Posted on August 18, 2008 in Washington Watch

By now it’s become a cliché to suggest that the crisis in Georgia has presented both Senators McCain and Obama with a “3 a.m. moment.” (That being a reference, of course, to the Hillary Clinton television ad in which the White House Hotline phone rings at 3 a.m. while a narrator asks, “It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep… Something’s happening in the world… Who do you want answering the phone?”) A bit trite, to be sure, but the crisis has, in fact, revealed a great deal about both candidates for President.

Much has been made of the post-August 8th statements made by the Republican and Democratic nominees. McCain, for example, was quick to condemn what he termed “Russian aggression,” saying that it was “a matter of urgent moral and strategic importance to the United States… a clear violation of international law” and called on Russia to “immediately and unconditionally cease operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory.”

Senator Obama, on the other hand, initially, reacted more cautiously, condemning “the outbreak of violence in Georgia,” urging “an immediate end to armed conflict.” He added, “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation…. Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected.”

The McCain camp termed Obama’s position “naïve” and “appeasement.” Randy Schuememann, McCain’s top foreign policy advisor, criticized Obama’s comments calling for both sides to show restraint, stating that McCain “is clearly willing to note who he thinks is the aggressor here.”

The Obama campaign responded, defending their own position as “measured” and “nuanced,” and accusing McCain of being irresponsible and provocative. Susan Rice, a Senior Obama foreign policy advisor, noted that Obama’s position tracked that of the Administration and U.S. NATO allies. “We were dealing with the facts as we knew them. John McCain shot from the hip [with a] very aggressive, belligerent statement.” Said another Obama advisor, the “temperature of your rhetoric isn’t a measure of your commitment to Georgian sovereignty.”

As events unfolded and the disproportionate nature of Russia’s actions became clear, Obama, like the Administration and NATO allies, became more critical of Russia, demanding an immediate end to hostilities and its withdrawal from Georgian territory, and called for the replacement of Russian peacekeeping troops with an international force.

McCain also went further. He reiterated his position, calling for Russia to be removed from the G-8, and, for emphasis, has in recent days consistently referred to that group as the G-7. He also now calls for the U.S. to reject Russia’s application to join the WTO, and warns that Russia’s behavior in Georgia could represent a return to “a divided Europe.”

While McCain offers his “strong stand” as proof of his readiness to lead, others aren’t so sure. Some regional experts have noted that, just two months ago, in a major foreign policy address, McCain discussed the importance of engaging Moscow in nuclear arms reduction talks and in helping to restrain Iran. How, they ask, could both of these critical objectives be met by ostracizing Russia?

At the same time, there have been concerns raised that McCain’s closeness to Georgia and its President may, in fact, have clouded his judgment. He continually refers to the Georgian President as “my friend Misha,” and notes that, since the crisis began, they have spoken on the phone several times a day. And, in an emotional address on August 14th date, he told a cheering Pennsylvania crowd, “Today we are all Georgians.” It has also been revealed that Scheunemann has, until recently, been a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government. His two-man firm has recorded almost a million dollars in receipts from the Georgian government since 2004, with almost $300,000 coming during the very time period when Scheumemann was serving as a paid McCain advisor.

All of this has raised questions about whether or not, as a result of this too-close embrace, Saakashvili had unreasonable expectations of U.S. support, causing him to make a strategic miscalculation in approaching this conflict.

Obama, like McCain, has long-supported Georgia’s entry into NATO, and expressed concern about Russian ambitions in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Nevertheless, on July 23rd, Obama noted that only a political settlement can resolve the conflicts; and, while he called on Russia to roll back its aggressive actions, also called on the Georgian government to “resist the temptation to be drawn into military conflict.”

In assessing both candidates, one observer noted that McCain’s position could be seen as being “in line with the moral clarity and American exceptionalism projected by President George W. Bush’s first term” – i.e., hard-line neo-conservative and confrontational. Obama, on the other hand, has taken a position, on this crisis, more in line with the current occupant of the White House (the “kinder, gentler” George W. Bush) with his newfound appreciation for diplomacy.

In any case, the question remains: “It’s 3 a.m…. Who do you want answering the phone?”

Washington Watch is a weekly column written by AAI President James Zogby. The views expressed within this column do not necessarily reflect those of the Arab American Institute.

We invite you to share your views on the topics addressed within Dr. Zogby’s weekly Washington Watch by emailing jzogby@aaiusa.org.

comments powered by Disqus