Dear Editor,
Whilst conversing with friends overseas and in Guyana recently, they asked me whether I think Russia would invade Ukraine.
My answer to them was “I don’t know.”
The question at that time, was not a surprising one.
Apart from the fact that the issue is being discussed on all major news channels, it appears to be a matter of interest for governments and peoples around the world especially in Europe.
As it turned out, after weeks of speculation about what Russian would do and not do, accompanied by a flurry of high level diplomatic initiatives in and out of Russia and Ukraine aimed at finding a solution to the Russian/Ukraine crisis and preventing any military action on the part of Russia against Ukraine, finally, Russia made its moves.
First, it engineered the evacuation of thousands of Russians from Eastern Ukraine on the ground that a war was coming.
Secondly, President Vladimir Putin signed two decrees recognizing the Luhansk People’s Republic and Donetsk People’s Republic as independent states formerly part of Ukraine’s national territory. Thirdly, Russian troops, under the guise of a ‘Peacekeeping Mission’ were ordered to enter the territory of the two newly birthed ‘People’s Republics’.
The moves triggered a raft of sweeping sanctions by the US in the areas of investment, trade and financing on ‘any US person to, from or in the so-called People’s Republics’ as well as on ‘any person determined to operate in those area of Ukraine,’ meaning the two ‘People’s Republics’
Subsequently, the British Prime Minister announced sanctions on five Russian banks and three prominent Russian citizens. And the European Union chimed in with sanctions on Russian MPs who supported Putin’s actions, financial institutions supporting the Russian military and prohibiting trade with the break-away regions.
Meanwhile, in the face of a possible outbreak of a war between Russian occupying forces and the Ukrainian military, the moves by Russia have complicated efforts at the diplomatic level aimed at resolving the crisis..
But the fundamental question, speculative as it might seem, is whether Russia’s military intervention and occupation of the breakaway regions in Eastern Ukraine can be categorized as just or unjust?
Joseph C. Sweeney in his article ‘The Just War Ethic in International Law’ published in the ‘Fordham International Law Journal’ states that; ‘An Unjust war is characterized by the use of military force in violation of the United Nations Charter by a sovereign Nation State; while a just war is the use of military force according to the decisions of the United Nations Security Council’.
According to Sweeney; ‘Only in the inherent right of self-defence against armed attack can a Nation be justified in resorting to military force, without the approval of the Security Council
Use of military force as directed by the Security Council or use of military force in self-defense against an armed attack constitute the criteria of a just war established by the United Nations.’
Within the meaning of the UN Charter, and pushing aside the constant stream of propaganda, sensationalism and fake news emanating from various quarters about the Ukraine/Russia crisis, Russia’s geo-political and military strategic objectives appear to have born fruit at least in the short term.
Referring to the application of United Nations Charter in the context to the Russia/Ukraine threat of war the Secretary General Antonio Guterres addressing the recently concluded Munich Security Conference stressed; “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the processes of the United Nations.”
“The Charter is clear!” he emphasized.
Russia is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. It goes without saying that it must be aware of its role and responsibilities as one of the P 5’s.
Following the recent meeting of the Security Council to discuss the situation in and around the Ukraine, the UN Secretary General after describing Russian’s action as a violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, called inter alia; for the immediate cessation of hostilities, the peaceful settlement of the conflict and the prioritizing of diplomacy to address all issues.”
Diplomatic intervention to facilitate de-escalation of tension between States is not uncommon in such circumstances. These efforts can be anonymous and unseen.
Mediation by listening to both sides and communicating in good faith are central elements if de-escalation of tension and a permanent solution is to be achieved. In the circumstances, President Macron’s initiative still bears some relevance.
Small States like Guyana with a border controversy to the West and a dispute to its East should not stand by pondering as it were what position it should adopt in the face of what is happening now in Europe as if it is of no relevance to Guyana.
There is no way the ‘Just War’ theory could justify any foolhardy adventure that could trigger a full-scale armed conflict in Europe.
All options must be exhausted.
Small wonder why the British Opposition Leader Keir Starmer stressed that; “Even at this late hour we must pursue diplomatic efforts to avoid conflict.”
Thomas Aquinas, Italian priest and philosopher answering the question ‘When is a war just’?’ wrote; “For war to be just three conditions are necessary; There needs to be a right authority to declare war, a just cause and a right intention on the part of the belligerents ie; achieving some good or avoiding some evil.”
Yours faithfully,
Clement J. Rohee
