Will there soon be another war in
Europe? The politicians assuage our fears: no, it will not go that far. But with
Russian military support, Crimea has already declared independence, while the
NATO countries and Russia threaten each other with sanctions and
counter-sanctions. Reason for great worry therefore remains. Let's try to
understand the mess.
Legal
or Illegal – They don’t give a damn
It does not take us any further, if one says
a particular action is legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional. Or
if one says the action contravenes international law, or it doesn’t. That's
pointless. In political colloquial German there is a witty saying: "legal
or illegal; I don’t give a damn." Moreover, no putsch, no ousting of a
President, no tyrannicide, no revolution, no unilateral declaration of
independence is legal or constitutional. And the demonstrators on Kiev’s Maidan
did not claim that their “revolution” has been constitutional. Ben Ali and
Mubarak were rightful presidents of their country – in accordance with some law
in force at the time. Even the despotically ruling King of Saudi Arabia, one of
the best friends of the West, is a rightful ruler. Yanukovych was even a
properly elected president. But who cares? After some time, the normative power
of facts comes into force. Whether the referendum in Crimea and the stand of
the Russians there have been constitutional or in accordance with international
law, does not matter. The Russians have enumerated to the Americans, how many illegal
invasions the latter have perpetrated in recent decades – from Panama and
Grenada up to Iraq. Even a Washington Post columnist admitted that the
U.S. had no moral right to accuse Russia of anything in this regard. Merkel too
has no such right. Gerhard Schroeder, her predecessor in the office of the
Chancellor of the German government, recently said that Germany too violated international
law when it, under his Chancellorship, bombarded Serbia. That's why he could
not blame his friend Putin for Russia’s stand on Crimea. Sometimes the great
powers also talk plain truth. The Americans often cite their "vital
interest" to defend an invasion. In the current conflict over Crimea, the
Russians have openly said that they will defend their interests. But we ordinary
people might perhaps be allowed to ask whether an action is at least
justified, whether it could contribute something to the preservation or
promotion of peace in the world and to the good of the people concerned.
Responsibility
to Protect
When we ask these questions, we leave
the ground of law and international law and enter the ground of ethics and reasonableness.
Under German law, in certain circumstances, failure to render help can be a
punishable offense. In international law, there is no such duty. Precisely for
this reason, after the genocide in Rwanda (1994), the ethical principle of "responsibility to
protect" was postulated.
Of course, great powers can also abuse this ethical principle, as recently
happened in Libya. But it is at least theoretically better than strict
observance of the legal principle of
non-interference in the internal affairs of a state. By all means, in 1994, the
armies of the neighboring states should have intervened in Rwanda to stop the
genocide. In private life, we do intervene when, for example, in the
neighboring house an angry husband threatens to kill his wife.
According to the Russian version of the
story, the "revolution" in Kiev was in fact a fascist coup d’état,
stoked up by Western powers, against the Russia-friendly elected president.
That's why, according to them, this coup was not only a threat to the
legitimate interests of Russia (naval base in Sevastopol, defense against the encirclement
policy of the NATO etc.), but also a threat to the ethnic Russian people of the
Ukraine. This, according to the Russians, justified their stand and compelled
them to take action to protect the ethnic Russians in Crimea.
Principle
of National Self-determination
One can also invoke the principle of
national self-determination and, with a clear conscience, justify the decision
of the Crimean Russians, who constitute the majority of the population on the
peninsula, to hold a referendum. In Crimea the ethnic Russians make up 58
percent of the population. Therefore, it was no surprise that in the referendum
– even without manipulation – the majority of those who cast their ballot opted
for secession from the Ukraine. But the problem is not so easily solved. The
remaining 40 percent – the Crimean Tatars and the ethnic Ukrainians –are, or
can be, afraid of being persecuted or discriminated against under Russian rule.
Generally, going-on about principles and a stubborn enforcement of a
referendum or a stubborn refusal thereof are not sensible politics. Especially
in such situations as in Crimea, it is better to act reasonably and seek an
amicable solution to the problem.
I think the Crimean Russians had enough
justification for their declaration of independence. They, firstly, constitute
the majority of the population. And, secondly, the desire to break up or break
away from a bigger political entity is neither bad per se nor uncommon. The
Soviet Union was broken up with the consent of the leaders of at least the
bigger constituent republics. The former Czechoslovakia was split up peacefully
at the request of the Slovaks, after which the two succession states are till today
living peacefully side by side. If the Scots decide in the already scheduled referendum
to dissolve their union with England and Wales, the people of the latter two and
the government of the UK will accept that decision.
Yet these examples should not mislead us
into thinking that dividing up a state into smaller independent states is
always and everywhere possible without much trouble. Modern history shows that
such an attempt can also end in a catastrophe. There are several examples for this:
Biafra (Nigeria), Katanga (Democratic Republic of Congo), the Tamilian northern
part of Sri Lanka. In Europe, the Basque region of Spain and France has gone through several decades of
murderous guerilla war. Even
where such attempts have in the end been successful – in 1947 in India
(Pakistan), 1971 in Pakistan (Bangladesh), in the 1990s in the former
Yugoslavia, recently in Sudan (South Sudan) – in every case the process was accompanied
by bloody wars and large-scale massacres of civilians. The only pure exception is
Czechoslovakia. The breaking up of the Soviet Union was preceded by political
and economic breakdown, a military putsch attempt, and the ouster of Gorbachev
from power. And if the Scots vote for independence, the English and the
Welshmen will, of course, accept their decision, but there will definitely be
conflict over sharing the revenues from the North Sea oil, over Scotland using
the pound sterling as its currency, and over Scotland’s membership of the EU.
It is easy to feel sympathy for the
separatist independence struggle of a constituent part of the population of a
state when the majority of the former inhabit a roughly definable part of the country.
But, as the examples above show, it is very difficult to carve a new state out
of an already established one or to completely liquidate the latter as it
happened in the case of Yugoslavia. Despite these negative examples such
attempts are still being made – in northern Italy and in Spain, where not only the
Basques but also the Catalans are trying to break away and create an
independent state of their own. Such attempts are today very unwise. For today, there is hardly a country or even a
larger part of a country (a province or even a district) where one does not
find different ethnic, religious or language groups living strongly mixed up
side by side. I once asked a Turkish expat, a leader of a left political group
in Germany, whether he supported the independence struggle of the Turkish
Kurds. He said, no. He would not mind, he said, if the Kurdish regions would
secede from Turkey, but then, he added, the Kurds would also be forced to leave
Istanbul, Ankara and the other bigger cities. How would that possibly end?
A similar problem exists in the Indian
part of Kashmir. The Hindu minority, that had been living for generations in
the midst of the predominantly Muslim population of Kashmir valley, has long been
forced to leave that part of the state. But in the south, in the province of
Jammu, Hindus and other non-Muslims constitute the majority. And the Buddhist
Ladakhis live in the north. If now the
Muslim inhabitants of the Indian part of Kashmir declare that they cannot live
in India as it is a predominantly Hindu country, and if they somehow succeed in
splitting the territory out of India and integrate it into the Islamic Republic
of Pakistan, then the Hindus in the greater part of India might tell the
Muslims living scattered throughout India they should also go to Pakistan. A
large-scale and cruel expulsion of the Muslims could then be the result, the
second after 1947. Also the small peoples living in small states in northeast
India – the Nagas the Mijos, the Manipuris – would have a big problem if they somehow
succeed in their effort to gain independence. The majority of Indians might
then tell them: we don’t want to have anything to do with you any more. See how
you cope with your independence. These small states are situated far away from
any seashore. Without cooperation with India, they would not be able to carry
on foreign trade or receive foreign investment. Geography is also a part of
fate.
National
Independence or Economics?
What I want to say with all these
examples is that it is necessary to assess each concrete problematic case separately
and against the background of the given context and constellation. Political
activists like us – eco-socialists, eco-anarchists etc. – have a vision of an
ideal future world in which such problems would no longer exist. But the
problems with which we are confronted, are problems of today's bad, imperfect world.
In the current case of Ukraine-Crimea,
we must remember that what at the beginning stood in the foreground was the
economic problem. President Yanukovych decided after much deliberation that for
the Ukraine, on balance, an economic association with Russia would be more
advantageous than one with the EU. The EU's offer was too meager. In a
situation where the Ukraine is broke, where the country needs $30 billion in this
year and the next just to avert bankruptcy, the EU offered initially only 800 million Euros in
emergency aid. It was obvious that Russia's offer of assistance – $ 15 billion
emergency aid plus a discount of 33 per cent in gas price – was comparatively
much better. Yanukovych also had to consider that Russia is a major export
market for Ukraine’s industrial products.
The President acted like a prudent
father, who wanted to marry his daughter (the Ukraine) to a rich groom. But the
daughter (more specifically, only the western part of the Ukraine) was
determined to marry her loved one, the EU. The real world is simply so. Not all
people act in a rational way, comparing the economic advantages and
disadvantages of a decision with those of another. Strong irrational feelings
and emotions are also there, and there is national pride, even in politics.
Western Ukrainians are generally known
to have a long-standing antipathy towards (even hatred of) Russians. History is
hard to forget. And it is true that Ukrainians suffered much under the Tsars
and during the Stalin era. Even so, economically, it would probably have been
better for the Ukraine if she had not made herself so dependent on the EU. As a
member of the EU she would lose much of her independence – a problem that is
already troubling the people of many member countries, e.g. the people of the
UK and Germany (there, especially Bavaria ). The EU and the IMF will certainly
give her the urgently needed rescue loans, as they have also given Greece. But
under the same conditions that must be fulfilled by Greece. The state will be
saved from bankruptcy, but Ukrainian society will suffer the same tragic fate
as Greek society is already suffering. Even if later, for geo-strategic
reasons, the Western creditors forgive part of their national debt, the
Ukrainians would "enjoy" the same bad living conditions as the
Bulgarians and Romanians do today, especially after they have lost their goods
and labor markets in Russia. The Germans will soon grumble at the allegedly
lazy and corrupt Ukrainians as much as they have done for the last few years at
the Greeks. But the Western Ukrainians were not bothered about such future
prospects. They have fallen in love. They are now elated at the prospect of visa-free
travel to many countries and job opportunities in Germany, France or the UK.
As for Crimean Russians, apart from succumbing
to their national feelings, they also acted rationally in leaving a sinking
ship. The Ukraine is broke, but not Russia, which still possesses huge energy and
other resources, the world market prices of which are rising continuously. As
citizens of Russia they will get higher salaries and pensions, better medical
care etc. Great power Russia is willing and will able to bear these extra costs.
The Ukraine should, if only for this reason, let the Crimean Russians go and
wish them well. The peninsula has no highly valuable mineral resources, nor is
it the location of major industries. The only condition that she and the so-called
international community should try to impose on Crimea and Russia is a guarantee
of equal rights and equal treatment of ethnic Tatars and Ukrainians. For similar
economic reasons, also the Kashmiri Muslims should opt for continuing to live
in India rather than for becoming citizens of Pakistan, an obviously and
increasingly failing state.
Economics has generally been the most
important (though not the only) factor in questions of this kind. Most
relatively poor European countries that joined the EU before 2008 (i.e. when
the current world economic crisis broke out) – Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Poland
– clearly did that in expectation of all kinds of development aid and
investments from the core EU countries of those days. They hoped they would, in
this way, be able to economically catch up with, say, Germany. They were
willing to sacrifice part of their independence in exchange. Things have
however changed since then. Today’s poorer EU members and aspirants for
membership cannot expect that much help any more and cannot hope to be able to
catch up with Germany. Big corporations may invest there, but only if wages and
taxes are sufficiently low. Even Greece, an old member of the EU, has been
compelled to lower wages, cut salaries and pensions, cut medical aid etc. in
order to attract investments
Economics has also been the most
important factor in many past cases where a part of an existing state wanted to
break away and become independent. Some examples thereof have been mentioned
above: the copper-rich province of Katanga in the D.R. of Congo, the oil-rich
province of Biafra in Nigeria, oil-rich South Sudan. Further back in history,
the imperialists created small client states around large oil deposits.
Examples: Brunei and Kuwait. More recently, in the case of the Slovenians and
Croatians, Catalonians and North Italians, their desire for independence arose
from their higher level of prosperity that they no longer want(ed) to share with
the rest of their countrymen. And for the Scots, as they themselves say, the
prospect of getting a higher share of the North Sea oil revenues is a strong
motivation for seeking independence. But we should not make the matter so
simple. In all these cases, definitely, sub-nationalism also played an important
role.
In recent history, there is also a case in
which a small island “nation”, for economic reasons, refused an offer of
independence from colonial rule: Mayotte, one of the four Comoro Islands in the
Indian Ocean, had been a French colony until 1974, when France organized a
referendum for self-determination. The other three decided to become
independent, but not Mayotte, which voted to retain French suzerainty. Through
a referendum held in 2009, Mayotte even officially became France’s 101st
department.
Conclusion
Of course, it would have been much
better if the conflict between the great powers Russia and the EU could have been
resolved consensually and peacefully, so that the Ukraine would not have been
compelled to choose between the EU’s association agreement and Russia’s
Eurasian customs union. But for Janukovych it was an either-or choice. The current
Crimea conflict, however, came up only after the Russians both in Crimea and
Russia saw that fascists and Russian-haters succeeded in making their putsch
and became a strong component of the new government.
This political crisis in Europe will
have tragic consequences. It has already made all Europeans forget the other great
crises: the ecological crisis, the climate crisis, the resource crisis, and the
economic crisis. It has made them forget all the other urgent problems of
Europe and the world: the poverty problem, the unemployment problem, the
refugee problem, the xenophobia problem, and the problem of the rise of the
right radicals. Our political movements for a better world have been set back by
many years.
But one may also see something positive in
this negative development: When the Ukrainians are compelled to stop living
beyond their means and when the Western European and Russian economies
experience another recession because of the imminent economic war by means of sanctions,
counter-sanctions and gas price increases, then that will be good for the
environment.
Today (21.03.2014) I saw two
celebrations: The EU leaders celebrated with the acting Ukrainian Prime
Minister the signing of the political part of their association agreement, the
original cause of the conflict. And the Russians celebrated with much firework the
reunification of Crimea with the motherland. But they may all have celebrated
too early. In the EU, in several countries including even France and the UK
right radicals are threatening to undermine the much vaunted Western values.
The fascists of the Ukraine would join them soon. The Ukraine will soon sink to
the level of Greece. Russia’s oil and gas wealth will also be exhausted, some
day. And they have until now failed to pacify the Islamist independence
fighters in the Caucasus.
This crisis has reminded me once again
of a picture that used to be commonly drawn in the ecology movement until some
years ago: a large leaf is drifting on the Niagara River in the direction of
the Niagara Falls. Drifting along on the leaf are a few ants. They are fighting
against each other for power.
