Tag Archives: European Union

European Union, Politics, Russia, Society, Ukraine

Ukraine, Russia and the wider issue of morality…

TUG OF WAR

Many Ukrainians are now so desperate to join the European Union that they are prepared to protest in ways not seen before in the country. They run the risk of brutality from President Viktor Yanukovych’s security forces, for whom the concept of community policing remains alien and an anathema. Mass anti-government protests in Ukraine have brought large swathes of the country to a standstill, largely prompted by Moscow’s strong-arm and bully-boy tactics aimed at halting Kiev’s attempts to improve the country’s trading ties with the EU. This fervour stems from a particular theory of Ukrainian nationhood, where many of its electorate believe the country should be an equal partner in the European Union, rather than remaining little more than a Russian satellite.

International opinion has, at times, questioned the morality of Russian decisions, such as that in 2009 when Moscow turned off the gas supplies to Ukraine in the middle of winter to dissuade it from forging closer ties with Brussels. The arrogance of Russian ambitions towards Ukraine could hardly have been laid barer. Continued threats over the continuity and supply of gas, as Russia continues to apply its power over Ukraine, underlies more cynical Russian ambitions. Mr Putin’s plan is for Ukraine to join Belarus and Kazakhstan in a political trading bloc to be known as the Eurasian Union.

For many Ukrainians, though, that is not only a poor substitute for the EU, but also an uncomfortable reminder of Ukraine’s position as a member of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Russia is seeking to capitalise on how Eurasian integration will likely generate increased interest from its other neighbours through the usual warm rhetoric of international diplomacy. But, in truth, the West would be right to assume a more menacing aspect to it. As Mr Putin is the dominant partner in this new Eurasian Union, it is worth examining and putting into perspective some of his recent comments and actions. For example, what of his attitude to the legitimate interests of other nations in the Arctic and his unnecessarily harsh treatment of those seeking to preserve the environment there? Russia is motivated by the rich new oil wells recently located in the Arctic and the huge benefits that exploration will bring to the Russian economy. Mr Putin’s rather indifferent attitude to human rights doesn’t bode well, either, for the Eurasian Union becoming a model template of tolerance and openness.

However, not all people in Ukraine are worried over Russia’s attempt to wrest control over its affairs. Many Ukrainians do support President Yanukovych’s decision to ditch his negotiations with the European Union and seem undisturbed about the record of human rights in their own country or in Russia.

The tragedy of Ukraine being forced to choose between traditions and that of regional power blocs is its nemesis. Geography dictates that fate, at least to some degree, is inevitable. Ethnic, economic and cultural ties do naturally tug in the opposite direction when a country is caught between two bigger powers. Yet, in all practicalities Ukraine should not have to make such a choice and would not need to if Russia would allow her to develop her links with Europe.

Conceivably, Ukraine could do that as well as being closely aligned to Russia. Ukraine should be allowed to maintain her trading and other relationships, but as part of a wider settlement between the EU on one hand and Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus on the other.

Mr Putin’s stance between his own nation and that of his close neighbours is generally perceived and accepted as a zero-sum game – the EU’s gain, for instance, must be Russia’s loss. But persisting with such a position will leave Ukraine at best in a state of uncertainty or limbo, and at worst a target for permanent bullying.

..

DURING last week’s annual state of the nation address, Vladimir Putin emphasised his belief that Russia takes a morally superior world-view to the West. It is hard to credit Mr Putin with that surprising claim considering the level of violence taking place on a daily basis in countries such as Syria and Ukraine.

Moscow’s staunch and unrelenting support for the dictatorial regime of Bashar al-Assad has been a prime reason why diplomatic efforts to stem the bloodshed have been thwarted in a raging civil war that has now claimed the lives of more than 100,000 people and displaced millions more.

Mr Putin claims that there is a clear moral compass behind his government’s domestic policies. But where is the evidence? Modern day Russia is a country where political opponents are killed or dispatched to Siberian labour camps, where gangsterism is rife, and where free speech is actively discouraged. Widespread and endemic corruption has persuaded Russian businessmen to flee the country in their droves to escape the constant threat of state-sponsored violence and extortion.

Mr Putin’s personal ambition of reviving Russia’s fortunes as a world power is a self-evident prophecy. He may well believe that, by resisting the tide of what he refers to as the West’s ‘non-traditional values’, his aspirations will be realised. In truth, so long as the Russian President remains intent on crushing political dissent at home and intimidating his enemies abroad, no one is going to be endeared to his sense of moral teaching.

Standard
Syria

Syria’s war and diplomacy: A response…

In response to an article that appeared on the website of The Economist, dated June 1, 2013, entitled: ‘Syria’s war and diplomacy – Argument and Arms’

THE EFFECTIVE BLOCKING by Britain and France by other European nations to extend the weapons embargo on Syria is a diplomatic victory, and, is being portrayed as a tool aimed at pressurising Bashar al-Assad to negotiate an end to the conflict. Britain says it has no immediate intention to ship arms to Syria until diplomacy has been given a chance.

The decision to allow movement of arms and weapons has opened a possible route for Britain and France (either through Turkey or more likely via Jordan) which have been leading the charge in the West for more support to be given to the Syrian opposition, to act unilaterally should they decide to do so. Other European countries fear that any arms sent to the rebels could fall into the hands of Islamist extremists and lead to a wider and regional spill-over of the conflict. Britain and France have agreed not to deliver any weapons until at least August 1, to give more time to international attempts at brokering a peace deal and not to imperil the prospects of a US/Russian-brokered peace conference scheduled to take place in Geneva in June. The Obama administration has voiced strong support for letting the embargo lapse, saying its end would contribute to the two-track policy pursued by supporters of the Syrian opposition: backing the rebels while pushing for a political settlement. The U.S. administration opposes continued Russian shipments of arms into Syria, including sophisticated S-300 air defence systems. The West has seen how the Assad regime uses those arms in enormous onslaughts against people who are unable to defend themselves.

The Syrian National Coalition, the main opposition group, urged the EU to promptly send ‘specialised weaponry to repel the fierce attacks waged against unarmed civilians’ by the Assad regime, its allies in Lebanon’s militant Hezbollah group and their Iranian backers. Washington and many of its European allies have been reluctant to send sophisticated weapons to Syrian rebels, fearing they could end up in the hands of radical Islamic groups such as the al-Qaeda affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra, a group which has emerged as the most effective and organised fighting force on the opposition’s side.

Israel has signalled it is prepared to strike Russian deliveries of air defence missiles systems to Syria, portraying them as a threat to the Jewish state and raising the spectre of a regional conflagration.

Russia, Mr Assad’s closest ally, has harshly criticised the decision by the EU to allow the arming of Syrian rebels, and says it undercuts international efforts to negotiate an end to the two year civil war. But Moscow has renewed its pledge to supply Assad’s regime with advanced missiles, which could transform an already brutal and bloody conflict into an East-West proxy fight. Russia insists it is carrying out deliveries of S-300 missile batteries under a contract signed with Syria several years ago.

Empowering Islamic extremists (through weaponry) to achieve questionable short-term goals will not serve the West’s long-term security or interests. And neither will shipments serve the interests of nearly 2 million Christians in Syria who fear they could suffer a similar fate as Iraqi Christians who were abused and expelled as radical Islamic forces gained influence and power. The welfare of these Christians is an important balancing act when deciding how to arm the Islamic militants. History must have taught by now that lessons should have been learnt from the past.

Although there are some well-intentioned reasons for wanting to intervene in Syria, there are far more well-documented reasons not to do so. In the aftermath of Afghanistan and Libya western weapons ended up in the hands of terrorists only later to be turned against their suppliers. The current irony is that a British neo-conservative government is actually lining up on the same side as al-Qaeda and Islamic extremists in Syria.

The lifting of the EU embargo does, though, come with conditions. European countries wishing to send weapons to Syria’s rebels may only send them to the moderate Syrian National Coalition and the affiliated Free Syrian Army, and they may only be used to protect civilians.

Whilst Western countries could conceivably provide rebels with small arms and ammunition, they’re unlikely to provide rebels with the type of arms they need most. The rebels will need weaponry like the portable shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS) to counter Assad’s domination of Syrian airspace. Without anti-aircraft missiles or heavy armour piercing ammunition, it’s unlikely that the rebels will be unable to win the war.

Standard