|
The present crisis in relations between Russia and the US is an unnecessary development borne out of erroneous moves by both sides to the latest conflict. The Crimean annexation by Russia should have been regarded as a win-win-win-win by all (Crimea, Ukraine, Russia, and US respectively) had the leaders of all countries-involved been thinking out of the box. But they have not. They have been bathing in cold-war hostility, and have seemed to enjoy the feeling and the euphoric enthusiasm that accusations, filled with hate-speech and hostile actions, are capable of generating.
Let us review the true objectives of all players involved in the Ukrainian crisis. Crimea’s objective: Secede from Ukraine and join Russia. Ukraine’s objective: Have a corruption-free (not easy if not impossible in Ukraine), western style democracy representing the will of the people while respecting human rights. Russia’s objective: having Ukraine stay under its wings by having a pro-Russian government in Kiev, and Securing the viability of the Black Sea base in Sevastopol where the Russian navy maintains its sole warm water port. US’ objective: having Ukraine leave the Russian orbit and maintain close relations with the EU with the possibility that it would join NATO at a future date. The case of Crimea: Ukraine’s ousting of Yanukovitch and the overthrow of his pro-Russian government, a revolt which started the avalanche, was seen in the US and in the EU as a positive development, while the Russians viewed it as precarious. The fact that the (unconstitutional) Ukrainian coup was not deemed “unconstitutional” by the West is only because the US interests were in step with a pro-western provisional government in Kiev. At the same time, the corrupt Yanukovitch and his violations of human rights, including the massacre he ordered on anti-government protestors, served to rationalize his ouster in the name of democracy, will of the people, and justice. He was corrupt. He was a bad guy. He stirred the country of Ukraine against the will of its people. Or more correctly, he stirred Ukraine against the will of the people in west Ukraine, not against the people in the eastern part of the country or in Crimea. But wait a minute. Yanukovitch was elected by a majority of Ukrainians. His overthrow may have been just, but it was also unconstitutional. In other words, under the circumstances, the US and the EU viewed justice, democracy and will of the people above the Ukrainian constitution. The US and the EU implied that a country’s constitution is meaningless if it violates basic human rights; if it does not represent the will of the majority; if it’s drafted by dictators with disregard to the welfare of their people. Kim Jong Un’s, Hitler’s, Stalin’s, and even Khrushchev’s actions (specifically, his 1954 gifting of Crimea to Ukraine) should have been deemed illegitimate even though they were regarded legal by dint of their own constitutions. Consequently, the argument calling Crimea’s secession – “an unconstitutional act” – is weightless as long as secession is justified by way of democratic reasoning like: · Does secession represent the will of the people involved? · Does secession advance the push for basic human rights? · Does secession boost the well-being of the people involved? The answer to all of these questions is YES. · Crimeans voted overwhelmingly in favor of secession. · The latest revolution in Kiev brought to power politicians whose chief common attribute has been their hostility toward Russia. The re-energized Ukrainian authorities have just repealed a law giving regional rights to minority languages. This was one of their most prominent initiatives since assuming power. They have also signed a new bill banning Russian media in Ukraine. These moves must have been popular in the western part of the country, but in Crimea and in some Eastern regions it must have been seen as an indication of further repression (of the Russian and Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens) to come. In other words, the latest actions by the provisional government in Kiev contributed to a reversal of human rights in regions where the majority of the population are ethnic Russians and/or Russian-speaking. · And finally, the inherent corruption embedded in the Ukrainian system of government has brought about devastating economic consequences to the country, including Crimea. There is little doubt that Crimea will be better off economically under Russia. In conclusion: secession of Crimea serves well the Crimean population. They have freed themselves from an unwelcome Ukrainian occupation. The US, the EU and western Ukraine are also better off following the secession of Crimea. Here is why. Ex-president, Russia enthusiast, Victor Yanukovitch was elected legally by a majority comprising half a million votes. Crimea contributed a million votes margin to the corrupt leader’s victory. In other words, Crimea was the reason Yanukovitch won the elections. Had Crimea been out of the picture the pro-western politicians would have won by half a million votes, and former prime minister, Yulia Timoshenko would not have found herself spending time in jail. Had the Crimean citizens been in a position to contribute their opinion and vote for the next Ukrainian president, the next (truly) democratic elections in Ukraine could have yielded similar outcome. Those who want to see a democratic west-leaning Ukraine should be more assured of their goal following Crimea’s secession. The Russian dominated peninsula will be out of the picture during the upcoming elections. Fair elections in Ukraine, including Crimea, could have toppled the existing pro-western Ukrainian government, and Putin could have won back the whole country rather than just the relatively small peninsula. Russia may or may not be better off following its annexation of Crimea. Russia is better off because it secured the viability of its Black Sea fleet and removed the threat of it being surrounded by a hostile regime. At the same time, had Crimea stayed Ukrainian, chances are that another Yanukovitch-impersonator could have captured the presidency in Kiev, and the whole of Ukraine (rather than just Crimea) would have stayed on inside the Russian orbit following the next democratic elections. With Crimea out of the picture, it becomes certain that the next Ukrainian government will be pro-western. In conclusion: By annexing Crimea, Russia has guaranteed the viability of its Black Sea fleet, but forfeited any chance for having a pro-Russian government in Kiev. Putin preferred a bird in the hand to two birds in the bush. The latest developments in Crimea, its secession from Ukraine and its annexation by Russia, were a positive development. Everyone involved has won. The hostile moves by the west and the counter moves by the Russians are contrary to the happy outcome. These moves have not contributed to world peace; they could derail the potential positive outcomes in the negotiations with Iran, as well as the disarming of chemical weapons by the Assad’s regime, and they greatly obstruct the world economy. The US, the EU and the Ukrainian government should put emotions and macho talk aside; they should let logical reasoning and fairness rule the roost from now on.
1 Comment
Let me start by stating that I am quite critical of President Obama’s and his western allies’ position concerning the Crimean crisis. I do believe that separating Crimea from Ukraine will actually serve the Ukrainian people better than having it remain as part of their democratic country.
Sounds wide of the mark? Not really. Let me convince you. Ex-president, Russia enthusiast, Victor Yanukovitch was elected legally by a majority comprising half a million votes. Crimea contributed a million votes margin to the corrupt leader’s victory. In other words, Crimea was the reason Yanukovitch won the elections. Had Crimea been out of the picture the pro-western politicians would have won by half a million votes, and former prime minister, Yulia Timoshenko would not have found herself spending time in jail. The next (truly) democratic elections in Ukraine may yield similar outcome should the Crimean citizens be in a position to contribute their opinion and vote for the next Ukrainian president. Those who want to see a democratic west-leaning Ukraine will be more assured of their goal should Crimea be out of the picture during the upcoming elections. President Obama should not be over-confident in believing that the new leaders in Kiev represent the will of all Ukrainians. It is obvious that most Crimean population favor allying themselves with Russia rather than the EU, and Eastern Ukraine would, most likely, cast equivalent voting results. Fair elections, including Crimea, might topple the existing pro-western Ukrainian government, and Putin could win back the whole country rather than just the relatively small peninsula. It’s clear that confidence is the feeling one has before he understands the situation, and it does not look like the president or his western allies do. Those who criticize Obama’s handling of the Ukrainian crisis do so for the wrong reasons; they claim that President Putin dared invading Ukraine because he perceived a weak and an indecisive US president. Really? Did Putin perceive President Bush—the one US president who had not hesitated invading two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, during his first term in office—as weak, when he invaded and occupied parts Georgia? Was that the reason Putin had committed his troops? Would “presidents” John McCain, Lindsey Graham, or any GOP presidential hopeful resort to using force against Russia over Putin’s occupation of Crimea? If not, then what’s the purpose of the macho talk other than a fresh, ridiculous excuse for bashing Obama? Would any GOP leader impose harsher sanctions on Russia as punishment for Putin’s misbehavior? Do they even think of the consequences? Do they realize that a subsequent retaliation by Russia could harm the EU and the US where public opinion of those who might get hurt economically matter much more than it does in Putin’s Russia? But let’s stop the insanity when it comes to Crimea. Let’s ask president Obama and Secretary of State, John Kerry, to apply to Crimea the same logic they apply to their argument for a two-state solution in the Middle-East. “In the absence of a peaceful two-state solution,” they claim, “Israel has a choice between either being a democracy or preserve its Jewish character, but not both”. In other words, the American logic states that if Israel rules over a Palestinian majority in the West Bank, then either these Palestinians become Israeli citizens with full voting rights, a fact which would undermine the Jewish character of the state, or they become second class citizens, a fact which would undermine the democratic moral fiber of the state. Applying equivalent logic to Ukraine, President Obama should claim that with keeping Crimea as part of Ukraine, Ukraine has a choice between either being a true democracy, but closely allied with Russia, or preserve its freshly-formed pro-western character by dismissing Crimea’s majority and suppressing the will of its people by repealing a law giving regional rights to minority languages, and by signing a new bill banning the use of Russian media, as the recent re-energized Ukrainian leadership has already done. A proper US policy concerning Russia and Ukraine should comprise the toning down of the hostile rhetoric and the macho talk, accept the latest facts on the ground, and only pretend to be upset. This way, the majority of the Crimean population will be happy; Ukraine will be assured of a democratic, pro-western government; relations between Russia and the west will return to calm as tensions will fade away, and the global economy will continue to grow uninterrupted. Yeah. Keep on dreaming… Biography Dr. Avi Perry, a talk show host at Paltalk News Network, is the author of Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks and more recently, 72 Virgins, a thriller about the covert war on Islamic terror. He was vice president at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories company – distinguished staff member and manager, as well as a delegate of the U.S. and Lucent Technologies to the ITU—the UN International Standards body in Geneva, a professor at Northwestern University and an intelligence expert for the Israeli Government. He may be reached through his web site www.aviperry.org Why are the US and the EU so insistent on keeping territorial integrity of countries like Ukraine, Iraq and even the Palestinian proposed state (based on the 1948-1967 borders), whereas actual conditions on the ground would be better served otherwise?
Crimea: The Crimean peninsula has been part of Russia since the 18th century and all throughout the first half of the 20th century when it was offered as a gift from Russia to Ukraine by former (Ukrainian-born) leader of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev (perhaps he did so when he was under the influence), and became part of the Soviet Republic of Ukraine . The change in ownership was more symbolic than material because Ukraine was a region in the Soviet Union under Russian leadership. Consequently, this figurative transformation did not bring about any meaningful metamorphosis in the Crimean peninsula’s citizens’ daily life. With the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1990, Crimea remained part of Ukraine, but unlike the rest of Ukrainian administrative regions, it was able to preserve its special Russian character by becoming the only autonomous Ukrainian republic. According to the 2001 Ukrainian population census 58.5% of the population of Crimea were ethnic Russians and 24.4% were ethnic Ukrainians. Consequently, Russian has been (still is) the principal spoken language in Crimea. What’s more, Russia inherited (as per the breakup agreement with Ukraine) the Soviet Union’s most important warm water Black Sea seaport with its accompanying fleet of war ships in (Russian-governed) Sevastopol, Crimea, where its navy retains one of its principal bases. The latest revolution in Kiev brought to power politicians whose chief common attribute has been their hostility toward Russia. The re-energized Ukrainian authorities have just repealed a law giving regional rights to minority languages. This was one of their most prominent initiatives since assuming power. They have also signed a new bill banning Russian media in Ukraine. These moves must have been popular in the western part of the country, but in Crimea and in some Eastern regions it must have been seen as an indication of further repression (of the Russian and Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens) to come. Anxiety among Russian-speaking Ukrainians has been justifiably intensified in the past few days. Had a referendum been offered in Crimea today over whether the republic should be part of Ukraine or part of Russia, there is no doubt in my mind that the local citizens would have chosen the latter. If we believe in Democracy; if we believe in facilitating the will of the people, then why are we upset when someone else’s territorial integrity is sacrificed in order to make the most out of what the affected people really want? It’s their way of life, their welfare and their happiness that we are trying to downgrade in the name of territorial integrity. What’s so divine about unnatural territorial integrity, an integrity that came to pass as a result of a historical accident? Let’s think it over. Please note, however, that I am not supporting a Russian invasion of western Ukraine. If Russia tries to control the rest of the Ukrainian territory and embrace it as part of a greater Russian empire, then it would commit the same human rights violation they are trying to prevent from occurring in Crimea. Iraq: The state boundaries of Iraq were established by the British Empire after the First World War. There was nothing natural about those boundaries other than political considerations by the British who considered gifting King Faisal with territory he could rule over under British guardianship. In fact, Iraqi citizens comprise three major sects—Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds—concentrated in three contiguous regions respectively, except for the capital city of Bagdad where the different sects are more mixed, although most neighborhoods are dominated by a majority of one sect or another. The fact is that whoever assumes power in Iraq, whether it is a leadership dominated by one sect or another, is trying to suppress the other sects. There is also deep hostility and mistrust between the various sects. Iraqi minorities like the Sunnis and the Kurds could be better off if they could form their own state in the region where they are a significant majority and govern themselves. And these people know it. The current sectarian civil war that takes place in Iraq is proof that forcing territorial integrity on this country—only because of a historical accident that unified it under a puppet king—is rooted in an addiction to preserving a status quo regardless of whether or not it makes sense; regardless of whether or not it brings about violations of human rights for minorities; regardless of whether or not it serves World Peace. Israel and the Palestinian Territories: The border between Israel and Jordan was established over the ceasefire line at the end of the 1948 war. It was accidental. In fact, had the war continued for one more month, Jerusalem would not have been a divided city for the subsequent 19 years. It would have fallen into the hands of the Jewish State and the rest of Israel’s borders would have moved further east. Still, in the name of “territorial integrity” the rest of the world views the West Bank (a.k.a. Judea and Samaria) as Palestinian territory. Once again, the rest of the world sticks to preserving a historic status quo regardless of whether or not it makes sense. The only correct way to draw the borders of a future Palestinian state is to ensure that it includes all major Arab population centers. Empty regions should be subject to direct negotiations between the parties involved, and areas populated by Jewish settlements contiguous to the state of Israel should be annexed by the Jewish state. Furthermore, areas populated by Arabs west of but contiguous to the 1948 ceasefire line, may be incorporated into the new Palestinian state as part of the final settlement. Preserving territorial integrity does not, in many cases, serve justice, happiness or human rights. We have witnessed the peaceful divorce of Czechoslovakia, the bloody disintegration of Yugoslavia, the Sudan split, and the breakup of the Soviet Union. In all of these cases, the resulting independent states were better off after the uncoupling had transpired. The EU and the US should let go of the concept that territorial integrity must not be violated even when it makes no sense. Let’s not pretend that we are the Catholic Pope. Let these countries get a divorce when divorce is the best option. BIOGRAPHY Dr. Avi Perry, a talk show host at Paltalk News Network (PNN), is the author of "Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks," and more recently, "72 Virgins," a thriller about the covert war on Islamic terror. He was Vice President at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories - distinguished staff member and manager, as well as a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to the ITU—the UN International Standards body in Geneva, a professor at Northwestern University and an Intelligence expert for the Israeli Government. He may be reached through his web site www.aviperry.org |
Categories
All
|
