Ukrainian president abandoning its own people in the East

The crisis in Ukraine defies simple explanations. The country does not suffer a lack of powerful and destructive personalities, pulling it into different directions. On top of that, her affairs with its menacing neighbour Russia are at breaking point which leaves little time to attend to the rampant corruption and nepotism that has plagued Ukraine ever since it has plied herself loose from the former Soviet Union. As the eastern provinces of the country move away further from the government in Kiev, the Ukrainian president has now embarked on a high risk policy of cutting Eastern Provinces off from government aid and support. Proshenko has ended pension and wage payments as well as ordered the central bank to cease money transfers to local banks in the irredentist areas.

This can only lead to more disenchantment there and drive more people into the arms of rebels. Why the president decided to practically withdraw government authority from the rebel areas is difficult to understand. In effect, Poroshenko thus acknowledges that Ukraine is now a divided country with little chance to be reunited in the near future. The logic behind this step is obscure to say the least. It may just be another nail in the coffin of Ukraine.

The ironies of US foreign policy

Secretary of State John Kerry is reported to be a man with little humour so it does not surprise me that the manifest irony of what he recently announced completely escaped him. Here is what he said about Russia's intervention in the Crimea:

'You just don’t invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests'

Errmmm, yes you do! The US has time and again proven that she does and gets away with it. The list of  countries invaded by the US (note: only invasions without UN mandate) is long. I remember vividly the reports on a small Caribbean island that had just freely and fairly elected a government which displeased the US. It is called Grenada and it only took the US a few weeks to find a ham fisted pretext, or shall we call it the pretext of all pretexts? Allegedly, Grenada had to be invaded because there were a couple of hundred students from the US on the island who felt threatened by the new government. It was never quite clear what the nature of the threat was (sit an exam? read a book?), yet the US did not just invade to repatriate her students from there but toppled the elected government too, just for good measure.

The next exhibit is of course Iraq, for which the likes of Kerry and Clinton (Hilary Rodham) bear direct responsibility since they voted for the war in Iraq on the even grander lie that Saddam Hussein would have weapons of mass destruction. Yes, those WMDs again. Naturally, Saddam never had any, but that did not concern Kerry much since he voted for the war and never apologised for this illegal adventure which cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. But never mind the collateral damage...

This does not complete the story of pretexts yet. The last exhibit is a tiny autonomous enclave in Serbia, called Kosovo. In 2008, the local commander of the Kosovoan Liberation Army declared the need for a referendum on the secession of Kosovo from Serbia. A sham referendum was held and Kosovo declared itself independent in violation of all international treaties that have ever been looked at by an incumbent of the US State Department. Yet, the US government promptly recognised the Serbian province and urged the European Union to open membership negotiations with Kosovo. Never mind, that the Kosovo government was composed of people for whom arrest warrants by the International Court of Justice (Den Haag) were pending for extortion, money laundering, and all the other niceties that people happen to do when they are part of a mafia.

So, where does this leave Ukraine and Russia? Well, not in too bad a place. I might misremember but I think there was a treaty signed by all parties in Ukraine that anticipated free and fair elections in December. If I recall correctly, there were even the foreign ministers and various representatives in the room from France, Germany, Poland and Russia. Twenty four hours later, the Western foreign ministers feigned ignorance and the legitimate Ukrainian government takes flight. What we are left with now is a medley crew of 'opposition leaders' that claim to be the Ukrainian government (some of them positively obnoxious people who can only be called Neo-Nazis, displaying openly SS insignia). Nothing strikes me as 'legitimate' about this government so unless everyone returns to the negotiating table, I cant see why Russia shouldn't cash in on the ironies of US policy and organise a referendum in the Crimea. It would only be a further exhibit in the long list of might over right.

Putin still says 'net' to Russian democracy

Russian Prime Minister Putin has gone on the offensive. After a couple weeks of dreadful international news about his re-election campaign, he decided it was time to burnish his reputation with the international media. So he picked up the pen and wrote a piece for The Guardian which brims with Western terminology. No one who reads the piece (you can read it HERE) can fail to notice that he is clearly out to please his Western detractors. His soothing words about Russian civil society, the need to fight corruption and his signal to be willing to grant more democratic powers to the regions, have been demanded by the Russian opposition for a long time. 

So far so good. But then he drops what, undoubtedly, he believes, is only a minor qualification of Russian democracy. He notes that Russia should never suffer the ‘circus of competing politicians to make unrealistic promises’ to the electorate. In other words, democracy yes, but only with the right candidates, presumably those who have been vetted by his stooges in the Kremlin. 

It is fascinating that Putin’s ‘net’ to political competition has more than faint echoes with some of the rhetoric of Western politicians. In times of crisis, politicians often advocate grand coalitions, compromises between former adversaries, and favour technocratic decision making over political squabbles. Yet, what would we loose if there was no political competition? 

Democracy is not simply the acclamation of a pre-ordained selected candidate. The essence of democratic politics is the struggle of ideas for support amongst the electorate. The willingness to grant people choice and the ability to express their preferences in a parliamentary election is at the heart of the democratic mandate. 

And choice in turn empowers people, who can reject as well as accept as they see fit. It is this fundamental liberty which resides in political choice that Putin’s minor qualification undermines. Without free choice between candidates, there can be no struggle for ideas, and without competition of ideas, society deprives itself of a critical mechanism to identify solutions which are at once workable and command majority support. 

Putin’s suggestion that political competition would lead to unrealistic promises, reveals the profound flaw at the core of Russian institutions: parliamentarians without real power are tempted to resort to irresponsible populism, and an electorate that is not trusted to exercise its popular mandate, refuses to engage in the public debate about the future of the country. The result is apathy and widespread resignation. 

But of course, there may just be one beneficiary of such a scenario: Putin himself.