In the West, we are fond of saying "the best defence is an offence". In China, 2000 years ago, Sun Tzu talked of looking strong when you are weak. In the capital of North Korea, Pyongyang, you see immaculate boulevards and street scapes only miles away from starvation and human rights violations without equal. Indeed, every civilization has its own peculiar way of masking their Achilles Heel.
The Russians, of course, are no different. They were the ones who invented the "Potemkin Village". This refers back to the actions of Field Marshall Potemkin to show Catherine the Great that Russia's modernization was on track. Along her route of travel, he had fake towns and villages (simply the 18th century equivalent of Hollywood backlots) constructed, complete with shiny happy peasants portraying more prosperous people. She appeared to be placated and the ruse was complete.
The Russians have always been skilled at showing strength at a time of weakness, and one could argue that all of the 'sturm und drang' belching out of the Kremlin is just that. Despite their bombast, Russia's leaders know they need to make friends, and get some support - somewhere.
This week, Russian President Dimitri Medvedev meets with Chinese Premier Hu Jintao to seek approval over their actions in Georgia. The Chinese have been clever enough to avoid taking sides, and instead, have issued statements urging all parties to seek a peaceful resolution.
As stated above, there are compelling reasons for Russia to want Chinese support. Unfortunately, there are equally compelling reasons for Beijing not to give it.
Beijing knows that South Ossetia and Abkhazia are international templates for Tibet and the heavily Muslim and Turkmen-dominated province of Uighur. They know that the divisibility argument can come back to haunt them big time. Despite China's growth, they are vulnerable - both politically and economically. Indeed, one main reason for the Communist Party not giving up power easily is a fear of replicating what happened with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
If Russia is an example for China, it is one in what not to do.
The other issue, and more likely the real reason, is Siberia.
China, despite its declining birth rate, still has over 1 billion people, and they have appetites for the modern trappings of life that are approximating our own. Russia, in contrast, does not have either a dynamic economy or a dynamic population. Russia's population is in clear decline, and is shrinking. Moreover, when one takes out the oil and gas sector, their economy is no more advanced than in Soviet times.
We must remember that in the 1950's and 1960's, the Russia - China border was not a safe place. Indeed Stalin and Mao -Communist comrades - did take their countries to war over it.
Today, border Russians are learning Mandarin, and Chinese entrepreneurs are opening businesses and doing trade on the Russian side.
Hu Jintao is a clever enough leader not to box himself into a corner over the 'divisibility' of states as much over the future status of this part of Russia that is becoming increasingly like China.
The Chinese think in much longer strategic terms than any of us, and it would not surprise me if the future of that region was not discussed in some form in a PRC government brief.
Then again, so does the Kremlin. Maybe that is the real reason for Russia's courting of China's support.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
What's your game?
When the former Soviet Union collapsed, and Russia began making moves to becoming a free-market economy, much of the world let out a sigh of relief. Alas, as the current situation in Georgia illustrates, history did not end with the fall of the Berlin Wall.
As I have been following the news reports on the crisis, one question creeped into my mind – do you play Chess or Poker?
I have attempted to teach my 7 year-old the rudiments of both games. I play both, and not very well, I might add. On occasion, he has beaten me, which really comes as no surprise.
My reason for doing this is not to turn him into Garry Kasparov, or supplement our family income with some online gambling winnings. These games, I contend, teach lessons that extend beyond the play itself. Both are admittedly games of skill and strategy, where the victor is often the one who can outsmart and outmanoever their opponent.
In Chess, players match each other, move for move, until one finds a weakness to exploit, and eventually ‘checkmate’ is declared. In Poker, however, the deal of the cards determines your strategy, as well as the undisclosed deal of your opponents. Unlike chess, the weakness is found not in the position of pieces on a board, but in the look of confidence, or lack thereof, in your opponents eyes.
So what does this have to do with the ongoing crisis in Georgia? Plenty, I would argue.
The Russians are, admittedly, the best chess players in the world. The game is widely popularized there, and most of its world champions from that country. On the other hand, Americans have done similarly with poker. You are as likely to find a group of Americans playing a game of poker as you will a group of Muscovites playing chess in a park. Poker sites inundate the Internet, while poker tournaments are now covered on US television as sport.
If you really take the time to look deeply into international relations, you can see that Russians play geopolitics like a game of Chess, and Americans approach it like a high stakes game of Texas Hold ‘Em. Their current, respective actions in Georgia seem to bear this out.
Russia, sensing a weakness in the opponent’s strategy, moved a pawn into a neighbouring square – in the guise of ‘peacekeepers’. The calculation, of course, is that with pieces tied up on the squares near Afghanistan and Iraq, their opponent cannot move a piece to block, lest they leave their King exposed.
Today, George Bush has announced that he was directing US forces to provide a ‘vigorous and sustained humanitarian effort’ to Georgia – one that involved air and naval forces. This is the equivalent of moving a stack of $100 chips into the centre of the table and declaring “I’ll see your ‘peacekeepers,’ and I’ll raise ya some ‘relief workers’…”
Each side is now playing a game according to rules that suit their demeanour and sensibilities. They are, in effect, playing to both their strengths, and the other's weaknesses.
This means that the future of Georgia, and possibly the broader international community, will hinge on whether the US is better at poker than the Russians are at chess.
Maybe we'd all be better off betting on the ponies...
As I have been following the news reports on the crisis, one question creeped into my mind – do you play Chess or Poker?
I have attempted to teach my 7 year-old the rudiments of both games. I play both, and not very well, I might add. On occasion, he has beaten me, which really comes as no surprise.
My reason for doing this is not to turn him into Garry Kasparov, or supplement our family income with some online gambling winnings. These games, I contend, teach lessons that extend beyond the play itself. Both are admittedly games of skill and strategy, where the victor is often the one who can outsmart and outmanoever their opponent.
In Chess, players match each other, move for move, until one finds a weakness to exploit, and eventually ‘checkmate’ is declared. In Poker, however, the deal of the cards determines your strategy, as well as the undisclosed deal of your opponents. Unlike chess, the weakness is found not in the position of pieces on a board, but in the look of confidence, or lack thereof, in your opponents eyes.
So what does this have to do with the ongoing crisis in Georgia? Plenty, I would argue.
The Russians are, admittedly, the best chess players in the world. The game is widely popularized there, and most of its world champions from that country. On the other hand, Americans have done similarly with poker. You are as likely to find a group of Americans playing a game of poker as you will a group of Muscovites playing chess in a park. Poker sites inundate the Internet, while poker tournaments are now covered on US television as sport.
If you really take the time to look deeply into international relations, you can see that Russians play geopolitics like a game of Chess, and Americans approach it like a high stakes game of Texas Hold ‘Em. Their current, respective actions in Georgia seem to bear this out.
Russia, sensing a weakness in the opponent’s strategy, moved a pawn into a neighbouring square – in the guise of ‘peacekeepers’. The calculation, of course, is that with pieces tied up on the squares near Afghanistan and Iraq, their opponent cannot move a piece to block, lest they leave their King exposed.
Today, George Bush has announced that he was directing US forces to provide a ‘vigorous and sustained humanitarian effort’ to Georgia – one that involved air and naval forces. This is the equivalent of moving a stack of $100 chips into the centre of the table and declaring “I’ll see your ‘peacekeepers,’ and I’ll raise ya some ‘relief workers’…”
Each side is now playing a game according to rules that suit their demeanour and sensibilities. They are, in effect, playing to both their strengths, and the other's weaknesses.
This means that the future of Georgia, and possibly the broader international community, will hinge on whether the US is better at poker than the Russians are at chess.
Maybe we'd all be better off betting on the ponies...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
