Opinion
Neutralising Ukraine
Publish Date: Aug 11, 2014
newvision
  • mail
  • img

By Christopher Granville

Though no one imagines that a lasting cease-fire in Gaza will, in itself, produce a substantive breakthrough in the Israel-Palestine conflict, the United States and other concerned governments continue to work tirelessly to halt the fighting.


Yet, when it comes to the escalating conflict in eastern Ukraine, the relevant external powers – that is, the US, the European Union, and Russia – are not only failing to achieve a cease-fire; they are refusing to pursue a solution that, unlike in the case of Israel and Palestine, is there for the taking.

All that is needed is to introduce into the Ukrainian constitution a provision that significantly impedes membership in any military alliance, whether NATO or the Russia-dominated Collective Security Treaty Organization of the Commonwealth of Independent States. For example, the decision to join such an alliance – or even to implement an agreement that allows a foreign country to base its troops on Ukrainian soil – could require the approval of a qualified majority of, say, two-thirds of voters or regional legislatures.

Introducing such a requirement would amount to granting veto power to Ukraine’s two camps – that is, the country’s more Russia-aligned east and its NATO-leaning west. The practical result – Ukraine remaining unaligned in military and security terms – would reflect the will of the Ukrainian population as a whole.

This approach would be consistent with the principle, which US President Barack Obama highlighted when announcing the latest round of sanctions against Russia last month, that Ukraine must be permitted to “chart its own path.” Above all, it would help the people of Ukraine – divided between inherently antagonistic identities – to live together peacefully.

Of course, Ukraine’s position may change in the future, with cultural, demographic, and economic shifts producing the needed consensus to abandon neutrality. What is important is that the constitution requires a super-majority – rather than, say, the easily reversible “non-bloc” resolution that the Ukrainian parliament adopted in 2010 – to join a military alliance. In such a deeply divided country, joining NATO by a simple majority vote would merely exacerbate unrest, regardless of Russia’s involvement.

Such a solution could also incorporate other, less controversial elements, such as additional powers for eastern Ukraine’s regional authorities, which they could exercise in Russian. Moreover, Russia could be convinced to accept Ukraine’s pursuit of economic integration with the EU, in exchange for cooperative efforts to counter schemes to use Ukraine’s free-trade agreement with the EU as a back door for European goods entering the Russian market.

As it stands, the West is relying on increasingly tough sanctions to persuade Russian President Vladimir Putin to back down, leaving the Ukrainian rebels either to surrender or be crushed – and enabling the Ukrainian government to dictate the terms of the country’s future. Judging from the 14-point peace plan that Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko proposed in June, the limited concessions that would be offered would not include veto power for eastern Ukraine over the establishment of a military alliance with the US.

For its part, Russia is working to sustain the insurgency because it wants sufficient leverage to ensure Ukrainian neutrality in the inevitable peace talks. Given that Ukraine’s neutrality does not run counter to Russia’s interests, but continued sanctions do, the Kremlin would have no convincing reason to reject an outcome that keeps Ukraine strategically non-aligned, and instead continue supporting the rebels.

To be sure, Putin’s agenda in Ukraine is widely assumed to extend well beyond preventing the country from becoming a base for anti-Russian military forces. If Putin’s goal is annexation or subversion of more Ukrainian territory, he would likely reject the solution, even if Ukraine (perhaps reluctantly) supported it.

But it would be irrational to reject a solution with the potential to save so many lives based on an unsubstantiated assumption. Only by proposing ts deal to Russia’s government – as well as to the rebel groups in eastern Ukraine – can its stance be known.

In fact, there is plenty of reason to believe that Putin would be satisfied if Ukraine remained intact, as long as it did not join NATO and respected eastern Ukrainians’ Russian identity. Most important, from Russia’s perspective, the competition with the EU over Ukraine’s trading alignment is trivial compared to the imperative of keeping NATO – that is, the US military – out of the country.

In the Ukrainian crisis, unlike in the Israel-Palestine conflict, negotiators do not have to settle for flimsy agreements – intended to save as many lives as possible in the short run – at the expense of important principles and long-run peace prospects.

Policymakers have an option that addresses the root cause of the crisis, at once upholding Ukrainian sovereignty and assuaging Russia’s strategic insecurity. They should pursue it.

Christopher Granville, a former British diplomat in Moscow, is Managing Director of Trustedsources, an independent research service on emerging markets.
 

Related Stories

Russian journalist killed as West pressures Putin before Ukraine truce deadline

Putin seeks diplomatic solution to Ukraine crisis

Malaysia Airlines 'loses contact' with flight over Ukraine

 

The statements, comments, or opinions expressed through the use of New Vision Online are those of their respective authors, who are solely responsible for them, and do not necessarily represent the views held by the staff and management of New Vision Online.

New Vision Online reserves the right to moderate, publish or delete a post without warning or consultation with the author.Find out why we moderate comments. For any questions please contact digital@newvision.co.ug

  • mail
  • img
blog comments powered by Disqus
Also In This Section
Recognizing NGOs’ Critical Role in Building a Stronger Uganda
When people ask me what the United States’ goal is in Uganda my answer is always the same: we, like most Ugandans, want Uganda to be a peaceful, prosperous, healthy, and democratic nation leading the way as a and a partner in East Africa....
Ex-ante approaches guarantee Uganda a desirable health
Health remains an inextricable value to every one’s wellbeing, as it’s not just mere absence of disease/ infirmity but envisages a complete state of physical and mental wellbeing as per the WHO’s preamble of 1948....
The Pope and the death penalty
His Holiness Pope Francis is scheduled to visit Uganda in November 2015. One thing most Ugandans do not know about him is that he supports the abolition of the death penalty....
Invest in health entrepreneurship
The Sunday Vision of July 5, 2015, had an article: There is hope for Ugandan health care, by Dr Ian Clarke. The article tells of a family with relevant connections whose poor baby got a fractured head -thanks to expert and qualified doctors, its health was restored....
Can youth interest in agriculture boost East Africa
The African Development Bank, Africa’s biggest lending institution, recently elected a new leader: Akinwumi Adesina. The former Minister of Agriculture in Nigeria, Adesina led an agricultural transformation in his country....
Transition from MDGs to SDGs must tackle capacity building
The 2015 deadline is fast approaching to bring Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to an end. With eight goals to achieve between 2000 and 2015, its outcomes leave a lot to be desired. Many states have not realised their MDG targets as promised....
Should faith based organisations be registered as Non-government organisations?
Yes
No
Can't Say
follow us
subscribe to our news letter