Georgia-Russia Conflict: End of Democratic Peace Theory?

In thinking about the hopefully-over conflict between Georgia and Russia, I realized that both countries are, theoretically, liberal democracies. The Democratic Peace Theory stipulates that democratic nations do not go to war with each other. Does this mean that the theory has been disproved? Also, does the Falkland Islands conflict between the United Kingdom and Argentina (a much smaller conflict, of course) also stand as a contradiction to the theory? Any insights would be much appreciated.

McCain's Real Alternative Energy Policy

I know everyone who's been watching the Olympics in the US has seen the McCain ads about how he's really strongly in favor of alternative energy and energy independence. Here is the truth:

"It was only five days earlier, on July 30, that the Senate was voting for the eighth time in the past year on a broad, vitally important bill — S. 3335 — that would have extended the investment tax credits for installing solar energy and the production tax credits for building wind turbines and other energy-efficiency systems. ...

"Senator McCain did not show up for the crucial vote on July 30, and the renewable energy bill was defeated for the eighth time. In fact, John McCain has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has missed all eight votes over the last year — which effectively counts as a no vote each time. Once, he was even in the Senate and wouldn’t leave his office to vote.

I guess all those wind-turbine commercials on TV are supposed to replace the votes he should have been casting in favor of renewable energy investment tax credits.

[via NYT]

Background on Georgia (South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria)

As frequent readers (hah!) of this blog know, I have been trying to get a better grasp of the situation in Georgia. I finally found a rather clear explication of the situation from the Guardian (link below). Unfortunately, I am no longer sure where I stand on the conflict. On the one hand, there seems to be genuine reason for allowing South Ossetia and Abkhazia (not so much Transnistria) to develop into sovereign states; they have languages, cultures, and traditions that are distinct from those of Georgians. But, on the other hand, Russian support for their independence seems to arise purely from a desire to weaken Georgia and its successful transition into a western European state; it is unclear what exactly Russia would want to do with either fledgling state if it were able to help them secede from Georgia. Furthermore, it is unclear whether they even want to help the two regions secede, as that would apparently set bad precedent for the territorial sovereignty of nations (much like Kosovo) and threaten the unity of the Russian Federation.
It's all rather confusing but at least I now understand what exactly was happening there before it caught my interest. Some interesting bits from the piece follow:

"Take South Ossetia, which like Abkhazia had autonomous status within Soviet Georgia. Although many South Ossetians live in Tbilisi and elsewhere in Georgia, its people are really connected in terms of family, kin and language with North Ossetia, which is now in Russia, across the mountains to which it is connected through the Roki tunnel.

"Ossetians speak a language related to Persian and believe (truly) that the King Arthur of British myth was actually an Ossetian. I found billboards in Tskhinvali emblazoned with pictures of men dressed as knights in armour celebrating the 17th anniversary of South Ossetia's declaration of independence.

"The Abkhaz, like the South Ossetians, have all been given Russian passports and vote in Russian elections, even though their unrecognised statelets are legally part of Georgia. They use the rouble, their people work and study in Russia and they speak Russian at least as much as Abkhaz or Ossetian. Their elderly receive their pensions from Russia. And, as the last few days have helped demonstrate, without Russian military support, it is doubtful whether the breakaways would still exist.

"Of course, Russia is interested in its territorial integrity, not Georgia's. By supporting Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it has the means to keep Georgia at its mercy and prevent it from following the pro-western path chosen by its electorate. But beyond that, it has little real interest in the breakaway states.

All in all, a very illuminating piece.

[via Guardian]

Jammu and Kashmir conflict heating up again

As Russian army (and many irregulars) roll through central Georgia untrammeled, another conflict seems to be coming to a boil as well: the imbroglio between India and Muslim separatists in Kashmir. I don't know if people have been following this situation, but, recently, the Indian central government (the "Centre" as they call it) considered giving over some forest land to a development group with the intent of improving facilities for the thousands (possibly even millions) of Hindus who make the trek to Amarnath temple (located in Kashmir) annually. Some of the Muslim separatist factions in Kashmir decided to raise a ruckus about this, claiming that the development group was a front set up by the Hindu nationalist party, BJP, to alter the demography of Kashmir (ie, resettle Kashmir valley with Hindus to sway political decision-making in the valley).
Now, to be honest, at first, I just thought this was another of the many pathetic posturing exercises that the seemingly endless political factions indulge in on a regular basis. But, it turned out to be quite a bit more. Apparently, the level of protests, both in Muslim-majority Kashmir and Hindu-majority Jammu, has risen to levels that have not been seen since the early 1990s. Reuters had this to say about the newly-brewing conflict:

Indeed, some fear Kashmir will become a diplomatic football once again between the two nuclear rivals, with New Delhi unsure of a new civilian government in Islamabad that it perceives is in a dangerous vacuum.

Clearly, this is no longer just posturing.
However, I find the situation rather frustrating. Do the separatists actually think their lives will be "better" once they separate from India and, maybe, join Pakistan? Even putting aside the large sums of money India pours into Kashmir on an annual basis for development and what not (seemingly to no effect), separating from India would be economic suicide for the region. If they could get their act together, Kashmir, as part of India, would be a huge tourist attraction (as it used to be prior to the terrorism that began in 1989). As part of Pakistan, an Islamic Republic, the prospect for tourism/trade/etc. fall dramatically (simply because foreigners feel less comfortable dealing with a religious nation than with a secular one). As an independent state, Kashmir's prospects are even worse; how likely is it that Srinagar airport (the only viable international airport in the valley) will be able to provide as easy access to Kashmir for tourists as ... all of the transportation access points to India available to foreign tourists? Thinking simply about their own best interests would convince most "separatists" to accept India with open arms.
This is the reason that I find the notion that the separatists in Kashmir are entirely home-grown to be a total hogwash. There has to be external pressure for separatism in Kashmir; no Kashmiri, Muslim or Hindu, would ever think that seceding from India is in his/her best interests. Therefore, there are external actors that are stoking the fire. And I am not simply talking about the ISI of Pakistan (CIA/FBI equivalent), who have been accused recently of fabricating the whole notion of an economic blockade by Jammu Hindus of the only access route via truck to Kashmir. No, several Indian political parties stand to benefit from making Kashmir a conflict zone, notably the BJP. The BJP is fuelled by radicalization of Indian politics and so, it is no surprise that the BJP (and its close friend, the RSS) took up the "Hindu" cause of the Amarnath land transfer (aside: this is where one sees how important language is; BJP/RSS very consciously made something that could easily have been a development-related issue into a Hindu/Muslim conflict to foment religious radicalism on both sides) as soon as they sensed that Hurriyat and PDP (Muslim-majority political parties in Kashmir) were trying to polarize the issue in religious terms (I guess Hurriyat and PDP also know how to play the language game).
If all these external actors had never meddled with the extremely complex religious relations extant within Kashmir, not only would there no longer be a problem in that Indian state, but the whole notion of a Kashmir problem would probably not exist.

[2008-08-14] Update: I was wrong when I said that the Amarnath project was spearheaded by the central government of India; the state government was the one that started the land development project.

[2008-08-21] Update: A commenter on I Me My had some interesting comments that I chose to respond to here. Please read that, as I feel it is an interesting extension on what was written here.

[via Reuters]

Georgia - Russia Conflict

I seem to be admitting my ignorance quite often on this blog, but... I felt like I don't know much about the Georgia-Russia conflict taking place currently in the Georgian areas of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I figured the best resolution of this would be a nice map explaining everything. Thanks to the Guardian, I found just such a map. You can get to the original map via the link at the bottom of the page (but it is in PDF format). For your perusal, I have put up a JPEG version of it here. Hope it helps you understand the conflict as much as it helped me.

Note: the oil pipelines inset is particularly helpful...

[via Guardian]