We Are All Georgians : The Neoconservative Narrative on the Russia-Georgia War

In this thesis I examine the U.S. foreign policy discussion that followed the war between Russia and Georgia in August 2008. In the politically charged setting that preceded the presidential elections, the subject of the debate was not only Washington's response to the crisis in the Caucasus but, more generally, the direction of U.S. foreign policy after the presidency of George W. Bush. As of November 2010, the reasons for and consequences of the Russia-Georgia war continue to be contested. My thesis demonstrates that there were already a number of different stories about the conflict immediately after the outbreak of hostilities. I want to argue that among these stories one can discern a “neoconservative narrative” that described the war as a confrontation between the East and the West and considered it as a test for Washington’s global leadership. I draw on the theory of securitization, particularly on a framework introduced by Holger Stritzel. Accordingly, I consider statements about the conflict as “threat texts” and analyze these based on the existing discursive context, the performative force of the threat texts and the positional power of the actors presenting them. My thesis suggests that a notion of narrativity can complement Stritzel’s securitization framework and take it further. Threat texts are established as narratives by attaching causal connections, meaning and actorship to the discourse. By focusing on this process I want to shed light on the relationship between the text and the context, capture the time dimension of a speech act articulation and help to explain how some interpretations of the conflict are privileged and others marginalized. I develop the theoretical discussion through an empirical analysis of the neoconservative narrative. Drawing on Stritzel’s framework, I argue that the internal logic of the narrative which was presented as self-evident can be analyzed in its historicity. Asking what was perceived to be at stake in the conflict, how the narrative was formed and what purposes it served also reveals the possibility for alternative explanations. My main source material consists of transcripts of think tank seminars organized in Washington, D.C. in August 2008. In addition, I resort to the foreign policy discussion in the mainstream media.

We Are All Georgians: The Neoconservative Narrative on the Russia-Georgia War

In this thesis I examine the U.S. foreign policy discussion that followed the war between Russia and Georgia in August 2008. In the politically charged setting that preceded the presidential elections, the subject of the debate was not only Washington's response to the crisis in the Caucasus but, more generally, the direction of U.S. foreign policy after the presidency of George W. Bush. As of November 2010, the reasons for and consequences of the Russia-Georgia war continue to be contested. My thesis demonstrates that there were already a number of different stories about the conflict immediately after the outbreak of hostilities. I want to argue that among these stories one can discern a “neoconservative narrative” that described the war as a confrontation between the East and the West and considered it as a test for Washington’s global leadership. I draw on the theory of securitization, particularly on a framework introduced by Holger Stritzel. Accordingly, I consider statements about the conflict as “threat texts” and analyze these based on the existing discursive context, the performative force of the threat texts and the positional power of the actors presenting them. My thesis suggests that a notion of narrativity can complement Stritzel’s securitization framework and take it further. Threat texts are established as narratives by attaching causal connections, meaning and actorship to the discourse. By focusing on this process I want to shed light on the relationship between the text and the context, capture the time dimension of a speech act articulation and help to explain how some interpretations of the conflict are privileged and others marginalized. I develop the theoretical discussion through an empirical analysis of the neoconservative narrative. Drawing on Stritzel’s framework, I argue that the internal logic of the narrative which was presented as self-evident can be analyzed in its historicity. Asking what was perceived to be at stake in the conflict, how the narrative was formed and what purposes it served also reveals the possibility for alternative explanations. My main source material consists of transcripts of think tank seminars organized in Washington, D.C. in August 2008. In addition, I resort to the foreign policy discussion in the mainstream media.

Pahaa hyvän puolesta? Venäjän Georgian- ja Naton Kosovon-interventioiden oikeutusperusteet presidenttien puheissa

Naton Kosovon-interventiolla vuonna 1999 ja Venäjän Georgian-interventiolla vuonna 2008 ei äkkiseltään katsottuna ole juurikaan yhteistä. Molemmissa tapauksissa kuitenkin suurempi valtio tai organisaatio toteutti sotilaallisen intervention suvereenin valtion fyysiselle alueelle ilman legitiimin kansainvälisen auktoriteetin, Yhdistyneiden kansakuntien turvallisuusneuvoston, siunausta. Molemmissa tapauksissa intervention kohteena oli monikulttuurinen, monien sosiaalisten, taloudellisten ja poliittisten jakolinjojen maa ja alue, jossa vähemmistöjen asema oli voimakkaan debatin aiheena. Tämän ”Pahaa hyvän puolesta?” -tutkielman tavoitteena on Yhdysvaltain ja Venäjän presidenttien puheissaan esittämien interventioiden oikeusperusteiden sekä niiden samankaltaisuuksien ja erojen määritteleminen. Tutkimuksen aineiston muodostavat presidentti Clintonin maalis-huhtikuussa 1999 ja presidentti Medvedevin elokuussa 2008 pitämät puheet, joissa he pyrkivät oikeuttamaan johtamaansa interventiota. Keskustelu Kosovon ja Georgian tapausten yhteneväisyyksistä heräsi syksyllä 2008: esimerkiksi pääministeri Vladimir Putin käytti Kosovon itsenäistymistä Georgian separatistialueiden itsenäistymisen esikuvana ja suomalaisten Venäjän-tutkijoiden piirissä interventioiden yhtäläisyyksiä pohdittiin jo pian Georgian tapahtumien alettua elokuussa 2008. Tähän keskusteluun haluan tällä tutkimuksella osallistua. Tutkimuksen teoreettinen tausta muodostuu valtiota, suvereniteettia, interventiota, sotaa, uhkaa ja identiteettiä käsittelevistä teorioista, Chaïm Perelmanin retoriikan teoriasta sekä aiemmasta Venäjän ja Yhdysvaltain ulkopolitiikkaa ja Georgiaa ja Kosovoa käsittelevästä tutkimuksesta. Aineiston analyysi osoittaa, että presidenttien esittämissä oikeusperusteissa oli sekä samankaltaisuuksia että eroavaisuuksia. Medvedevin esittelemät oikeutusperusteet voidaan jakaa neljään eri ryhmään, joita ovat kansainvälisen lainsäädännön rikkominen, humanitaariset syyt ja omien kansalaisten suojelu, rauhanturvaamisen ja historiallisen tehtävän täyttäminen sekä interventio rangaistuksena. Clintonin esittämät oikeutusperusteet jaan tässä tutkimuksessa viiteen ryhmään: interventio suuremman katastrofin estämiskeinona, humanitaarisen katastrofin, etnisen väkivallan ja julmuuden lopettamiskeinona, Yhdysvallat rauhantekijänä, vapaan, rauhallisen ja vakaan Euroopan puolesta sekä interventio moraalisena valintana ja vastauksena kansainvälisten sopimusten rikkomiselle. Puheissa esiintyy voimakkaita tunteisiin vetoavia ilmaisuja ja niissä on havaittavissa ajallinen evoluutio, ilmaisujen vähittäinen muuttuminen ajan kuluessa. Aineisto keskittyy erityisesti intervention alkuvaiheeseen, jolloin legitimiteetin vahvistaminen oli erityisen tärkeää. Molemmissa presidenttien puheissa uhka ja toiseus määritellään selkeästi. Oma toiminta esitetään korostetun positiivisessa valossa, viattomien pelastajana ja lain, oikeudenmukaisuuden ja turvallisuuden puolustajana. Puheet on suunnattu tarjoamaan jotain jokaiselle yleisölle. Poliittisina, virallisina dokumentteina niiden tehtävänä on vallankäyttö ja yleisöjen asenteisiin ja mielipiteisiin vaikuttaminen myös arvoihin vetoamalla. Puheet ovat viimeisteltyjä poliittisen teatterin näytöksiä. Näiden näytösten rooleja näyttelevät niin suuri valtio, pieni valtio, kansainvälinen yhteisö ja viattomien ihmisten kohtalokin.

Wood-inhabiting Basidiomycetes in the Caucasus Region : Systematics and Biogeography

The Caucasus region is a hotspot of biodiversity and is one of the few areas in the Northern Hemisphere which harbor Pleistocene glacial refugia. The region encompasses Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, the southernmost European Russia, NE Turkey, and northern Iran. The study on fungal composition of the Caucasus region and its connection and possible contribution to the present mycota of Europe has largely escaped empirical scrutiny. Using taxonomic surveys, phylogenetic reconstruction methods, haplotype analysis, and similarity tests, this study has aimed to, 1) summarize the knowledge on the occurrence of corticioids and polypores in the Caucasus region, 2) resolve the phylogenetic relationships of selected, resupinate wood-inhabiting basidiomycetes for which the Caucasus region is currently the mere, or one of the noteworthy areas of distribution, and, 3) assess the similarity of Caucasian corticioid fungi to those of Europe and important areas in the Northern Hemisphere, and to examine the significance of the Caucasus region as a glacial refugium for these fungi. This study provides the first catalogue of corticioids and polypores (635 species) occurring in the Caucasus region. The phylogeny and systematics of the Caucasian resupinate taxa in focus has been resolved and the usefulness of some morphological characters has been re-evaluated. In this context, four new genera and two new species were described and five new combinations were proposed, two of which were supplemented with modern descriptions. The species composition of corticioids in the Caucasus region is found to be distinctly more similar to Europe and North America than to East Asia and India. The highest molecular diversity and within population pairwise distance for Peniophorella praetermissa has been detected in the Caucasus and East Asia, with the isolates of the latter area being highly divergent from the European ones. This, and the assignment of root haplotype to the Caucasian isolates in a haplotype network for Phlebia tuberucalta and P. livida, call attention to the role of the Caucasus region in shaping the current mycota of Europe.