President Obama and President Putin spoke by phone today and agreed to intensify diplomatic efforts ahead of next week's four-party talks between the US, EU, Russia, and Ukraine. Last night, the OSCE, which is monitoring events in Ukraine by agreement of all parties, called for restraint. Today, they followed that up by ramping up monitoring efforts.
During his visit to Ukraine today, Swiss Foreign Minister and OSCE Chairperson-in-Office, Didier Burkhalter, expressed his full political support to the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission. By gathering information and observing, establishing facts and reporting them in an impartial manner, the monitors “are the eyes and ears of the international community in Ukraine”, Burkhalter said. In order to enhance transparency and the level of accurate information about ongoing developments, the Mission in addition to providing reports for OSCE participating States has also started a daily public reporting, he continued.
In meetings with Acting Prime Minister Arseniy Yatseniuk and Acting Foreign Minister Andrii Deshchytsia, he discussed both the activities of the OSCE in Ukraine and the evolving security situation. Referring to recent violent events in the eastern part of the country, Burkhalter expressed his deep concern and reiterated that the state monopoly on the use of force must be respected. He suggested that at this critical moment all actors involved should call publicly on all sides to strictly refrain from violence and from any measure which could lead to destabilization.
“It is our joint responsibility to prevent further escalation and to strictly stick to the principles of the Helsinki Final Act including the non-use of force, non-intervention in internal affairs, respect for human rights as well as the peaceful settlement of disputes”, Burkhalter underlined. He called upon all sides to do everything in their power to de-escalate the situation and to choose the path of dialogue and constructive cooperation over confrontation.
In today's briefing, OSCE reported that the situation was very tense, with thousands of protestors on the streets in some places, and that the situation could deteriorate.
In the city of Donetsk, although the number of barricades at the occupied Oblast Administration Building and tents on Lenin Square did not appear to be increasing and no pedestrians were observed near the regional police headquarters, the monitors judged that the situation could deteriorate.
In Kharkiv the monitors noted a large police presence, with up to 600 protesters in Shevchenko Park and a different group of around 2,000 protesters, who moved to the City Administration Building in the mid-afternoon. City Mayor Gennady Kernes addressed the crowd, after an initial delay, calling for a stop to the blockade and negotiations.
In Luhansk the situation also remained tense, with up to 5,000 people in front of the Luhansk Security Service Building and more than 5,000 supporters in the neighbouring park.
The Unrepresented Peoples Organization
held a conference on Ukraine and much of the discussion focused on the Crimean Tatars.
Following the opening remarks by László Tőkés MEP and Maud Vanwalleghem, UNPO Program Manager, the floor was given to MEP Dr. Vytautas Landsbergis. Dr. Landsbergis discussed the critical situation Ukraine’s minorities, particularly the Crimean Tatars, are now facing as a result of the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia. He expressed his deep concerns over the come-back of ‘medieval practices’, referring to the ongoing territorial disputes and conquest aspirations stimulated by Russia.
UNPO treasurer Mr. Jeroen Zandberg also focused his speech on the situation of the Crimean Tatars, highlighting numerous human rights violations committed against them since the outbreak of the current crisis. Unjustified passport controls, the marking of doors, cases of land expropriation for ‘social purposes’, harassment of reporters, as well as mysterious disappearances are among the examples illustrating the unfear treatment of the Crimean Tatars.
Possible solutions focused on making Ukraine a multiethnic society in which everyone has a stake.
What action could be undertaken to address these sensitive issues? The second panel attempted to explore different alternatives with Dr. Nadiya Tsok, Deputy Head of the Mission of Ukraine to the European Union as the first speaker. During her intervention, Dr. Tsok stressed on the importance of strong EU-Ukraine relations when it comes to tackling the Crimean crisis, and highlighted that the European Union has a significant role to play in making Russia change its course of action. She concluded by underlining the necessity to unify Ukraine around the concept of a democratic nation, all the while taking into account its multi-ethnic character, and ensuring fair treatment of each cultural group regardless of their origin.
The next panelist, Mr. Niccolò A. Figà-Talamanca, Secretary General of No Peace Without Justice, stated that Ukraine should be proud to be a multi-ethnic country, and thus rid Russia of its current pretext, i.e. protection of Ukraine’s Russian minority, for invasive action.
The last panellist, Dr. Olena Prystayko, Head of the Ukrainian Think Tanks Liaison Office in Brussels, pointed out three main weaknesses proper to Ukraine: energy dependence on Russia, high levels of corruption at all political stages, and the Russian minority used as a pretext for intervention. She highly encouraged the EU to tackle these weaknesses, as it would most likely have a positive impact on Ukraine, as well as contribute to resolving the ongoing crisis.
The conference identified areas of common ground between the EU and Russia. The conference emphasized creating a society that respects the rights of minorities, something that Russia has constantly called on Ukraine to do during the course of this crisis. Russia sees itself as the "big brother" protector of Russian minorities, Serbs, and Orthodox Christians and is seeking to carve out a sphere of influence among its former provinces and in the Middle East and Asia.
The ball is in Ukraine's court to assert its authority over the east. Given the breakdown of authority there, the people have to come to accept their authority willingly, and not by compulsion. In nearly every single instance, the police in the East have done nothing as Russian special forces, "self-defense" forces, and pro-Russian separatist and Federalization protestors are taking over government buildings and shutting down the government there. Ukraine has to come up with a game plan to give the people in the East an economic stake in the new government as well as the West. But it will be awfully hard to do given the draconian austerity measures that the IMF is imposing as part of its drop in the water $18 billion loan. Ukraine has an obligation to come up with a game plan to pay back the money that they owe Russia.
The US facilitated the ouster of Yanukovych; therefore, it bears a lot of responsibility for reviving Ukraine's economy. Now that the President and Vice President have proclaimed solidarity with the Euromaidan protests, it will not do the US any good if they do not follow through and create a Marshall Plan to revive Ukraine's economy similar to what happened in Europe. It is in Russia's interest to support this; this is the best chance they will have in order to get their debts back.
Russia has already floated an offer to aid Ukraine economically in return for federalization, recognizing Crimean "independence," and protecting ethnic Russians. But Russia must be more specific. What positive incentives will make it worth Ukraine's while to accept this deal? And Russia, following the consummation of such a package, must withdraw its special operations forces from East Ukraine and respect Ukraine's territorial integrity in line with the 1994 treaty that they signed.
And finally, the US must renounce the use of regime change as a political weapon. Putin, in his speech following the annexation of Crimea, publicly stated his belief that the US would try to destabilize Russia over this. While not spoken about much in the news, it is an underlying factor that is seriously damaging the ability for the US to achieve diplomatic successes. 50 years ago, we overthrew Iran and strengthened the Shah. The American Prospect notes that every regime change operation we have made since then happened for two reasons -- because of resources that the nation in question controlled and because of enemy ideology.
Economic factors have often played a crucial role in American decisions to plot regime change. The target country almost always has a valuable resource that it is refusing to share on terms that the West considers fair. Prime Minister Mossadegh nationalized Britain's fabulously lucrative Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and American leaders feared that if the nationalization were allowed to stand, it would set a dangerous precedent that could undermine corporate power around the world. President Arbenz's offense was his campaign to force the United Fruit Company to sell off its vast unused lands so they could be distributed to Guatemalan peasants. Similarly, Saddam Hussein was sitting atop a huge reserve of oil and was decidedly hostile to U.S. companies eager to extract, refine and sell it. In all three of these countries, regime-change operations were designed in part to show that the United States does not tolerate foreign leaders who restrict the ability of Western corporations to make money.
The drive to control the world's most valuable resources is not the only factor that pushes the United States into action abroad. Eagerness to strike against global enemies is also a strong motivation. During the Cold War, the enemy was communism. An alarming series of communist advances in the late 1940s and early 1950s terrified many Americans. Secretary of State Dulles and his brother, Allen, who ran the CIA during the Eisenhower administration, took office eager to demonstrate their determination to fight this enemy.
Ukraine itself has numerous resources for multinational companies to plunder, and the Caspian Sea area has some of the world's biggest untapped resources. And for many within government, the Cold War never stopped just because of the collapse of communism. Bringing Ukraine into NATO's orbit, in the eyes of certain twisted minds, would give us a gateway to these resources. And then they wonder why Putin all of a sudden won't play nice.