Category Archives: United Nations

Britain, Economic, Foreign Affairs, G8, Government, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United Nations, United States

Restraint by the West over Ukraine is needed…

UKRAINE

Intro: Mr Kerry infers a Russian policy of the playground bully, laying claim to another country’s territory and assets, because – perhaps accurately in calculation – there is no one with the strength to defy him

Throughout history, a host of rules have been built up about how nations should relate to one another. International diplomacy, largely a game of manners and etiquette, seeks to operate through points of protocol. A president, for example, as head of state, will outrank the standing of that country’s prime minister. But these rules may also be fundamental points of law, where the use of force, say, removes another country’s territorial sovereignty. In such circumstances, ostracism has to be the best punishment.

Diplomacy, as it happens, is also a game of power. When a nation with vast power and strength confronts one that has very little, there is not much the weaker party can do. This is reflective of what we are now seeing between Russia and Ukraine.

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, is likely to claim that by occupying Crimea is solely to do with protecting ethnic Russians and his country’s strategic interests. Such an argument was used by Mr Putin when Russian forces invaded Georgia in 2008 (in claiming the tiny mountain enclave of South Ossetia). The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, has said, however, that this should be deemed in the pretext of being ‘completely trumped-up.’ Mr Kerry infers a Russian policy of the playground bully, laying claim to another country’s territory and assets, because – perhaps accurately in calculation – there is no one with the strength to defy him.

This has become a crucial question for the West. Russia refuses to be constrained by international niceties, not only with its neighbours, but others too. Consider the example in Britain. Even if the Kremlin did not sanction the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, a Russian turned British spy, on British soil, it certainly did its level best to block and impede the investigation. If Mr Putin is willing to flagrantly breach the rules of the club of nations, why, then, should he be allowed to profit from membership?

While we should not be arguing that East-West relations be thrown back towards a Cold War philosophy, it is right that Western leaders question why Russia is worthy of G8 membership on its current form. Sochi was to play host to G8 in June, but that is now in jeopardy following Russian military manoeuvres in Ukraine.

It is generally accepted that there is little we or our allies can do, other than supporting the new government as best we can on the ground in Ukraine. Whether Mr Putin aims to seize wider territory in Ukraine, a gamble which seems unlikely, there is little doubt that Crimea is now de facto Russian territory and has been annexed.

Western countries will be fearful of confrontation with Russia, because it can seriously hurt Europe (at least in the short-term, economically). Russia controls the levers of oil and gas that flows through the Siberian Straits, any disruption to Europe would be hugely costly.

Standard
Economic, Government, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United Nations

An interventionist approach by Russia in Ukraine is highly dangerous…

Map of Ukraine highlighting Crimea and the strategic importance of Sevastopol on the south-west coast with ease of access to the Black Sea.

Map of Ukraine highlighting Crimea and the strategic importance of Sevastopol on the south-west coast with ease of access to the Black Sea.

Intro: As Vladimir Putin sabre-rattles over Ukraine, the situation is getting murkier

The appearance of armed men at airports in Crimea is a dangerous development in Ukraine’s messy and murky ‘revolution’. They have no insignia to say who they are, but their behaviour is one of a disciplined troop. It is fair to assume they are Russian. They are refusing to talk or elaborate on why they are there. Russia has its Black Sea fleet’s major naval base at the Crimean port of Sevastopol, and two air bases at the airports where the soldiers have appeared. Slightly more than half of the Crimean population identify themselves as being Russian, either by origin or allegiance. Reporters on the ground have even suggested that Russian envoys have been handing out Russian passports to those who want them.

Ominously, manoeuvrings are pointing in only one direction – that Russian president Vladimir Putin, who has deployed his tanks on Ukraine’s borders, has in fact moved some of his troops over the border. The Russian constitution allows for its armed forces to operate outside of Russia ‘in defence of Russian citizens.’ Seizing control of airfields could be a preparatory tactic before invading Crimea, or it might be a prelude in removing ‘Russians’ altogether.

To make matters worse, deposed Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich has resurfaced in Russia, following days on the run after his forced dethronement. Mr Yanukovich has declared that he wants to ‘fight for the Ukraine’ against what he has termed lawlessness and terror. He frequently refers to his usurpers as ‘neo-fascists’.

Russian intervention can only be seen as a highly dangerous move. Mr Putin must know that in this bitterly divided country such an incursion could lead to a bloody conflagration and a darkness comparable to that of the Cold War descending on East-West relations. Moscow will also understand that Mr Yanukovich is under investigation by western banking authorities for plundering his country’s wealth for personal gain. Yet, amid the turmoil, Russian preparations may also include an attempt to restore the discredited regime of Mr Yanukovich. The West should expect to hear a plethora of alibis and excuses as to why Russia is adopting an interventionist stance.

Sensibly, the new Ukrainian authorities under the country’s interim leadership have not risen to the bait. Whilst they do not yet have much authority over a large part of the country, they will be acutely aware that any escalation in belligerence could be the catalyst and excuse Mr Putin is looking for.

Diplomacy is still an option. Ukraine’s most pressing problem is that it is financially destitute. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) can provide loans for the purpose of restructuring an ailing economy, but so can Mr Putin. Most western leaders, too, appear to be willing to pay for a peaceful settlement, with Britain saying it will issue ‘blank signed cheques’ in helping Ukraine find its feet.

Geopolitically, understanding what Mr Putin wants will be a priority and key factor before any advances can be made. Whether that is complete tutelage over Ukrainian affairs or just considerable influence over a country that shares much of its history and culture with Russia, both of which will be an anathema to the protesting crowds in Kiev, a permanent settlement is still some way off. Convincing Mr Putin to keep his tanks away has to be the West’s prime objective.

Standard
Foreign Affairs, Government, History, Middle East, Syria, United Nations, United States

The US Secretary of State faces challenges, but is John Kerry sufficiently supported?

US FOREIGN POLICY

John Kerry has illuminated the paradox of current American foreign policy. No where is this more embodied than in the Middle East, the region that continues to consume so much time and effort for the US Secretary of State. Rarely has the diplomacy and energies spent been as active and as bold as they are today. But flamboyant charges that the US is enfeebled and in retreat are also accusations that are running in parallel.

Mr Kerry is tacitly involved on three immensely challenging and overlapping fronts: his efforts to end the bloody civil war in Syria; the continued search for a nuclear deal with Iran that might end more than three decades of hostility between Washington and Tehran; and, the renewed and engaging process to secure a two-state settlement between Israel and Palestinians that has eluded negotiators since 1948.

An analysis of the progress being made will reveal a mixed picture. Encouragingly, the best advances have been made with Iran, with an interim deal that parts of the country’s nuclear programme have been frozen for a period of six months. This deal could yet unravel, but the U.S. and Iran are engaged in a process of constructive dialogue.

To the other extreme, Syria constitutes a total failure. The recent Geneva conference which could not even deliver an agreement on bringing humanitarian aid to tens of thousands of civilians, trapped by the savagery of the conflict, epitomises this rank failure. Vladimir Putin’s Russia continues to arm and supply the regime, while progress on securing Assad’s chemical weapons and stockpiles is, at best, described as being limited. More accurately, it would not be amiss to say that progress in removing Assad’s arsenal has been brought to a stuttering halt.

The current state of play in dealing with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is less clear. Whilst Mr Kerry has been doggedly determined in keeping talks going, his indefatigability may be perceived from different angles of thought. For those who support him, this involvement and persistent diligence is proof of resolve. It is also recognition of his courage by placing his prestige on the line in a way that many of his predecessors never did. For the detractors, though, the US Secretary of State is merely on an ego trip, driven largely by the naïve belief that hope will triumph over experience. The more impartial may wonder whether Mr Kerry’s goal of a ‘framework’ plan – an agreement by the two sides on the shape of the final agreement with the details being worked out later – is really any different from the other diplomatic formulae’, such as the ‘road maps’, that have littered nearly seven decades of futile peacekeeping.

Underpinning Mr Kerry’s efforts on all three fronts is the ‘damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t’ scenario faced by the US in the Middle East. Most expect America to lead, even if its ability to shape and bend the region to its will is often grossly exaggerated. When the U.S. has taken decisive action, as in Iraq or Afghanistan, it has been accused of being a blundering warmonger. Following on from these two long and costly interventions, Americans will have no appetite for another. Yet, when it steadfastly refuses to robustly intervene in Syria (or to a lesser extent in Egypt), it is denounced for abandoning its responsibilities, and of condoning and supporting human rights abuses. It can hardly wave a magic wand and expect all to be well.

American history tends to suggest that the most effective Secretaries of State tend to be those that have been closest to their respective Presidents. Henry Kissinger, for instance, under President Richard Nixon, or James Baker who held post during the reign of President George HW Bush, spring to mind. Secretary of State Kerry is barely a year into his tenure, and so it is too early to say whether he will join this company. Success, however, on one of the three major challenges he is faced with would amount to a distinguished and noteworthy achievement.

Standard