Tag Archives: John Kerry

Britain, Economic, European Union, Government, Russia, Ukraine, United States

Drawing a line with Russia…

THE UKRAINIAN DICHOTOMY

Intro: The West should have concerns, and these should leave Mr Putin in no doubt that his forceful entries in Georgia in 2008 and now in Ukraine, cannot be allowed to extend to those former Soviet countries – such as in the Baltic States – that are now part of the European Union and NATO, but which also have Russian-speaking populations

A meeting of the NATO-Russia council earlier this week to discuss events unfolding in Ukraine was a welcome development in the efforts to defuse the crisis. Dialogue has been important because not only is ‘jaw-jaw’ better than ‘war-war’, but because of the need to minimise the risk of misunderstandings and misjudgements.

The West appears to have allowed the Russians to annex Crimea without the slightest of physical restraint, a position that has immediately led to the Kremlin redrawing the map of Russia that now contains and subsumes the southern region of Ukraine. The perception that the West was rather relaxed was reinforced when a document photographed in the hands of a British government security adviser appeared to rule out any direct response to Russian aggression in Crimea, whether military action or economic sanctions. There is also irony in the fact that Vladimir Putin says he did not aim in annexing the Crimea, a portrayal that will be impossible for some to untangle.

A political anomaly arose, too, when the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, said that Washington was reaffirming its guarantee of Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty and integrity as set out in the Budapest Declaration of 1994, which the UK is also a party and signatory to. How, though, this can possibly extend to keeping Crimea within Ukraine is not clear. Even if sanctions are off-limits – for the Government will be acutely aware that any British sanctions could soon backfire, such as energy supplies from Russia to Europe being curtailed or Russian capital outflights from the City of London – it is difficult to see Mr Putin being cowed by diplomatic isolation or the cancellation of the planned G8 summit in Sochi in June. No doubt, the Russian leader can probably have confidence in the quickly arranged referendum planned for March 30, which will aim to grant greater autonomy for Crimea, to do his annexation for him.

But the West should have concerns, and these should leave Mr Putin in no doubt that his forceful entries in Georgia in 2008 and now in Ukraine, cannot be allowed to extend to those former Soviet countries – such as in the Baltic States – that are now part of the European Union and NATO, but which also have Russian-speaking populations.

John Kerry said the United States did not seek a confrontation with Russia, but will stand-by Ukraine. How, when US sanctions on Russia has already led to Mr Putin selling billions of dollars’ worth of his country’s gold in propping up the Russian Rouble? Further volatility on the Russian currency could have a devastating effect on the livelihoods of almost all Russians.

Standard
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
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