warned that until Russian troops pull out of
Georgia, it would not convene another meeting of the NATO-Russia Council, which was already a
pretty vague joint venture.
“We’re not abandoning the NATO-Russia Council, but as long as Russian forces are occupying a
vast part of Georgia, I cannot see the NATO-Russia Council reconvening,” Mr. de Hoop Scheffer
said, adding quickly, “But we certainly don’t mean to close all doors with Russia.”
One Russian official scoffed at the alliance’s response on Tuesday. Said Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s
representative to NATO: “The mountain has given birth to a mouse.”
Steven Erlanger and Tom Rachman contributed reporting from Paris, and Graham Bowley from
New York.
From Russia Today
3.Russia Backs Independence of Georgian Enclaves
August 27, 2008
By CLIFFORD J. LEVY
MOSCOW — Russia on Tuesday recognized the independence of two enclaves that have long
sought to secede from neighboring Georgia. The action deepened strains with the West over the
conflict in the economically vital crossroads of the Caucasus and roiled a broader debate over how
to respond to separatist movements around the world.
A1-K15 of Tourism Faculty – Hanoi Open University 13
English Assignment 3A
The Russian decision was intended to consolidate its political and military gains in the two and a
half weeks since it invaded Georgia after hostilities flared over the breakaway territory of South
Ossetia, an ally of Moscow.
The Russian president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, declared in a nationally televised address that South
Ossetia and the other pro-Russian enclave, Abkhazia, would never again have to endure what he
described as oppressive Georgian rule.
“This is not an easy choice, but it is the only way to save the lives of people,” Mr. Medvedev said.
With Russia’s image and financial markets suffering in recent days, Mr. Medvedev took the
unusual step of giving a series of interviews to foreign media on Tuesday to explain the move. He
said Russia had abided by international law in recognizing the two enclaves, but he left no doubt
that the decision was in part retaliation for the West’s support earlier this year for the independence
of Kosovo from Serbia, which Russia had opposed.
The United States and its allies denounced the decision, saying that Georgia must not be broken
apart and contending that Russia was violating the cease-fire framework that it signed to halt the
fighting. The Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, accused Russia of trying to annex South
Ossetia and Abkhazia.
“This is a challenge for the entire world,” Mr. Saakashvili said. “Not just Georgia.”
In Washington, President Bush said, “Russia’s action only exacerbates tensions and complicates
diplomatic negotiations.”
While the dispute centers on two slices of land, it has been playing out against a much broader
backdrop of historic antagonism among the major powers over separatist movements.
World leaders have for years struggled to determine which ones to recognize, often making
decisions and then trying to limit the repercussions by warning that each situation is unique.
The questions now are: whether that hesitance to bestow recognition could be eroding, as
witnessed by Kosovo and Russia’s action in Georgia; and whether other independence movements
will use the recognition of the two enclaves to further their own ambitions by citing similar
grievances. Not far from Georgia, for example, is an Armenian enclave that wants to secede from
Azerbaijan, and Kurdish separatists are seeking their own homeland in regions of Turkey and Iraq.
In the past, most countries feared that if they waded into one such conflict, it could be used against
them in a future one. On Tuesday, no other big power followed Moscow’s lead and voiced support
for South Ossetia’s and Abkhazia’s independence.
Many in Abkhazia have expressed the desire to be separate both from Georgia and Russia — and
some experts say it might be viable as an independent nation, albeit a very small one, because of its
larger size and busy port.
South Ossetia, in contrast, has only 70,000 people and borders on the Russian region of North
Ossetia. Suspicions have long arisen that after seceding from Georgia, South Ossetia would be
absorbed by Russia and joined with North Ossetia — and most Ossetians say they support that.
The Kremlin said Tuesday that it had no plans to take over South Ossetia. It has already given
Russian passports to many residents of both places, thereby widening its influence.
A1-K15 of Tourism Faculty – Hanoi Open University 14
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét