By S.R. Insanally, retired Minister of Foreign Affairs
Although much has already been said – and written – about the ongoing Russian/Ukraine conflict, I felt that in Guyana, I should publish some of my own observations that would allow our citizens to better comprehend its significance, not only for our own country but also for the wider world. My decision was taken on the perception that we are somewhat remote from the cockpit of battle and that therefore, we may not easily understand the consequences that could impact on the region in which we live.
In a certain sense, Europe – both East and West – is ‘terra incognita’ for the people of the Caribbean. The area under consideration is so vast that it is impossible for us to truly understand this comprehensive and complex geographical space. The history of many locations, as well as their exotic names, do not allow for an instantaneous appreciation of their roles in the current war, worse yet, the reports of the “blow by blow” exchanges which are reported, are more concerned with the types of weaponry used, the levels of their sophistication and their general usage.
While the information provided may be of some interest, for example, the threat or the use of nuclear weapons at some stage of the war, there are other queries that are important and must be answered. A prime example relates to the future status of Russia, particularly at the end of the war. It will be recalled that among the agreements reached subsequent to WW 2, was that a Security Council would be created with a total membership of 15 countries, of which five would be permanent and include Russia. Now that Russia has been found guilty at least in the eyes of the majority of states – of forcefully invading the territory of another state, should this abuse of a basic principle of the UN Charter not to be sanctioned by the withdrawal of Russia’s permanent status as well as its right to exercise the veto?
No doubt, Putin has suffered from many grievances against the West and some neighbouring states. But since he has not specified these, we cannot understand his decision to invade. If reports are to be believed, Russia has nothing much to gain from his military enterprise; a majority of his own people do not support him nor do some of his generals who are signalling the possibility of a coup. It is a bad reflection on Russia, a country which fought valiantly against the rise of fascism and Nazism, losing thousands of its soldiers and much of its resources in the field. Some 20 million Russians died in the war while many died in Leningrad as a result of starvation.
Although Russia’s heroism of World War II remains praiseworthy, it cannot excuse its infringement of Ukraine’s sovereignty. The case should continue to be examined by a special judicial commission established by the General Assembly or perhaps the Criminal Court since Putin has also been charged with committing crimes against humanity. As anyone knowledgeable in international affairs, particularly politicians both foreign and local, would have realized by now, the struggle between the participants has been driven by different motives and rules in the conduct of international affairs. A preliminary vote taken at the UN some months ago showed that while the result was tainted by a few abstentions, the vast majority of UN members attributed blame for the invasion to the Russian Federation. This step could certainly change Moscow’s attitude towards the West, and in particular, the USA.
The West has always found it difficult to predict where Putin’s foreign policy will lead him since he changes his strategy as often as he needs, to achieve his goals. The West appears in fact to be his permanent enemy, judging from his interaction with Western officials. Putin also sabotaged the result in the US – Russia relations discussions which former President Obama had worked out. At the same time, he was ready to cooperate with the US on certain matters e.g., Iran’s nuclear programme, and providing transit for American troops on their way to Afghanistan.
Shortly afterwards, though, he spoke to the Russian Parliament where he lambasted the Americans for their diplomatic “inconsistencies”, and challenged the legitimacy of Ukraine’s borders. Rather interesting perhaps, was Putin’s remark that Russians were the world’s most “divided people”, in a reference no doubt to Europe’s past history when there were several territorial conflicts, and borders were altered by force. However, on film footage of the current war, viewers see pictures of a brave and valiant people fighting off their aggressors with patriotism and sacrifice, motivated in the struggle by a young, dynamic and inspiring leader. It was generally felt, consequent upon Russia’s annexation of Crimea, that disintegration would ensue in other regions of Ukraine. These areas, linked by their common ethnicity with Crimea, may have considered it a good option to seek closer ties with the European Union.
Already one year into the war, it is still not clear what the outcome will be. The fighting between the Russians and the Ukrainians has become more intense. There have been severe losses on both sides and there is no evidence to foretell which one will emerge victorious. The Russians give the impression that they are prepared to go the nuclear route to regain their status as a world power. On the other hand, Ukrainians have been able, through an impressive show of morale and resistance, to keep them at bay. Of course, they have been helped considerably by material assistance from the West but this support is limited by NATO rules on its intervention in non-member countries. A concomitant problem is the fact that other East European countries would also like to join NATO. At present, there is destruction everywhere rendering life for the victims – men, women and children – a perilous and unbearable existence. At this point, an end to the violence is not in sight and can only happen if Putin abandons his dangerous quest for superiority and/or if NATO (particularly the USA) is willing to do more to frustrate his strategy.
This article seeks to identify some of the political, cultural, ideological and other inconsistencies in the reactions and responses to this war. There will certainly be many obstacles on the path to change. A major issue is the apparent rejection of the ideological pluralism concept which favoured the peaceful coexistence of political, cultural and ideological diversity in our global space. However, this is no longer an attribute of multilateral diplomacy. As we know, the negotiation of important issues such as the promotion of tolerance and understanding amidst the current destruction and divisiveness of war will be difficult to achieve in the prevailing climate of distrust and defamation.
While speculation has been rife as to Russian President Putin’s claim that he was carrying out a “special operation” to complete the process of “denazification” in Europe, no one seems to know exactly what he meant by this declaration. His statements have been largely ignored by both the Ukrainian population and many Russians as well, in Putin’s domain. A likely explanation for the President’s action is that, in the wake of World War II, the Soviet Union disintegrated, depriving Russia of its former empire.
Huge parts of the region hived off to the West eschewing communism/socialism and ideological pluralism in favour of Western Democracy. This clearly was a bitter pill for Putin to swallow and immediately set him on the war-path.
The immediate result of the invasion was clearly to destabilize Ukraine – the weaker of the two countries. One has only to look at a map of Eastern Europe to see how hostile the relations between Russia and the Ukraine, a future member of the European Union have become. Matters could easily be worse, however, if Russia proceeded to absorb the Baltic States of Eastern Europe. In Putin’s mind, he may be hoping to create a New Soviet Union and if necessary, he is prepared to deal with the Devil to regain Russia’s status as a world power.
In this context, it may be of some interest to reflect, albeit briefly, on the roles which the media and the region are playing in the present world upheaval. The television media have multiplied so extensively through advanced technology, that the viewer is often overwhelmed by the amount and details of information available. Moreover, the diversity of the ideological sources from which the information comes, makes it difficult to ascertain the veracity of the offerings. It is no wonder that we now have a free flow of “fake news”. This development does more to confuse than to enlighten.
As mentioned earlier, political ideology plays a noteworthy part in some recent global crises. After the war was won by the West, and democracy became the widely accepted model of governance. Power politics became the order of the day. Perhaps there should be a new name for this largely unknown “DeMonacracy.” Unfortunately, the affairs of the many states began to go awry in the post-war period. Europe was no longer unified and became less dynamic. International governance soon became dysfunctional, resulting in economic stagnation in most countries. Some saw an opportunity for self-aggrandizement, others saw it fit to abandon long established principles of international law such as respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. President Obama spoke of the need to “rebalance” Asia while Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister declared, somewhat enigmatically, “The key to everything is expanding NATO Eastward”.
Out of concern for the well-being of my fellow human beings, I am wont, on waking up in the mornings and after digesting the news of the day, to share my views with those who may be around me. My endeavours to “share” my views with my captive audience prompted an interesting remark from one staff member who said “Sir, I doan bodda to look or listen to the News. It only mek me sad and distress”. As far as this person is concerned, “The war will go on as it wants. As long as it doan come to Guyana, I doan care”. I am yet to rebut this viewpoint.
Meanwhile, I continue to be fearful that unless a solution can soon be reached, I believe that given the abundant nuclear war materiel which exists in Europe, a configuration may be soon ignited either accidentally or intentionally, resulting in a major world disaster. I cannot myself think of a solution given the rabid behaviour of Putin. However, if it is not possible to convene an emergency meeting of the General Assembly or some duly authorized body to discuss the war there will be a prolongation of the conflict. Putin’s brutality must be countered by the strongest of sanctions. Expulsion would be considered most fitting. (Remember he was once kicked out of the G 8) If all fails, the world must prepare itself for all possibilities, including nuclear war. Putin himself has said on the several occasions, “I am not bluffing.”
If much knowledge can be harmful, so too I may add, can be too little.
