Tag Archives: William Hague

European Union, Foreign Affairs, Government, Politics, Russia, Society, Ukraine

Ukraine and the difficulties ahead…

UKRAINE

Over the past two weeks events in Ukraine have moved fast. No day over the last fortnight has past in which something critical has happened. Following the ferocious rioting that led to 88 deaths, Viktor Yanukovych, the country’s former president, was dramatically dethroned. Events in Kiev, Ukraine’s capital, are being perceived as one of the most epochal developments in central Europe since the end of the Second World War. Disruption is far from over.

Ukraine is deeply divided, with half of the population in support of joining the European Union. These people see the benefits brought to Poland, a country of similar size to the Ukraine, that is now firmly embedded within the EU and Nato. Poland’s GDP is now three times what it once was and people there enjoy living standards that are envied by those Ukrainians who wish to see their country afforded similar benefits. The other half, though, are deeply loyal to Russia’s Vladimir Putin and aim to see Ukraine integrated as part of Putin’s wider Eurasia Union, a new and emerging federation of countries aligned to the political aspirations of Moscow.

Ukraine’s future leadership and direction is far from settled. With no clear coalescence around an alternative leader, Ukraine remains more representative of a volcano that has erupted with extraordinary violence and with the after-effects still yet to be felt. Russia has been a dominant force over much of Ukraine’s history, and the world awaits to see how Putin will play his hand.

Hidden from view in the confrontation that has ensued in the centre of Kiev is a chronic economic and financial crisis. Whoever replaces Mr Yanukovych will need to tackle pressing issues to secure continued Russian funding of the country’s debt. Without this, a more widespread collapse beckons.

For its part, the EU needs to look critically at its mooted trade agreements with the country to ensure a fair balance of reciprocal benefits. A major criticism at the present is that these favour EU exports over Ukraine’s well-endowed agricultural sector. Given this delicate economic situation, it is not just Russia but also the West that needs to proceed with great caution before the election of a new government in Ukraine.

The great fear for Western leaders is that Russia will intervene militarily in the affairs of its most important geopolitical neighbour. Such a threat cannot be ruled out. Putin will view this kind of struggle as a matter of personal prestige – he has a renowned reputation in humiliating his rivals, rather than a record of striking appeasement and deals with them. While in power, Mr Yanukovych, became one of Russia’s main allies.

That Mr Putin may act rashly in the days ahead was one of the ‘many dangers’ that William Hague, the British Foreign Secretary, has alluded to. Mr Hague also highlighted the possibility of renewed violence, or that ethnically Russian parts of the country, such as Crimea, will attempt to secede. This situation represents more of a direct challenge to the EU in particular, which has been attempting to woo Ukraine with a trade deal worth hundreds of millions of euros a year. Such a deal is not the same as membership of the EU, but for many it will not be far off. It would, for example, offer Ukraine guaranteed entry into a huge and developed market on its doorstep. Unlike Mr Putin’s recent offers and bribes to his neighbour of cheap gas and serviceable debt, the EU deal has few strings attached.

Ukraine needs a government, and elections will be held in May. In the coming days and weeks, Western leaders must do everything they can to promote a working economy in Ukraine so that its institutions can be free from corruption and outside interference.

Setting out a path to normalisation will be difficult, not least because the opposition forces in Ukraine are deeply divided. Hatred of Viktor Yanukovych masks profound differences in belief and ideology. An early and sympathetic engagement is vital if Ukraine’s open revolt and revolution is not to shatter the country even further and spark dangerous unrest across the entire region.

Standard
Britain, Government, Human Rights, Legal, Military, Society

Iraq war crimes denied by the British Government….

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Earlier this month, the human rights lawyers PIL (Public Interest Lawyers) lodged an application with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, said to represent more than 400 Iraqis who have called for an investigation into alleged war crimes carried out by the British Army. The application lodged with the ICC has been made under Article 15 of the Rome Statute.

The legal dossier poses serious implications well above those allegations embedded within the document. For example, it seeks to know whether leading figures in the army and UK government should be called to account.

The submission to the ICC refers to ‘thousands of allegations of mistreatment amounting to war crimes of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’. The dossier also alleges that some ‘at the highest levels’ were mostly responsible, including head of the army General Sir Peter Wall and ex-defence secretary Geoff Hoon.

Following the lodging of the document with the court Foreign Secretary William Hague was quick in responding with a firm statement that the allegations are either already under investigation or have been dealt with in previous government inquiries and rulings. Mr Hague insists that any bid to prosecute British politicians and senior military figures for alleged war crimes in Iraq should be rejected. The speed with which Mr Hague reacted and contested the claims is perhaps reflective over concerns the UK government has over the potential damage to Britain’s reputation.

Some 11 years on, the political sensitivity of the UK’s involvement makes the prospect of an international criminal court inquiry highly explosive. The government’s defence is that intensive inquiries have already been held at UK level. It says that some cases of abuse have been acknowledged with appropriate levels of compensation paid and apologies offered. An interim report on an extensive inquiry by Sir Peter Gibson was published last month. Rejecting the allegations of systematic abuses the Foreign Secretary said that the British armed forces ‘uphold high standards and they are the finest armed forces in the world’.

Related:

Yet, there are two problems here for the government. The first is the increasing importance accorded to human rights in international relations. While such investigations into military operations in theatres of war have been questioned on the premise that they would underestimate the intense dangers and pressures which troops were operating under, concerns over human rights abuses has grown. The UK is a signatory to international human rights conventions.

The second problem is that there is a long history of domestic inquiries into the conduct of military operations that were subsequently found to have been inadequately deficient or incomplete. Any external investigation by an international court would spark concern within the Ministry of Defence, which has presided over numerous errors and shortcomings.

What is more, a failure to enforce compliance with the rules of war would be a grave allegation for the MoD to face. But unless such compliance is enforced from the top down with the level of robustness needed, such charges are only likely to be repeated.

Standard
Britain, Government, Iran, United Nations, United States

The Iranian deal exposes concerns but it’s worth the risk…

GENEVA AGREEMENT

Whilst the initial period of the Geneva agreement lasts only six months, and much of what has been agreed is based on trust, there is no doubt that Iran could have been in a position to assemble a nuclear device by next summer. Even a modest hiatus in its atomic preparations should be embraced as it pretty much ensures Israel will take no precipitate action.

Related:

The interim agreement is a good way of testing if Iran can be trusted to keep its word. Tehran has agreed to give UN and IAEA inspectors’ better access to its reprocessing facilities, a promise that will be difficult to fudge or renege on without exposing bad faith or some covert hidden agenda. Critics are right in their assertions that the accord does nothing to dismantle Tehran’s capability to process weapons grade uranium whenever it wants, but securing the right to inspect the regime’s nuclear plants is a necessary and vital concession. This establishes a clear diplomatic tripwire that Tehran crosses at its peril.

There is, though, still much to worry about in this deal. The Iranian economy has been brought to its knees by western sanctions and the regime has been more than desperate to win a respite to mollify internal dissent and unrest. In many ways, President Hassan Rouhani has achieved that objective at comparatively modest cost, and has subsequently strengthened the grip of Iran’s religious dictatorship.

Israeli fears are well known in letting Iran off the hook. But others, too, notably Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, have greeted the Geneva agreement with stony silence. They fear that a diplomatic win for Tehran will strengthen the resolve even further of President Assad in Syria, Iran’s client state and political ally.

On the balance of things, the Geneva deal should be deemed a worthy risk. Tehran has felt the full throttle of western sanctions and the sharpness of its teeth. It must also realise that having offered Iran diplomatic concessions and held Israel in check, President Obama will have no option but to take punitive military action if Iran reneges on its nuclear promises.

The onus in turning this interim deal into something permanent is now on Barack Obama and William Hague, Britain’s Foreign Secretary. Their job will be to tame and dismantle Tehran’s nuclear threat once and for all. Any final agreement must see Iran disband its tens of thousands of uranium processing centrifuges – far more than is needed for any purely civilian atomic energy programme. Iran’s plant for making plutonium – which can only have a military intent – must also be dismantled. It would also make sense for Tehran to dispose of the excessive amounts of low enriched uranium it already possesses – enough to make at least six atomic bombs if those stocks were sufficiently enriched to weapons grade material.

Standard