US barks loud Russia cannot hear EVEN

Big powers standing exposed over Ukraine

March 5, 2014, 8:49 pm 

UKRAINE, Kiev : US Secretary of State John Kerry walks at the barricade at the Shrine of the Fallen of anti-government protesters in Kiev on March 4, 2014. Kerry arrived in Kiev for talks with Ukraine’s new interim government, amid an escalating crisis in Crimea.AFP PHOTO/ SERGEI SUPINSKY

The trading of accusations between Russia and the West over the crisis in Ukraine has more than a whiff of Cold War politics and exposes both parties to the criticism of being dismissive of value-based international relations. Neither the West nor Russia could claim to be strict adherents of International Law in this dramatic face-off which has profound implications for international stability,

A reported Russian troop presence in the Crimean peninsula had compelled US President Barack Obama to tell his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, that a ‘breach of International Law’ has occurred, but the same allegation could be leveled at the US over, for instance, its military invasion of Iraq in 2003. If, as the West says, a ‘violation of Ukrainian sovereignty’ has occurred, the observer with an interest in impartiality could very well ask: what of Iraq and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan? What of the violation of Pakistan’s air space as a result of the numerous drone strikes which are claiming mainly civilian lives?

The reference to these possible counter-accusations should not be interpreted as an attempt at absolving Russia of any blame in this crisis. The Russian troop presence in the Crimea is a clear indication that Ukraine’s sovereignty has been violated and this fact cannot be glossed over or ignored. But neither party could afford to be moralistic or self-righteous in international crises of this kind because they could both be found to be wanting in their adherence to the core principles of International Law in international relations practice.

Even before the Western military invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US stood International Law on its head by violating Serbia’s air space in the Kosovan crisis of 1999. There are commentators who regard this violation as an irreversible major subversion of the international political order which was sought to be created with the ushering of the UN system in the wake of the ending of World War Two. Serbia’s sovereignty was violated with impunity by the US and the event could be regarded as a forerunner to the violations of International Law by the West which followed.

It is plain to see that the West and Russia have been driven primarily by their national interests in these crisis situations. Russia regards many of the regions which constitute Eastern Europe as essential for the preservation of her security and she is likely to be committed to this position even in these post-Soviet times. Ideally, Russia would prefer to see friendly governments in her ‘backyard’ and this has been a prime factor in her decision to establish a military presence in the Crimea. The same consideration weighed heavily with her when she decided to figure in the Georgian crisis in 2008.

Russian concerns ought to be compounded by the fact that many of her former East European satellites are today in the Western camp and are associated with its military formations. Many of them are also in an effort to seek EU membership. Thus, Russia cannot help but look over her shoulder constantly at her Eastern border.

This is typical Cold War conduct on the part of Russia, no doubt, but is the US giving Russia reason to believe that it is serious in its commitment to upholding international relations best practices?

As in the case of Russia, the national interest, narrowly interpreted, accounts for the US’ military (mis)adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US has to enjoy a substantial military presence in South West Asia on account of the vast oil reserves in the region and this is a predominant factor in her decision to be involved militarily in Iraq and Afghanistan. Besides, the US needs to keep Iran in check.

Overall, the US would prefer to perpetuate a hegemonistic presence in the Asia-Pacific region because this region is the veritable growth centre of the global economy. If Western economic interests are to be protected in the Asia-Pacific region, then a US military presence which is substantial could be seen as essential.

Accordingly, none of the parties, neither the US nor Russia, could claim to be ‘holier than the other’. They are essentially guided by their national interests in the Ukrainian crisis, as in the case of many other conflict situations, and both parties stand accused of indulging in ‘double-speak’ and ‘double-think’.

Russia is on record that its moves in Ukraine are also determined by its concern for persons of Russian descent in that country, but an effort seems to be afoot to stir nationalist fervour in Russia on account of this factor. Consequently, one cannot avoid observing that such sentiments could lead to a deeper polarization of the major communities in the Ukraine.

Considering the ease with which these major powers jettison all regard for the principal norms and values of cooperative international relations and practices, the question could be raised anew whether any notable efforts have been made over the decades by the big powers at establishing international equity and justice. In other words, to what degree are they committed to the UN system and its core values?

It seems that the major powers would be predisposed to pursuing their individual interests at even considerable costs, when it is perceived that these interests are under threat, and that they would even do so to the detriment of the collective wholesome aims of the international community.

Considering the above, international relations theorist cannot be faulted for adopting the view that it is Political Realism that provides the most valid viewpoint to study the inter-state conduct of the major powers. The majority of states give the impression of being committed to what are considered liberal values and ideals in their relations with each other, but it is individual interests, narrowly conceived, which seem to be weighing most heavily with the major powers in particular in times of crisis.

The challenge before the world community is to change these predilections of the big powers if the greater good of humanity is to be served even to a degree. Right now, there is no indication that doubly serious consequences would flow for the international community from the crisis in the Ukraine, but one cannot rule out the possibility of developments taking a catastrophic turn for the world in the future, as a result of such crises. The world has no choice but to progressively bolster the UN system.