Nato suspends "business as usual" with Russia

Beyond an expression of "grave concern" and the use of what Condoleezza Rice called "strong language", Nato lacks the means and the will to apply pressure on Russia. Georgia is now viewed as having little chance of joining the alliance. In Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif threatens to withdraw from the coalition unless the Supreme Court chief justice is restored to office.

"The North Atlantic Council met in special ministerial session on 19 Aug 2008, expressed its grave concern over the situation in Georgia and discussed its wider implications for Euro-Atlantic stability and security," said a statement released after a meeting of foreign ministers held at Nato headquarters in Brussels. The statement went on to say: "The Alliance is considering seriously the implications of Russia's actions for the Nato-Russia relationship. In 2002, we established the Nato-Russia Council, a framework for discussions with Russia, including on issues that divide the Alliance and Russia. We have determined that we cannot continue with business as usual. We call on Moscow to demonstrate - both in word and deed - its continued commitment to the principles upon which we agreed to base our relationship." The New York Times said: "European officials said they are not about to get into a military confrontation with Russia over Georgia. That's 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. "The Nato statement did promise to consider the idea of beginning Georgia's accession to Nato in December, the diplomat said that in reality, its prospects are virtually nil. 'It's impossible,' he said, speaking on 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 accession just to spite Russia." Reuters reported: "The Nato statement drew sharp condemnation from Moscow, where Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused the alliance of bias and wanting to support a 'criminal regime' in Tbilisi. "'Certainly there will be a lot of changes in our cooperation with Nato and we will have changes in the volume, the quality and the timeframe in our consultations and meetings,' Russian ambassador to Nato Dmitry Rogozin said in Brussels." The Guardian said: "Rice insisted that Nato had an open door policy and that countries who wanted to join should be free to do so. But the US secretary of state said that the US and the West did not want to isolate Russia, a point echoed by David Miliband, the British foreign secretary. " 'I am not one that believes that isolating Russia is the right answer to its misdemeanours. I think the right response is hard-headed engagement,' Miliband told reporters before the meeting. "Miliband said the priority was to show support for Georgia and ensure Russia stuck to a French-brokered accord to end the conflict over the breakaway South Ossetia region." In Open Democracy, George Hewitt, professor of Caucasian languages at London's School of Oriental & African Studies, wrote: "The torrent of media commentary on the Georgia-Russia war has been characterised by near-obsessive geopolitical calculation, which - as so often where Georgia and the region is concerned - tends by default to view Georgia's 'lost' territories (if they are viewed at all) as nothing more than inconsiderate and irritating pawns on a global chessboard. For this reason - but mainly because Abkhazia and South Ossetia matter in themselves and are central to any resolution of the issues underlying the Aug 2008 war - it is useful to consider the arguments for taking them and their claims seriously. "A striking feature of the Georgian political landscape even in these desperate days of Mikheil Saakashvili's humiliation is that there is very little recognition in the country of how deep are the scars inflicted by Georgia's invasions of South Ossetia (1990-92) and Abkhazia (1992-93). It is only when Georgia can at an official level come to take responsibility for its own role in this period that progress in resolving these now so-called 'frozen conflicts' can be made." In The Wall Street Journal, Thomas de Waal said: "So much has been left in ruins in the Caucasus in the past week. What chance is there of a salvage operation? "The landscape is littered with wreckage. First South Ossetia was ravaged; now Georgia is experiencing a great tragedy. Amid the wider carnage, the greatest losers are the 25,000 or so ethnic Georgians of South Ossetia. Only a month ago Ossetians and Georgians were buying and selling from one another in South Ossetia by day even as armed men in their villages exchanged fire at night. Now those Georgians face total dispossession, their homes burned by South Ossetian irregular fighters. Around 50,000 Georgians in Abkhazia are still in their homes, but they face a precarious future. These people have the greatest moral right to pass judgment on a long list of culprits."

Sharif issues ultimatum on the restoration of Pakistan's chief justice

"A day after their unified effort ousted President Pervez Musharraf, the two major parties in the governing coalition fell into disarray on Tuesday when they failed to agree on the restoration of the chief justice of the Supreme Court," The New York Times reported. "The instant deterioration in relations became evident when Nawaz Sharif, the leader of one of the parties, the Pakistan Muslim League-N, walked out of a meeting here and headed back to his home in Lahore, a four-hour drive away. "Party members said Mr Sharif had delivered an ultimatum to the senior coalition party, the Pakistan Peoples Party, led by Asif Ali Zardari, to consent to the return of the chief justice, Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, within 72 hours, or the Mr Sharif's party would leave the government. Mr Chaudhry was among some 60 judges suspended by Mr Musharraf last year." In The Washington Post, Ahmed Rashid wrote: "The most pressing issues today involve the long-standing tension of Pakistan's politics and the relationship between the civilian government and the military. The government is led by the Pakistan People's Party, now run by Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, but his party governs through a complex coalition of parties. "The PPP's main antagonist is former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, head of the Pakistan Muslim League-N, who never misses an opportunity to try to pull down the PPP, his longtime rival, rather than working with it to consolidate the few democratic gains the country has made. "Overthrown by Musharraf in a 1999 coup and humiliated by the army, Sharif rejects concessions to the army and offers no support to the war against Taliban extremists. Busy pandering to his right-wing supporters, he has little time for American demands." Meanwhile, reporting from neighbouring Afghanistan, The New York Times said: "Taliban insurgents mounted their most serious attacks in six years of fighting, one a complex attack with multiple suicide bombers on an American military base on Monday night, and another by some 100 insurgents on French forces in a district east of the capital, killing 10 French soldiers and wounding 21 others, military officials said Tuesday. "Three American soldiers were wounded and six members of the Afghan special forces in the attack on the base in the eastern province of Khost, bordering Pakistan, the Afghan military spokesman, Gen Zaher Azimi, said. The battle lasted all night, 10 suicide bombers were killed or blew themselves up, and the insurgents were repulsed without entering the base, he said. "The heavy fighting in the two places is a sharp escalation in insurgent operations in what is already Afghanistan's deadliest year since the American invasion in 2001. Insurgents have increased their use of roadside bombs and suicide bombs but have also shown a growing sophistication with several well-organised, complex operations employing multiple attackers and different types of weapons systems, Nato officials say."