How not to respond

British opposition leader David Cameron has been playing at foreign policy - and again making the holidaying Gordon Brown look flat footed - with a trip to post-conflict Georgia. He advocates a robust response to Russian aggression: cogent condemnation, diplomatic efforts to secure the ceasefire agreement, the investigation of reported atrocities and a price for Russia to pay. But while it is tempting to conclude with Cameron that "we must make clear that the path [Russia] has chosen leads to isolation and contempt", we should refrain from egregious isolation simply for its own sake. All of Cameron's specific proposals will be seen as provocative in Moscow. Some are enlightened if unlikely; others will simply make the task of rebuilding confidence between Russia and the open world even harder.

Cameron's good ideas concern international organisations. He wants NATO membership for Georgia. This indeed remains the best insurance against another Russian attack, but is now a more distant prospect than ever. Having already blocked Georgia's MAP in April, Franco-German concerns at the seeming ease with which they might be dragged towards a conflict with Russia can only have been exacerbated by the recent war. He wants Russia kicked out of the G8. This would be a largely symbolic move since the G8 has turned into a largely symbolic forum, but to reduce the G7 back to a democratic rump would at least make the point that Russia does not belong in the clubs of the open world, without significantly impacting upon vital negotiations over climate change and nuclear proliferation in which Russian involvement is crucial. But such a dramatic step is unlikely ever to be taken unless a President McCain makes good on his promise to tear up the order of international institutions as we know it.

Cameron's bad ideas concern the people of Russia themselves. He wants to derail negotiations for a new EU-Russia Partnership Agreement. Granting the Kremlin a diplomatic success by concluding an accord in the coming weeks would indeed seem strange retribution for attacking a European ally. But such a scenario is not on the table; negotiations, which only began in June, are still on-going, and are unlikely to produce a finished document for some time. Deferring talks now would simply push further into the future an opportunity for freer trade with Russian companies and people. Cameron also wants to tighten the visa regime for Russian citizens. "Russian armies can’t march into other countries while Russian shoppers carry on marching into Selfridges" may sound like a nifty turn of phrase, but why do we wish to penalise those Russians who are enamoured enough with the EU that they wish to come and visit it? Why do we wish to externally assist the forces in Russian society that wish to keep it closed?

Opening up Russia and expanding the opportunities for its citizens to travel and trade are things the open world should foster, not oppose. NATO boots on the ground might be a short-term fix for Georgia's current predicament, but the only long term solution to Russia's estrangement from the West is for it to embrace the values of the open world. This is best achieved through dialogue; through building on the channels of communication that already exist, not through closing them down. David Cameron is right to advocate a robust political response to the Russian government's latest actions. But needlessly alienating the Russian people will serve only to necessitate further such responses in the future.