Break EU-Russia Deadlock

By Anuradha M Chenoy

04th August 2014 

The European Union has agreed to the US proposals of imposing broader and unilateral sanctions against Russian oil companies, banks and defence firms. The earlier sanctions were against individuals and select firms seen to be supporting the conflict. The new sanctions are being levied because of the Russian support to ethnic Russians who are Ukrainian citizens and residents of mainly the eastern and southern parts of Ukraine. This community of ethnic Russians have rebelled against the current Ukrainian regime, and a civil war-like situation prevails in southeastern Ukraine. The shooting down of the Malaysian Airline plane over this territory has revealed the lethality of the war where the rebels and the Ukrainian forces that are ruthless and extraordinarily well-armed and ready for collateral damage.

There are, of course, as in any conflict, many reasons, arguments, myths, rumours, verifiable and unverifiable facts that are being put out by both sides. Most people, including analysts and the media, cherry-pick these to suit their convenience and blame game. For example, the Western media and international community argue that the sole reason for this civil war is Russian emotional and material support to the “rebels”.

Putin has countered this by saying that 1) For the last 25 years since Ukraine became independent there was relative peace and no rebels. This was because Russia supported all of Ukraine by giving them gas and other subsidies. Ukraine owes them billions of dollars in debt. Now that the EU, NATO and IMF want Ukraine to join this troika alliance, Ukraine opposes Russian alliances and repayment of debt. 2) There was harmony between the ethnic Russians, ethnic Ukrainians and other minorities until recently. This harmony could have been enhanced if Ukraine gradually turned more federal, gave autonomy within the Ukrainian political and socioeconomic structure to the regions, like Crimea, Donetsk, etc. But the Ukrainian political elite were just fighting each other and no gains went to the people, while critical institutions like the judiciary and governance suffered. Politics was dominated by pro-Russia or anti-Russia instead of pro-all Ukrainian people. 3) A right-wing party and pro-West government replaced the corrupt pro-Russian government and their informal militia started targeting minorities, especially ethnic Russians, and the Ukrainian government did not stop the attacks. The fear felt by the Ukrainian-ethnic Russians led to a movement linked with Russia, since many areas have been historically part of Russia.

Putin argued that Ukraine possesses Russian arms like all the former Soviet republics, and that the Russian rebels had nothing to gain from shooting down a Malaysian plane. The main beneficiary is the Ukraine regime that now has the “international community” on its side. Putin has questioned the term “international community” as only a Western club that does not consider the history, politics and opinions outside the West.

Meanwhile, the US and the EU solely blame Russia in this horrendous geopolitics. They say Putin is authoritarian and wants to recreate Russian hegemonic control over former Soviet countries. This is far from true, because when the Soviet Union voluntarily disintegrated no blood was shed and no forced exchange of populations took place.

The Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov is demanding a United Nations (UN) inquiry into the plane shooting. He said that a big country like Russia will not indulge in cross sanctions and eye-for-an-eye type of politics, but appeal to the UN. So clearly, there is a stalemate and many analysts are indicating there could be a new Cold War. Is this a possibility? And what should India do? The truth is a new Cold War will be disastrous for people world over and only benefit the military-industrial- global power elite. For the Third World, even the old Cold War was actually many types of hot wars, regional conflicts, local civil fuelled by the extractions of minerals, hydrocarbons, diamonds, etc., interventions and proxy wars by favoured superpowers. Do we want a repeat of this with new avatars?

The way forward then is for India to join those who want a world order based on negotiated settlement, international law, a democratised international system where all countries concerned with an incident have an equal say. This is not some idealistic position but very possible, as the recent BRICS resolutions have shown. Further, the UN General Assembly has also shown ways forward on this.

India has made the right statements on the Russia-Ukraine conflict and has been much appreciated by Russia on this count. India must continue to argue that there should be an immediate ceasefire between the rebels and the Ukraine government. That the Ukraine government and the Western Bloc should not deny the history and multi-ethnic nature of Ukraine and that these should be factored into a negotiated peace settlement. The interests of the Ukrainian people as a whole should be seen without the geopolitical interests of Russian, the US, EU or others. This can be possible if all sides are on the negotiating table in continuous and uninterrupted talks.

India needs to press such inclusive and wholesome talks where history, society, region, etc. should be on the agenda. The attempt to separate these issues and only consider geopolitical interests of the great powers cannot resolve such crises. India is part of important forums like BRICS and G20 which could be leveraged. To be a great power that India has the potential to be, India has to intervene on the basis of principles on which it was founded. These were insuring the pluralities of identities, religions and peoples. Many countries around India like Sri Lanka, Pakistan and former USSR broke up when they structured themselves on the basis of majoritarian and lopsided principles and did not give their significant minorities rights. This is being repeated in Ukraine. India can show through its own example that autonomous federalism can work. And link this to its foreign policy.

The writer is professor at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University.