Why are there Conflicting Approaches to Conflict Resolution vis-à-vis South Ossetia?
Authors: Irfan Khan & Amjad Hussain
Why are there Conflicting Approaches to Conflict Resolution vis-à-vis South Ossetia?
The paper explores the conflicting approaches to conflict resolution in the world by taking South Ossetia as a case study. It attempts to understand the role of hegemony in non-resolution of these conflicts. An exploratory and qualitative research method has been applied to be able to knit the whole gamut of the forces perpetuating conflict in the world together. South Ossetia provides the context to the paper's overall argument for non-resolution of some of the pressing conflicts in our contemporary world. Washington Consensus has been used as point of departure for the study because it anchors us in America's War on Terror, which gives us the leverage to read its signs elsewhere in non-resolution of those conflicts. This gives the study the space to argue for the line of approach adopted in this thesis. Theories of traditional approaches to conflict resolution have been studied and measured against their own western standards to make our point.
With the world being shaped around what is rather infamously known as the Washington Consensus better known as the New World Order, which effectively realigned the nations of the world, willingly or otherwise, under US-led hegemony with active support from Western European nations our understanding of the conflicts and conflict resolution suffer from some deep ideological prejudices.
Certain frontiers of the ‘non-aligned’ world, nations that do not toe Washington Consensus (WC’s) line, perceived by the architects of Washington Consensus (WC) as beyond the pale of their influence have come to shape the many conflicts in and beyond the last frontiers better known as ‘rogue states’ or ‘pirates’. With propaganda mills churning out devious pictures of these Last Frontiers on the one side, the efforts to hold sway and prevail over these diverse regions of the world are clearly underway, examples like Iran, Lebanon vis-à-vis Hamas, Cuba, Venezuela. The point of WCs efforts to push for a hegemony in these states like South Ossetia, is one of the most important aspects of this paper, which is very much necessary for our understanding for the possible causes of the conflicts in South Ossetia, and our efforts to resolve it. South Ossetian conflict is a classic example of how Russian moves to insulate itself from the conflict and dictates imposed on the world by WC have been shown to the world as Russian aggression in South Ossetia. This falsehood has a method.
These double standards on part of the hegemonic powers spearheaded by USA inform the background to understanding so-called ‘ethnic’ conflict in South Ossetia that this researcher would like to investigate against a backdrop of theories of conflict resolution devoid of any semblance of practical approach and proper understanding of the dynamics of the conflicts under study.
Why are there conflicting approaches to conflict resolution vis-à-vis South Ossetia?
Justification of the case selection
It is interesting because it holds in itself the seeds for understanding the larger game-plan of an Imperial Elite in the world bent upon eradicating every semblance of hurdle in its absolute control of the world for which it is already preparing the ground by saying such things as Global Democracy, Global Citizenship etcetera(Tariq Ali, Chomsky). It is very interesting to understand this heinous game plan in action using false pretexts. (45-minute Dossier presented by Donald Rumsfield before UN, which turned out to be a total fabrication, and plagiarized from an Iraqi dissident students PhD thesis). The war in South Ossetia is the battle for that last frontier viz the Russian Federation and its vast natural resources for the New World Order under the infamous Washington Consensus.
Statement of argument
This paper will explore the South Ossetian conflict because it presents a unique perspective to understand the deep contradictions of the West and America, and to do comparative study to show, where the theories dealing with the conflict resolution are not only having it completely wrong but are preparing minds for the imperial project of hegemony. That West has failed in their enlightenment project because time and again, and history is witness to it, their efforts have metamorphosed into deep contradictions is a point that this paper would bring to the light from under the carpet where it is always shoved. Kant (1795) with his categorical imperative, ethics and morality and Perpetual Peace can be cited as an example because his making his entry in the in a course on International Relations in a Western University in general and in the Western psyche in particular is indicative of the fact that West has been forced by its failures to go back to the beginnings of their Enlightenment Project and reconstruct it from there. Are they in need of Kant's moral philosophy because they think this would help in the newly articulated paradigm of world democracy, or one government? What are the factors that are forcing this re-thinking? They would fall again, as on previous occasions, as in the case of Enlightenment project? Who would they turn to again when they fail again? To Kant, Categorical Imperative (Johnson, 2004); to Hegel, Theory of Recognition (Iser, 2013); to Hebermas (1998), Communicative action.
This is a qualitative research which is based on archival methods. The researcher used applied inductive approach with qualitative research method that brings depth to an interpretivist philosophy. The depth is covered through archival research, exploring the existing research on the topic taking South Ossetia as a case study.
The researcher approached the subject by analysing the many theories of conflict resolution like Holsti’s (2000),Waltz’s (2001), Kaufmann’s (1996) and Kant’s (1795, 2003) and would apply them to understanding the conflict in South Ossetia with a view to clearly sift myth from reality and identify the causes of the ethnic strife in South Ossetia by linking them with the realities and hard facts of history as they have unfolded under the WC and New World Order (nwo).
The researcher aims to focus on the conflict anew in order to clearly distinguish between the rhetoric and deeds of the players involved perpetuating a human catastrophe of immense proportions as it is unfolding in South Ossetia. The researcher would be focusing solely on the three primary sources i.e. Waltz (2001), Holsti (2000), and Kant (1795) and build towards the central argument of my thesis that the approaches presented to resolving conflicts are couched in contradictions and do not stand up to the test. We would be rubbing their rhetoric against the grain of the facts on the ground to explore in more detail the latent and overt ideological biases and stand-points of some of these theories put forward to resolve conflicts.
The paper relies on the understanding drawn from the conflicts and approaches to these conflicts with a view to resolve these conflicts in the recent history particularly after the demise of the Soviet Bloc. This approach would be grounded in the twin rubric of postmodern and postcolonial theories helping us understand the hitherto shunned perspective in an age of continuous simulacra for the Modern Man. The paper would attempt to draw conclusions from our understanding of the conflict and suggest alternative solutions to resolving the conflict with possible repercussions for the region.
The research explores in much detail and depth a whole web of related ideas that perpetuate the conflicts in the world and our inability to resolve these conflicts taking the conflict in South Ossetia as our central focus for the paper. This would allow us to understand in detail the causes of war as narrated, for instance, by Waltz (2001) and Holsti (2000). The geographical proximity of the region to NATO’s current operations in and around the borders of the former Russian Empire, the natural resources of the region of Caucasus, the proposed Turkmenistan gas pipe-line, and Iran’s interests in the region with its strife with EU and US all make South Ossetia as a case study an enlightening endeavor with far reaching consequences.
Waltz (2001) is considered the foremost thinker in International Relations today (Griffith, 2001). His thesis of causes of war in the world and his theory of “permissive war” (Waltz, 2001) is the best place to start with. He favours a strong World Government (Griffith, 2001), which can without doubt only be a western one, for keeping the rouge-states(Blum, 2005) in check. It is this taken for given ideologically biased position, which shadow the inferences that are presented as theories of conflict resolution to the world.
Wight (2006) has argued successfully that waltz is reductionist. This term has been explained by Waltz himself, which means “the whole is understood by knowing the attributes and the interactions of its parts” (Waltz, 2001).
Writing under the shadow of Cold War, he thinks that there is a palpable, observable and perceived gulf between rhetoric about peace and the actual steps taken towards it. He thinks that we are also asking the wrong questions. He writes:
“If one asks whether we can now have peace where in the past there has been war, the answers are most often pessimistic. Perhaps this is the wrong question. And indeed the answers will be somewhat less discouraging if instead the following questions are put: Are there ways of decreasing the incidence of war, of increasing the chances of peace? Can we have peace more often in the future than in the past?” (Waltz 2001: 19)
He holds that in order to achieve peace we must understand the causes of war among the states. He uses the title of Mortimer Adler’s ‘How to Think about War and Peace’ (Waltz 2001: 20) to give an indication of his thesis, or the central idea that his book is dealing with.
Man’s nature to do evil, according to Waltz (2001), is the first major cause of war in the world. He shows this to be held by many as the cause of war. He cites the examples of German Chancellor Bismarck and Spinoza in order to prove why statesmen and philosophers held Man to be the cause of war (Waltz, 2001). He therefore thinks the English poet and statesman John Milton was right when he held that it is not God who has created Evil in the world but rather it is the ‘perverseness’ within the heart of Man that causes it (Waltz 2001). This could explain wars in the world started by the mere whims of princes and their perverted natures.
But then there is another set of philosophers, writes Waltz (2001), who articulates the problem from another angle: Does man make society in his image or does his society make him?
Rousseau (1712-1778, cited by Cameron, 2013) believed that Man was capable of both evil and goodness and so is the society that can make him either good or evil. Waltz (2001) thinks Rousseau supported the Romantic yearning for the noble savage but with society’s moralizing tendencies firmly with him in that state. Waltz thinks it would be a mistake to think that Rousseau thought about the noble savage otherwise. Rousseau supported the movement back in time but laments the advent of society for the simple reason that society ‘cuts’ both ways. It can make Man peaceful within his community or his immediate society but since organization of Men is interlinked with political organization as well so the evolution is towards war between the societies of these ‘noble savages’ (Ibid: 23). It is in understanding these differences among societies that causes of war could be identified and eliminated for good for the end of peace. He therefore agrees with Rousseau that there are not only similarities between societies but differences as well and these differences must be understood to eliminate the threat of war and usher in Perpetual Peace. In order to fully understand the consequences of war these differences among societies of Men must be thoroughly understood. Doing this is akin to studying the ‘varying social relations of men’ (Ibid), which is in effect the study of (international and inter-national) politics. It comes closer to what Holsti (1996: xiv) defined as ‘wars of the third kind’. Waltz comes to the next important phase: Can man in society best be understood by studying man or by studying society? (Ibid).
He favours removing the ‘or’ and studying both but he poses another important question: where does one begin ones study? (Waltz 2001: 23) Because the point of origin of one’s perspective makes all the difference, he writes. Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834) and Rousseau both started from studying human institutions— economic, political or social— but reached different conclusions. That is why, Waltz suggests, it is of utmost importance to know the points of origin of one’s (political scientists or political or social theorist’s) perspective to understand his inflection on the causes of war. He also seems to be suggesting that it is of tremendous importance to know whether understanding these causes should be inter-national, nation as in a nation-state, or international as among different states or nation-states, whether one should focus on Man and his inherent defects as in Milton and or on the relations of states as in Plato and Kant.
The problem for Waltz (2001) lies in maintaining the ‘or’ which separates Man as an individual from Man as a social animal and his actions in this domain. It is a simple calculation: bad Man breeds a society of bad Men who make bad states, and bad states lead to wars because its foundation is built on the inherent evil Man is capable of, which is what Milton said (Waltz, 2001). But the puzzling question, Waltz thinks, is when good states go to war like in his case United States or the West, a society of good states (‘zone of peace’) for Holsti (1996), going to wars during the Cold War ‘under the superpower surrogate wars’, for instance, if not open combat because of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) under the overwhelming signs of nuclear catastrophe. “With varying degrees of justification, this view [of good states going to war] can be attributed to Plato and Kant, to nineteenth-century liberals and revisionist socialists” (Waltz (2001: 24). Is it not a veiled justification for the Capitalist Bloc’s perspective on world and the wars under its umbrella? Because Waltz’s simple mathematics is that America or its Western European allies make up what he calls ‘good states’. Does world history after the collapse of the Soviet Bloc support Waltz’s (2001) thesis?
External circumstances of states are not only driven by being good in the face of threat but compels one also to seize the initiative, as proposed by the Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Strike also known as ‘the Bush Doctrine’ (Record, 2003), if one can, to protect ones freedom, suggests Waltz (2001). So being good doesn’t always pay in the comity of nations. Waltz doesn’t explain who defines the distinction between ‘good states’ and ‘rogue states’. Because as the dictum goes, “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist”. But then this is how a noble savage would have lived shaping his responses according to his perceptions of others based on being either good or bad. Are Wars, then, the result of these perceptions, ‘made up’ as shown by postmodernism, because Modern Man takes other Men to be his enemy, which evolves at another level into enmity between states?
Is this the product of our growing up in a world society of different people dominated by fear of the other, the different? Or is human greed behind war? Or is it that different religious cults are taking Man towards Armageddon through ‘unholy’ wars? Is there somehow a latent defense of the American side, by Waltz, during the Cold War, that it presented to the world as ‘good guys (Capitalists) vs. bad guys (Communists)’ as in ‘what the state will be like depends on its relation to others’, or as in George Bush’s classic imperial statement on the eve of attacking Iraq and Afghanistan ‘either you are with us or against us’? Was then the Coalition of the Willing really a Coalition of the Willing? Has the world forgotten for good the 45 Minute Dossiers presented before it in the UN General Assembly to make the case for war? Were these ‘fears’ borne out by the facts on the ground? Like in Waltz where does one start this unraveling to understand the causes of conflicts and wars in the world? Whether from studying ethnic differences, or tribal, or parochial, national or cultural, or economic, or civilizational, or religious?
And Kant makes entry at this crucial juncture on every level. And it is to Kant (1795)that we can refer now to understand the make-up of our individual Reason and Judgment under the sign of Enlightenment. That they — Reason and Judgment— are made up is the premise of the Frankfurt School. That it is the Categorical Imperative of Kant, which has been missing from the morality or ethics governing man. That it is these ideals not realized by Modernity, which was in turn founded on Enlightenment rationality. The Frankfurt School could therefore famously say, “Enlightenment is Totalitarian”. What are the options for Peace before the so-called Modern Man today? Are they workable? Kant’s Perpetual Peace (Kant, 1795) was a step in that direction.
It is also like reading the opportunities missed by the enlightened class of the West. Kant had accurately predicted the debacle the world is facing today. It is therefore an accurate rendition of their collective failures. These historical failures of the West have been ignored completely when dealing with the crisis and conflict in South Ossetia. The case is for moral high ground in South Ossetia vis-à-vis Russian federation is built on the premise that Russia committed aggression against Georgia. That Russian `aggression´ is premised on its move to insulate itself from imperialism’s quest for the last frontier has been ignored. The result has been flawed theories of conflict resolution in that region.
Holsti (1996) asserted that NATO member states resolved ‘war of a third kind’? However, there are still wars in the name of Freedom and Democracy waged by NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ali (2002) asserts that the world ‘knows’ the reality of their grounds for going to war there. Is it humane and morally justifiable, on any pretext be it religious or economic or in the name of national interests, to kill and maim millions of innocent people referred to as ‘collateral damage’ in order to bring Freedom and Democracy to a people? Are they justified in telling someone in Iraq or Afghanistan that you must have lost your entire family lineage but cheer up because we have brought Freedom and Democracy to you? These wars for capitalist’s interests waged by what Waltz (2001) is fond of calling ‘good states’ (Chomsky, 2006). Postmodernism lumps it together and calls it that meanings are not stable, that the world is a ‘process of simulacra’. Kant comes back again to bear on the subject with his Ethics or Categorical Imperative when postmodernism takes up the issues in Enlightenment legacies.
There are alternatives to understanding causes of war in the world, and eliminating them.
Analysis of South Ossetia: A Case Study
The shortcomings of conflicting approaches to finding peaceful resolution to the conflict in South Ossetia become obvious when look at the conflict from an objective standpoint. Most of the theorists like Kauffman (, for instance, of conflict resolution have adopted an approach that reeks of Cold War era mentality, and what is later on called the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strike paying no heed to the human cost. Russia has responded to this fear in South Ossetia inculcated by the naked aggression of capitalism and capitalist interests in the Caucasus region. The war portrayed as ‘ethnic conflict’ has concrete ideological overtures as well, which proves Holsti’s (2001) point that wars of ideology have replaced such other causes of war such as territory. Lack of trust between EU and US on the one side and Russian Federation on the other, borne out by hard historical facts, have also played a key in providing the trigger to Russia to occupy South Ossetia.
Russian involvement in South Ossetia stem from certain geo-strategic moves that European Union initiated backed by the American Imperial designs. Russian move in south Ossetia on a slight pretext was occasioned by the need for Russia to insulate itself, or its Southern frontier, against the growing US influence in the region spearheaded by its moves to install not only Washington-installed Orange Revolutions but its moves to install Missile Defense Shield across Europe. As it enters a postmodern awakening to the reality of their own hollowness, their move to use EU membership as the only ticket to the 'promised Heaven', a means of influencing odds for American hegemony in the region formerly policed by Russia also necessitated the Russian move to 'insulate' itself by invading, on the side of an ethnic minority in South Ossetia, Georgia to 'liberate' South Ossetia.
Starting with the war in Iraq, we can clearly see a certain pattern emerging in 'hyper nationalist mobilization rhetoric' (Kauffman 1996: 03) in the West when Bush Administration was bent upon spilling blood to avenge 9/11 attacks. Since Iraq could not be directly linked with the attacks, pretexts were needed to be constructed to justify an unjust war. To rid the people of Iraq, for example, from a tyrant Saddam Hussain, by killing them in thousands so that the mission could be accomplished (that of bringing Freedom and Democracy to Iraq). It was in this background of hyper-nationalist mobilization rhetoric that Tony Blair Government presented that infamous 45 Minute Dossier which was then used to win over an unsuspecting public, mobilization, which has so far surpassed the atrocities committed by Saddam, with Donald Rumsfeld’s supplied chemical weapons, in his Thirty Years rule. Imperialism does create false values and flawed ideologies to advance its goals in the World. Is Kauffman’s (1996) theory catering to this Western Reason and do his views betray his ideological biases which takes its position in the world to act as benign police resolving conflicts without understanding the Other, the non-Western?
This brings us to the second thread in Kauffman’s (1996: 36) thinking, his second premise, informing his conclusions which is: 'intermingled population settlement patterns create real security dilemmas that intensify violence'. We can see a very palpable gulf in his views again which separates, by creating a binary division, them from us; millions of Asians, Arabs, and Africans living in the West and America and the way these people have been hounded has done exactly what Kauffman (1996: 12) says 'hardens ethnic identities'. To it we can add religious identities as well. This has metamorphosed into one big eruption of violence in America and the West post 9/11. But Kauffman would never agree, rather he does not even see, this conflict as stemming from something immanent in the Western perception.
It cannot therefore be a viable alternative to the conflict in South Ossetia as Georgia would be carrying a grudge and its inclination towards EU and NATO would be considered by Russia as its encirclement by American backed NATO. Ethnic pretext available to them can lead to a major war in Caucasus and Europe.
The ‘World community’ (Kauffman, 1996: 02) as referred to by Kauffman is empty of any semblances of meaning when the world knows well how Tony Blair used British Government’ s 45 Minute Dossier, propagated by American Secretary of State for Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to initiate George Bush’s war of ‘either with us or against us’? Does Kauffmann mean that ‘world community’ which gave its Nod of Shame willingly, independently? Did it do so without any fear of retribution? What else does he mean by ‘world community’ then? Isn’t it a way of being an Imperial apologist? And so are many other theorists attempting to define International Relations from a prejudiced viewpoint.
Kant (1795), for example, was right to hold that conflicts would remain with Man and that the only place to have perpetual peace is grave but if Republicanism can be adhered to it would usher an era of perpetual peace nonetheless. Many states in the world today are Republics, most of them in the NATO alliance. The fact of the matter is that Iraq and Afghanistan present a different views altogether. They stand as instances, out of the many more, of crimes against humanity in the name of some dubious principles that these Republican states fought for. Colin Powell, American Secretary of the State, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been shown by irrefutable evidence to have taken the world for a ride by their shameless lying. This is International Relations fuelled by real politiks where academies and academics churn out theories of conflict resolution and the practice is reminiscent of the Dark Ages of Man. It is these contradictions from a society of nations fond of calling itself civilized and decent that tales of Abu Gharib and of rendition camps in Europe that one hears fascinating accounts of conflict resolution. It is this contradiction that has prompted Russian moves in the Caucasus region. The study is therefore intended to present alternative ways to conflict resolution from different perspectives because the moral authority has been long lost by the proponents of conflict resolution like Kauffman.
The problem in South Ossetia, and its colouring as ethnic war between Russian loyalists and Georgian loyalists, is symptomatic of the Western thinking patterns inherent in many theorists. They look at the problem as an ethnic one but ignore Russian strategic insulation of itself because American Imperialism, actively supported by European Union, has brought the Great Game to its hitherto secure frontiers. EU's membership has been waived like bait with the dominant symbolic meaning of that you are better off with WC than being on the periphery like Russia or Iran or the Pirates of the Caribbean. With all the false ideologies of Capitalism and modernity couched in propaganda and presented before Georgians to lure them to the camp of Imperialism has the potential to destabilize the region further because Russian would not stand silently by as it is being encircled. It would be led to move in Caucasus instigated by wrong inferences that it would draw from the destabilization within its own borders. It would be far easy to blame it on Chechens while the Eagle prepares for the final kill. America's Inter-Continental Missile Defense Shield would be, and should rightly be, construed in Moscow as encirclement of Mother Russia. Kauffman looks at this 'regional conflict' in ethnic terms whereas it is far more than that. It is the softening up of the enemy by other means. His theory, like many others that this researcher would investigate, falls short of resolving conflict.
Our stand is supported by Thomas (2009). It is therefore not one of the causes but at the core of the conflict. The important question here is not what but how. How this conflict is to be understood and dealt with? The question brings Kant into the equation with his Categorical Imperative. It is a matter of will of the individual, as Waltz would understand it.
At the heart of every conflict lies, somewhere hidden beneath a heap of lies and propaganda, the word injustice. This is the cause of nearly all conflicts. Imperialism plays a double role here. It allows certain injustices to be buried under propaganda and false pretexts to exacerbate the conflict which ensues as a result of that injustice so that it can have space to enter the fray when the time has come for the strategic interference.
Iraq, for instance, was provided with biological weapons by none other than Bush administrations Donald Rumsfeld to be used against Iran. The tyrant used it against Kurds. The use was later on used to justify when the WMD hoax was exposed to be based on sheer lies to invade Iraq. The other meaning, which is available, is that would it have been acceptable for America had Saddam used the biological weapon on Iranians in his long conflict with them? These double standards have seeped into the theorists of the so-called experts on conflict resolution. The paper is intended to reveal these double standards. Waltz’s (2001) first image that man is responsible for the cause of war is a fascinating read on many counts here. First, Saddam and Bush, two of the contemporary world politics most eccentric char actors, combined to kill millions of innocent people in cold blood euphemistically as “collateral damage”. Secondly, it makes a distinction between rouge state and an imperial state who can get away with under Waltz’s pretext of permissive war (Waltz, 2001). Thirdly, because it proves the fallacy of waltz’s thesis that only World Power can work as deterrence exposing thereby my point that theory of conflict resolutions to solve conflicts like South Ossetia suffer from deep ideological biases hindering a clearer and proper perspective.
Implications of the paper
This war has far reaching consequences for world peace. It would kick start a war that would be the Mother of all Wars. It is not just a conspiracy theory but a fact borne out by hard facts on the ground, and their philosophical counterparts preparing the minds for this domination called New World Order where America and its allies would always be siding with the worst of dictators, indulging in Contra Wars and telling the masses it is for their own good that they are collateral damage. The implications of this war are therefore many dimensional and far reaching.
The study presents, on another level, a very complex picture of the 'aggressive posturing of the forces of Capitalism and Globalisation that caters to the 'world as exhibit' that forces these ethnic conflicts when they are pushed towards hegemonic tendencies that both these forces bring with it with the resultant strife and conflicts in the society that was previously united in its diversities. The unfulfilled promise that drove the Romantics away from the French Revolution has happened again in the turmoil after the failure of the promises made in the Rose and Orange Revolutions of the former Soviet Republic. Their society is faced with questions of far more intense nature now, like that of identity that the sweep of modernity and modernism follow into the formerly air-tight compartmentalisation enforced through the Iron Curtain and which Globalisation and the false promises of Capitalism have thrust open.
South Ossetian conflict suffers from some of the worst contradictory approaches inherent in conflict resolution theses. The reality of the conflict has been analysed from points of views that are securely centered on certain premises of the theorists that do not come up to practical solutions to the conflict as such. They also suffer from ‘one-size-fits-all’ syndrome, which effectively negates the unique aspects of the conflict. There are alternative to resolving the conflict in South Ossetia provided room for accommodation is allowed.
The resolution of the conflict is also dependent upon the attitude of the dominant West and America who must first give reasons to the world to take them for their words. It has not always been the case in International Relations that they have acted on their words outside the boundaries of their states. This duality has also given negative colours to their stance on South Ossetia. If EU and America is a supporter of right to self-determination in South Ossetia they same should have been the case in Ireland. If they are fighting for human rights, they should have forced their American counter-parts to respect the same the world over from Guantanamo Bay to Abu Gharib, to Contra Wars, to rendition camps around a human rights watch-dog Europe. The point is to bring to the fore another most important aspect to the conflict in South Ossetia to the fore which is that Russian moves in South Ossetia were hastened by the double standards of EU and America on a number of international occasions. Innocent people would continue to suffer under such pretexts before the world as sovereignty and security whereas the reality is that these issues have been exacerbated by EU and America itself.
Ali, T. (2002). The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity (1st th ed.). London/New York, USA: Verso.
Blum, W. (2005). Rough States: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower (3rd ed.). London/New York, USA: Common courage . (Original work published 2000).
Brown, Micheal E. (1996). The Causes & Regional Dimensions of Internal Conflict. In: The International Dimensions of Internal Conflict. London: The MIT Press. 571-601
Chomsky, N. (2006). Imperial Ambitions (2nd ed.). London/New York, USA: Penguin
Thomas, L. (2009). The Bear Went Through the Mountain: Russia Appraises its Five-Day War in South Ossetia. The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. 22 (1), 31-67.
Waltz, K. (2001). The Man, State, and War. New York : Columbia University Press. 263.
Wight, C. (2006). Agent, Structures, and International Relations: Politics as Ontology. Cambridge University Press.
About the Authors
Irfan Khan is a PhD research scholar at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies and visiting faculty member at department of International Relations University of Peshawar. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Amjad Hussain is Lecturer in English at National University of Modern Languages (Peshawar Campus), Peshawar. email@example.com