Comment du Jour

Neo-Soviet chess: Ukraine checked in drama 

The fate of Ukraine, one of Eastern Europe’s largest countries, hangs in the balance.

On the one hand, ”spontaneous” political demonstrations and government building seizures by pro-Russian separatists, are bringing an air of deliberately planned disorder to the country’s eastern regions bordering Russia.

On the other, rhetorical posturing by the United States and European Union, while clearly warranted, creates a sense of an impending clash with Moscow.

Ukraine UN Mision in New York

Pictures of Victims of Kiev Violence

We all know the timeline. Late last year when Ukraine’s government turned down a lucrative trade pact with the European Union in favor of closer ties with Moscow, clashes erupted in the capital Kiev. The political opinions then and now reflect Ukraine’s cultural “fault lines,” namely the eastern regions tend to favor Russia while the larger western regions look towards Europe.

After the corrupt pro-Moscow President Viktor Yanukovych was toppled in February and fled to Russia, an interim government was established in Kiev. Moscow was not amused.

Ukraine’s orchestrated disorder stems from the political choreography of Russian President Vladimir Putin who is using this controlled crisis to facilitate a step-by-step destabilization and possible dismemberment of a sovereign country.

In the afterglow of the successful Sochi Winter Olympics, the Kremlin went for an encore, and annexed Crimea, a majority Russian ethnic peninsula. While Washington and European capitals offered sympathy and echoed support for Ukraine’s sovereignty, not much was done, beyond slapping Putin’s wrist with some sanctions.

Russia’s annexation of strategic Crimea was viewed as a fait accompli, a done deal.

After a brief pause, Putin then presented Act 2, the encouragement and possible coordination of pro-Russian armed separatists to create chaos in the Donetsk region.

The supporting cast here includes over 40,000 Russian troops who are coincidentally and conveniently just across the border from this Ukrainian region.

Clearly while this industrial area is steeped in Russian sympathies, it does not mean it wishes to formally join the Motherland.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned that Moscow’s actions represent “an illegal and illegitimate effort to destabilize a sovereign state. This could potentially be a contrived pretext for military intervention, just as we saw in Crimea.”

Knowing the possibilities, NATO has wisely militarily reinforced vulnerable members bordering Russia in the Baltic states.

Still the pro-Russian separatists are steeped in the old Soviet-style “agitation-propaganda” tactics where the mob creates local control and authority, and then cries wolf as being the victims when the central Kiev government reasserts its legal authority.

Calls for local referenda and all sorts of autonomy for these restive eastern regions, while seemingly logical, deliberately ignores the fact that such moves must be approved by the whole of Ukraine, not just disgruntled partisans.

The tactic reached new levels of diplomatic theater when Moscow’s UN delegate Vitaly Churkin called for a rare Sunday night emergency Security Council session to dramatize Russia’s concerns over bring the victim of Ukraine!

Russia’s wider narrative is repeated again and again by the chorus, namely that the Kiev government is a “neo- fascist clique” who was not democratically elected. Echoes of the Cold War abound.

Yet a recent UN Human Rights Council report rebuffs much of Moscow’s myth; while there were some attacks against the ethnic Russian community, “these were neither systematic nor widespread.”

What we are witnessing is the stage-managed political drama where the aggressor claims to be the victim, and then conveniently may call upon the nearby Russian army for “fraternal assistance.” Provocations by either side could trigger a pretext for action.

Complicating the situation are Ukraine’s presidential elections slated for May 25th. Moscow is likely pushing for more destabilization, which in turn will make Ukraine’s economic crisis even deeper. Russia would very likely rather see an independent Ukraine implode, being all the more vulnerable to Moscow’s bullying.

Still the real risk remains that Ukraine’s historically Russian and Orthodox-oriented eastern regions could be coerced into an semi-autonomous state which would mirror the old Soviet era Ukraine which claimed an independent legal personality and sovereignty, had UN membership, but was politically, a obedient Soviet socialist republic.

Ukraine’s near-term future may rest on the outcome of a diplomatic deal struck in Geneva among the U.S., EU, Ukraine and Russia to de-escalate the crisis. So will Putin now pause politically, or make his move?

Ukraine's Deputy Foreign Minister Danylo Lubkivsky, addressing corespondents at the UN warned "We are in danger of Russian invasion."  

He implored, "Give Peace a chance." 

                                     Deputy Foreign Minister Lubkivsky

Comment du Jour

New York’s World’s Fair remembered, 50 years later

NEW YORK — Fifty years ago, the World’s Fair opened in New York.

The Fair, a grand expo of technology, commerce, and cultures, was held in at a time when America’s fortunes were riding high in the post-war era. Now every time I pass the great Unisphere Globe, build by U.S. Steel and still standing proudly, I ask myself, “will anyone remember to commemorate the 1964 World’s Fair?”

Well the Queens Botanical Garden answered by hosting an Orchid exhibit from Taiwan. The Gardens were originally designed for the first World’s Fair in 1939-1940; that event was soon overshadowed by WWII. Though the 1964-1965 World’s Fair was expected to mark a time of celebratory optimism, the expo was also overtaken by the darkening clouds of the Vietnam conflict , and what would be a tumultuous decade.

New York’s World Fair in 1964.

Significantly the Republic of China on Taiwan was the first nation to break ground in Flushing Meadows, Queens for its national Pavilion. Taipei’s delegate in New York, Ambassador Paul Chang stated, “The theme of the ’64 World’s Fair, ‘Peace Through Understanding’ remains as valid and powerful as it was in 1964.”

While Ambassador Chang spoke of sub-tropical Taiwan as a “Kingdom of Orchids,” my mind drifted back to visiting the old Taiwan Pavilion, a grand and ornate four story Palace which remained a signature structure among the national pavilions.

The Vatican hosted Michelangelo’s venerable Pieta statue, the Belgian Village, medieval as it was, introduced Belgian Waffles, and The Kingdom of Jordan showcased the Dead Sea Scrolls. What kid wouldn’t like this?

Among European Pavilions France, Greece, Ireland, Switzerland and Sweden excelled. 

But I must confess that the East Asian pavilions intrigued me most and played a subliminal if not strong role in my subsequent academic interests in the Far East.

Besides the technology (Bell Telephone’s high tech push button Princess phones!) and a Pepsi pavilion with the UNICEF ‘Small Small World Theme” song, I particularly enjoyed the international pavilions.

So let me recall the Fair from a slightly less nostalgic angle, recalling some of the Asian countries exhibiting then, but more importantly how these countries fared on the socio/economic graph now a half century later.

I start with Taiwan. The ornate pavilion encompassed both traditional and contemporary Chinese culture. Back in 1964, Taiwan was emerging from the chaos of WWII, but fast building itself into a prosperous and free market oriented island; what would later emerge as one of the Dragons of the Far East.

Taiwan was still agriculturally dependent, but having emerged from a successful land reform process, hosted a growing export oriented economy. Taiwan’s per capita income in 1964 was about $202 today it exceeds $20,000.

More importantly the ROC on Taiwan was a repository of Chinese culture, this at a time when the Mainland under Mao was trying to force traditional Chinese culture into a socialist cookie mold. Moreover, the People’s Republic still had frosty ties with Washington and thus was not at the Fair (and likely not welcome either).

Comment du Jour

Hungarian Election

Populist/Nationalist Tone

Prime Minister Viktor Orban won a decisive victory with his FIDESZ party being re-elected to power in parliamentary elections.   Orban a populist conservative saw his  FIDESZ party win 44.5% of the vote to gain 133 seats in the Budapest parliament.

The Socialist/left coalition came in a weak second with 26% of the vote.

Jobbik, a rightist nationalist movement won 20% of the vote and garnered 23 seats.

The government will narrowly hold on to its two-thirds majority in parliament.

The Hungarian election was set to the backdrop of an economy still suffering recession as well as facing the reverberations of Russian moves in neighboring Ukraine.   Prime Minister Orban, despite his conservative stance on many issues, has not openly condemned Moscow's moves in Crimea, nor has Hungary planned to join sanctions on Russia.  Earlier this year,  Hungary has signed a nuclear energy deal with Russia.

Orban has often clashed with the EU as well concerning controversial constitutional changes and nationalizations.

Since regaining its sovereignty and freedom in the post-communist era, Hungary has joined both the European Union (EU) and NATO.  Hungary's economy, once thriving with investment and trade, has cooled during the recession.

Comment du Jour

UN Assembly Rebuffs Russia on Ukraine

In a resounding rebuff to Russia, the UN General Assembly has reaffirmed Ukraine’s territorial integrity and has called the recent referendum which incorporated the Crimean peninsula into Russia as “invalid.”  While President Vladimir Putin signed a treaty joining Crimea with Russia, the Kiev government has committed itself never to accept Crimea’s independence nor annexation.

Ukraine’s acting Foreign Minister Andrii Deshchytsia told assembled delegates

“many still struggle to grasp the reality;  it happened in Ukraine, in the very heart of Europe.   It happened in the 21^st century.”  He added, “After two weeks of military occupation in integral part of Ukraine has been forcibly annexed by a state that had previously committed itself to guarantee, the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of my country.”  

The resolution was passed by a powerful vote of 100 countries backing Ukraine including the USA, Canada, the European Union states, and many countries throughout Asia and Latin America.  

Russia was backed by eleven countries among them Belarus, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.  

Significantly 58 states abstained including Argentina, Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Iraq, Pakistan and  South Africa.   China posed the most curious abstention. 

More than a score of countries in the 193 member Assembly did not participate at all including Bosnia-Herzegovina, Israel, Islamic Republic of Iran, Morocco and Serbia.  Indeed many of these states face active or dormant territorial disputes. 

  

The non-binding Assembly resolution stresses that the referendum held in Crimea has no validity and calls on states to “desist and refrain” from any actions aimed at the disruption  of Ukraine’s  national unity “including any attempts to modify Ukraine’s borders through the threat or use of force or other unlawful means.”    

The Obama Administration, given its ambivalence towards Central Europe and Russia until the recent crisis, has now compensated with rhetorical barrages and threats of wider economic sanctions on Russia.

Since the Crimea crisis has begun to unfold, Vladimir Putin has pledged Moscow’s support to  ethnic Russian communities  throughout the former Soviet Union in places ranging from the Baltic states to Georgia and Moldova.  The Kremlin’s later day irredentism  recalls a bygone era in which seemingly “threatened” ethnic communities  were cause for intervention by powerful neighbors. 

“The European Union firmly believes that there is no place for the use of force and coercion to change borders in Europe or elsewhere in the 21^st century, “ added EU Ambassador Thomas Mayr-Harting.    

Though diplomacy appears to be keeping Moscow on the defensive, it’s the threat of serious economic sanctions and ostracism from global trade that may turn the tide. 

So will Moscow’s hyper nationalism cause an economic backlash against Russia?

And as significantly after Crimea, will Putin pause before his next move?