CRISIS IN UKRAINE:
RULE OF LAW OR DOUBLE STANDARDS
The present crisis in Ukraine centers on the legality of the
referendum on 16 March 2014 called by Crimea’s Parliament to decide whether its
voters wish to join the Russian Federation or remain in Ukraine with broader
powers. This issue has important implications for the Philippines and other
countries like Spain, facing threats of secession.
The Parliament of Crimea, which is an autonomous Republic in
Ukraine, had earlier voted at the beginning of March to become part of the
Russian Federation. Thereafter, the Head
of Parliament, Vladimir Konstantinov, sent a request to President Vladimir
Putin for Crimea to join the Russian Federation. The referendum was designed to legitimize the
request.
Geography of Ukraine
and Crimea
For an understanding of the complexity of this crisis, one
has to look at the map and consider history. Crimea was a part of Russia since the
eighteenth century when Catherine the Great annexed Crimea in 1783. Crimea
remained a part of Russia until 1954 when Nikita Kruschchev transferred Crimea
to Ukraine as a gift to celebrate the 300th anniversary of a Russian
agreement with the Cossacks. Crimea is
populated mainly by Russian speakers and is the home of four Russian fleets in
the Black Sea, from which Russia projects its power in the Mediterranean.
Ukraine was also a part of Russia, and has a complex history
and a polyglot composition. Its Western
part was added to the Ukraine Socialist Republic in 1939 when Hitler and Stalin
divided Poland. The Western regions are largely
catholic and Ukrainian speaking while the Eastern regions are mainly Orthodox
Russian and Russian speaking. Kiev was
the capital of the Kievan-Rus before the rise of Moscow.
Because of Ukraine’s history and geography, former US
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has advocated that the crisis in Ukraine
should not be treated as a part of the East West confrontation but his advice
is apparently not being followed.
West’s Position
The interim government of Ukraine has accused Russia of
invading Crimea, and the West has called upon Russia to respect Ukraine’s
sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Ukrainian interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk has
called the referendum an “illegitimate decision.” US President Barack Obama has said that “Any
discussion about the future of Ukraine must include the legitimate government
of Ukraine.”
The G7 has issued a Statement that the referendum would have
no legal effect and that the process is flawed because of its rushed nature and
the deployment of Russian troops in the Crimea.
The president of the European Council and the president of the European
Commission joined in that Statement. The
G 7’s reasoning is evidently intended to distinguish the Crimean case from the case
of Kosovo, when the USA and a number of EU countries first decided to recognize
the independence of Kosovo against the objection of Serbia, although Kosovo was
a province of Serbia. Russia and its
allies objected to this act of secession. The Philippines and Spain have not recognized
Kosovo’s independence.
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
Chairman Didier Burkhalter also issued a Statement that the referendum, in its
current form, contradicts Ukraine’s constitution and must be considered
illegal. The OSCE is Europe’s security and democracy watchdog. As Ukraine’s constitution only permits
national referendums, Burkhalter ruled out an OSCE observation of the
referendum.
The West has called upon Russia to enter into a dialogue
with Ukraine.
Russia’s Position
Russia has refused to dialogue with Ukraine, stating that it
cannot accept the coup in Kiev as a “fait accompli” but there have been talks
between Russia and the United States at the highest levels whereby both defend
their respective positions on the basis of international law.
Russia alleges that the interim government of Ukraine has
come to power through a coup by the “Right Sectors, a grouping of several
far-right and nationalist factions, who were among the most radical and
confrontational of the demonstrators in Kiev and who organized the self-defense
brigades for the protest camp.” Russia
accuses the interim authorities of illegally ousting the legally elected
president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, whom Russia still recognizes as the
legitimate president, although he may no longer have a political future.
Russia also sees the West as having supported the
“coup”. Previously, Russia had protested
the NATO Statement against the use of force in dispersing demonstrations in
Kiev and accused NATO of interfering in Ukraine’s internal affairs. A prominent Russian lawmaker tweeted,
pointing out the inconsistencies between NATO’s reaction to the crackdown on
protestors in Kiev and similar US violence in beating anti-NATO protestors in
Chicago
The subsequent decision of Ukraine’s Rada to modify
Ukraine’s Language Law and remove Russian as an official language gave Russia
and Ukraine’s Russian- speaking population cause for alarm. The Russian Foreign Ministry subsequently
claimed that the Eastern regions of Ukraine were now ruled by lawlessness as a
result of the actions of fighters of the so-called “Right Sectors” with the
full connivance of the interim government.
Russia also invoked its right to
protect Russian nationals. Russia must have been mindful of previous actions
taken by the United States to protect American citizens, particularly the US invasion
of Grenada in 1984 and the US intervention in Panama in December 1989. In both these cases, “the level of threat
against US citizens was such as to raise serious questions concerning the
satisfaction of the requirement of proportionality”, according to British
Author and Professor of International Law Malcolm N. Shaw.
As for the presence of Russian troops in Crimea, Russia
stated that they were there in accordance with treaty agreements. Russia denied that the military forces
surrounding Simferopol Airport and confronting Ukraine’s soldiers in their
military bases in Crimea were Russian forces. They were, according to Russia’s
explanation, self-defense forces of Crimea. Kissinger saw Russia’s denial as positive
rather than negative, as it would make a diplomatic solution easier to reach
since Putin, Kissinger noted, would not need to issue an Order recalling the
troops.
As for the decisions taken by Crimea’s Parliament, Russia
stated that: “The steps taken by the legitimate leadership of Crimea are based
on the norms of international law and aim to ensure the legitimate interests of
the population of the peninsula.”
Diplomatic Solution
Crimea’s Parliament has reportedly announced that, if the
referendum favored Crimea’s joining the Russian Federation, the Parliament
would immediately announce Crimea’s independence. Putin then would not be under time pressure
to decide on Crimea’s request to join the Russian Federation.
In the meantime, negotiations could continue for a
diplomatic solution. Russia had
previously announced that it had no intention to annex Eastern Ukraine or
Crimea. Russia’s most important objective evidently is to secure Sevastopol as
the permanent home for Russia’s Navy in the Black Sea. One of the possible options suggested is for Crimea,
as part of its broader autonomous powers within Ukraine, to grant Russia a
permanent home for the Russian Navy in the Crimea similar to the status of the
US base of Guantanamo in Cuba.
Another of Russia’s priority objective is to prevent Ukraine
from joining NATO and losing Ukraine as a buffer. This has been Russia’s consistent policy
since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and is consistent with the Budapest
Agreement of 1994 whereby the US, the UK and Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s
sovereignty and territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine’s surrender of
its nuclear weapons. Kissinger’s
suggestion is for Ukraine to follow the example of Finland, which is fiercely
independent and cooperates with Europe in most fields but avoids institutional
hostility to Russia. Thus, Ukraine, like
Finland, should be able to join an economic and political association like the
EU but not a military alliance like NATO; or Ukraine could be like Austria, a
neutral country, which is also a member of the EU but not of NATO.
For the Philippines, the important result from this crisis is
that Europe and the US have taken the position that the referendum is illegal
because it violates Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The basis for this assertion is Ukraine’s constitution
which mandates that the issue of secession should be voted upon by all the
voters in Ukraine. This principle supports our national interest.
