CAN GEORGIA TRANSFORM OUR WORLD?

The Russians were clear after Kosovo was allowed by the international community to declare its independence: allowing a self governing territory to decide to become a sovereign country would have far reaching consequences. It is the Kosovo precedent that the Russians now invoke to support Abkhazia and Ossetia on their road to become sovereign countries.
The US is arguing that the territorial integrity of an existing country, such as Georgia, should be respected. The Russians seem to have recently perfected the argument that the West used to support the independence of Kosovo: The purpose of the international community should be to advance freedom and self determination. Respecting the territorial integrity of existing countries cannot be the overriding purpose of the international community. Territorial integrity has to be shelved when it does not serve the purpose of self determination and is unenforceable, for example when dealing with territories that have been self governed for a long time. Espousing self determination over respect for territorial integrity is a major brake with the past for Moscow. With the exception of the Austro-Hungarian Empire nobody advocated the respect of territorial integrity as the purpose of the international community more loudly than the USSR.
This brake with the past can indeed transform our world as only questions about what is purpose and what are only means for its achievement can. There are several other regions of what the Russians call their “near abroad” where this argument can transform self governed territories to sovereign countries. Next to Georgia is Azerbaijan, where ethnic and energy tensions can easily lead to the redrawing of the map. Naghorno- Karabakh, an Armenian enclave has been enjoying Russian support and self government for years. Across the pond from Georgia is Moldova, with part of its territory administered by the self proclaimed Dnieper Republic which is inhabited by a Russian speaking population. If territorial integrity has to yield to self determination and to facts created on the ground, Georgia is the first of mini crises that will balkanize the Caucuses. These mini crises will delay the development of the region and they will refuse the West pipelines to the Caspian oil free of potential Russian interference. However, they are unlikely to produce a Russian confrontation with the West. For one the West has no power in the region. The only NATO country with borders to Georgia is Turkey, an archenemy for centuries.
Our world will be transformed for ever if the arguments advanced on Georgia are applied in the Ukraine, which, unlike the Caucuses and the Caspian Region, is in the center of what some would call New Europe. Ukraine is a large country- the size of France. Ukrainians are deeply divided on their aspirations. The West of the Country wants to join the EU and NATO. The East is more loyal to Moscow than to Kiev (Ukraine `s capital). As a matter of fact, 17% of Ukraine`s population of 46 million are ethnic Russians. The Russian fleet is allowed to be anchored in Sevastopol, which is a Ukrainian city. This is allowed by treaty which comes up for renewal in 2017. Many in Kiev want the Russian fleet out and NATO in as soon as possible. This infuriates Russia. The anchorage of the fleet and the surrounding Crimean peninsula were handed to Ukraine only in 1954 by Nikita Khrushchev, the Ukrainian born leader of the Soviet Leader without any regard to the feelings of its Russian population. Similarly the Russians blame the Soviets for the set up in the Caucuses. For one, Georgian suzerainty over Ossetia and Abkhazia would not have existed, they argue, absent the machinations of Georgian born Stalin.
To return to current affairs, both Ukraine and Georgia were assured only a couple of months ago in a Heads of States` meeting in Bucharest that they would eventually be admitted to NATO. If both countries had been admitted, on August 7, the Georgians would most likely have invoked Article V of the NATO Charter for the Alliance to come to their aid with military force. Events did not allow for this to happen. It arguably could have saved Georgia`s territorial integrity. There is now no conceivable scenario, diplomatic niceties aside, stopping Abkhazia and Ossetia from eventually exercising self determination. The Russian campaign has transformed the Caucuses. The real question is the future of Ukraine, with talks for ascension to NATO due to start January 1.
Georgia`s entry into NATO, assuming it renounces the use of force for reestablishing its sovereignty over Abkhazia and Ossetia without explicitly resigning from its national aspirations, could be “ yes able”. NATO and Russia have a good record of keeping frontiers quiet. The pipeline from Azerbaijan would be free of Russian interference. Russia will not be seen as threatening Georgian Democracy, without really giving much up. After all, Russia has no vote on who joins NATO.
Ukraine is another matter. Would “Old Europe” commit to defend the territorial integrity of a country with a large part of its population loyal to Moscow and wishing the reintegration of Russia and Ukraine? A positive decision by NATO would corner Russia. China would silently applaud it, because it would reaffirm the importance of territorial integrity, thus strengthening its hand on Taiwan, not to mention Tibet. India would also be happy thinking of Kashmir. But can “Old Europe” afford such a return back into the future in the name of territorial integrity, a principle that it abandoned in Kosovo?
The new US Administration will have NATO `s enlargement on top of its agenda next January. Senator McCain has absolute clarity of purpose. He always saw the need to contain Putin`s Russia before it could become again a superpower. Enlarging NATO and inviting both Georgia and Ukraine to join it would fit that purpose. An Obama Administration would not take a very different position. The two people opening competing for the job of Secretary of State in a Democratic Administration (Ambassador Holbrooke and General Clark) could not have been stronger in their condemnation of Russia. In his speech in Berlin Senator Obama exposed us to his thinking: Europeans have to step up to their NATO obligations and NATO has to face up to its responsibilities in new theaters, like Afghanistan. But if the Obama Doctrine of collective but global NATO responsibility is applicable on Afghanistan, why is it not on Ukraine, a country at the center of the “ New Europe “ that emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union?
For almost all Republicans and Democrats with policy experience what happened in Georgia represents nothing new but rather the resurface of Russian imperialism that needs to be contained. Only the Neoconservatives agree with the premise of this article that the arguments voiced by Russia over Georgia can transform the world. They believe, as Richard Pearle stated, that Russia is using the arguments of self determination as a theme of a campaign similar to that launched by the Nazis to annex Sudetenland. The neoconservative recipe is the expeditious entry of both Georgia and Ukraine into NATO.
Russian behavior on the ground of Georgia proper will test the validity of the theory of resurgent Russian imperialism. The neoconservative argument is correct in its analysis of the war of ideas that we are experiencing. The policy recommendations, however, represent thinking by analogy, which is often both appealing and flawed. For one, Georgia is a small country, of unquestionable western orientation, with a democratically elected government which has received a disproportionately high amount of western investment and attention and has oil pipelines traversing its territory. Ukraine could not be more different. And the West cannot afford a new split over it, especially while the largest US, UK and French armada since World War Two is amassed in the Gulf of Iran.

McCain is a warrior focused on heroism; Obama a sovereign focused on excellence. Take your pick

That’s my conclusion and BusinessWeek.com has just published an essay I’ve written on how clear a choice this Presidential election really is for the American people. As I note, there are those who are disappointed in the U.S. for squandering its chance to lead the world to a better energy future over the past 21 years. There are those who believe that America Inc. should have more prudently managed its finances. Others believe the U.S. never should have gone to Iraq. Finally, there are those who believe that America should have done a better job waging the war, irrespective of why it was started. There are a lot of people disappointed with America these days; they include many Americans.

However, there is something about America that demands great admiration: the current Presidential election. Elections are supposed to offer clear choices. Nobody disputes that this election offers voters a clear choice. In the past, candidates produced clarity by associating with an ideology along the lines of their party affiliation. Senators John McCain and Barack Obama have gone beyond traditional politics. Each proposes a different purpose for America. And each of them is fit to lead us to his purpose. Therefore, the choice we face is clear and meaningful, for meaningful can be only what is in pursuit of a purpose.

McCain, a Republican, sees an America devoted to “heroism.” The U.S. can defeat its enemies in Iraq, the energy crisis, global warming, and every other calamity that might come along. America would welcome the help of others, but if necessary will do it alone. It has the power but it also has the duty to do so. This is McCain’s America.

Ideal Characters

And the senator from Arizona has the character best fit for that purpose. He is a warrior. Each of us gravitates to one of four ideal characters (BusinessWeek.com, 12/19/07). Paraphrasing the famous German psychologist Carl Jung and the Greek philosopher Plato, I think of the four character types as magicians, sovereigns, lovers, and warriors. McCain has all the characteristics of the warrior and the record of a POW to prove it.

The leadership strengths of a warrior are his focus on the next battle, his ability to hold people accountable, and his propensity for action when he sees the prospect of results. McCain demonstrated enormous focus on Iraq last year, on Gustav only recently. He did hold the Defense Secretary of his own party publicly accountable for a failing policy.

In my view, his finest moment was when he opposed the deployment of the U.S. Marines to Lebanon in 1982. Ronald Reagan made a high-minded decision in committing troops to Lebanon. McCain could not see how this would have a good outcome. Warriors are men and women who focus mostly on the “how.”

The antithesis of the warrior is the sovereign. He or she cares passionately about the “why” and the overall direction. The sovereign’s strength is focusing on the big picture and judging everything on whether it leads to the completion of the big picture. A sovereign has the ability to inspire people by redefining what they believe is possible and getting them to act differently from others.

Inspiring by Distinction

Senator Obama fits that description perfectly, and his record confirms it. His finest hour was when he famously asked “why” the U.S. should attack Iraq. He inspired people by turning the improbability of his candidacy into his biggest campaign asset. When he graduated from Harvard, with the distinction of having managed the Law Review, he became a community organizer, not a Wall Street lawyer. In his youth, he talked the talk of a future political leader.

Today nobody is accusing Obama of not talking the talk. However, the America about which he speaks so eloquently is different from the America imagined by McCain. The Democratic candidate sees a U.S. respected not because of its power but because of the power of its example. Such an America would have as its purpose excellence, as exemplified by setting the standards in fighting terrorism, gaining energy independence, providing jobs, and building alliances.

What makes the choice in this election clear is that we have in front of us two leaders with well-defined characters. They are the antithesis of each other; the strengths of are the weaknesses of the other.

What makes this election meaningful is that the character of each is a perfect fit to the purpose they clearly espouse. What makes this election critical is that it will define the purpose of the U.S. What makes this election difficult for the American voter is that it requires thinking beyond the headlines. “Heroism” and “Excellence” argue for different sets of values, for different budget priorities, for a different organization of the world. We cannot have it all. The candidates are clear about what they want. In November it will be our turn to show what we want.

For the majority of my 25-year career as a consultant, I worked on know-how. I gave strategy advice to chief executives on acquisitions, divestitures, organization, and people. I dutifully cranked out the valuation and segmentation studies. But inevitably the discussion would turn to something else. The CEO would ask: “We can tell our people what we are trying to do but the real money is to tell them why we are doing it and how can we get them on board?”

 
I heard this again and again, one assignment after another, until I came to understand that there was too much “how” and too little “why” in business. So many executives are consumed by how to get things done, rarely by why they should be done in the first place. That’s why I started NikosOnline.com. It’s a place where I can share my thoughts and ideas on the “why” in business, and a place where you can engage in debate and discussion about the “why.”

Years ago, my own discovery of this difference led me on an intellectual journey that resulted in a book, “Purpose,” and an ongoing debate in which I’ve been positioned as the antithesis of Ram Charan, the co-author of ‘Execution’ and “Know-How.” Nearly 100 people weighed in on the topic earlier this year when leadership professor James Heskett fueled a spirited debate between know-how and know why on Harvard Business School’s Working Knowledge website. I watched the discussion from afar, amused by the contrasting theories, humbled by the eloquence of the readers’ responses, the passionate back-and-forth of the participants.

 
 “Is there too little ‘know why’ in business?” asked consultant Mark Howell. “Almost certainly. In “The Leadership Challenge,’ (jim) Kouzes and (Barry) Posner ask the question: ‘Are you on this planet to do something, or are you here just for something to do?’ I believe most businesses begin as a result of finding something to do rather than to do something which is what Mourkogiannis would call purpose.”

 
“You can’t separate know how from know why, and you can’t have one without the other,” wrote Maree Conway, a general manager at Victoria University. “And know why needs to come before know how—there is no point deciding, acting and executing without knowing why you are doing it. Purpose gives you the constant or guiding star—it’s always there to remind you why you do what you do every day.”

 
If there was a consensus in the debate, it was that purpose is powerful and valuable because it is a reason for doing something which appeals to our inner sense of what is right and what is worthwhile. “How” is about management. “Why” is about leadership. A lot of pen and paper has been wasted in making the distinction between managers and leaders. Emerson had it right when he noted that “the man who knows How will always have a job. The man who also knows Why will always be his boss.”

I love that quote and the thinking behind it. Do you?