Conflict in Caucasus

Globe Should Work Out New Dispute-Settlement Methods

Russia's signing on the ceasefire agreement with Georgia has stopped gunfire in the Caucasus, but peace there seems shaky at best.

Despite the West's calls for a swift pullout, Moscow has made it clear it would take as much time as it needs ― and wants ― a thinly-veiled expression of intent to keep its former ``vassal'' state on a leash, as Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili described his own country.

As the embattled Georgian leader said, the just-ended military clash appeared to be a carefully engineered plot by Russia to show it is alive and well to the erstwhile satellite states of the former Soviet Union, particularly those which are moving toward democracy and capitalism.

This could hardly be called a revival of the Cold War yet, but it is also true the global political weather is getting quite chilly recently. As if by coincidence, the brief war between the former Socialist boss and its small neighbor broke out on the opening day of the 29th Summer Olympic Games in Beijing, for which China silenced disgruntled voices from its ethnic minorities, including Tibetans and Uigurs.

The days of imperialism may be over, but the world where the law of the jungle prevails has not changed fundamentally. No global media are listening to the views of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the two tiny regions within Georgia whose separatist movements touched off the latest conflict at least on the surface.

Fortunately, the United States and Russia stopped short of aggravating their confrontation over Georgia further. But no one knows whether and how long the geographically vital region will remain free from dispute, as long as Washington keeps trying to pull more of the Caucasian countries to its side, while resurgent, oil-rich Russia counters what it sees as the West's scheme to surround it with hostile states.

A case in point is Moscow's unabashed show of displeasure with Poland's military accord with the United States with respect to the latter's missile defense program.

To our regret, the United Nations has shown ― once again ― its limited capacity in settling international disputes, especially those between global powers. Mediation has been made and bore fruit outside of the U.N. this time, too, despite sincere efforts of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who had to give up his scheduled vacation.

This points to the need for this globe to come up with a new, more effective dispute-solving device, preferably within the U.N. Does it make any sense if the post-Cold War world should feel more insecure than when ideological confrontation reached its climax?