The recent international
events has made International Relations a
darling subject to follow; with the
emergency of revolutions as a contemporary catalyst in modern day politics, several
analysts had questioned whether the idea of revolutions is people centred or is
subjected to political manipulation by powerful nations to maintain their
unipolar interests.
Misheck
Gondo
Of interesting to note is
the rise of Russia a former guru in the Soviet Union, its response to the
global issues shows not only political stamina, but also the shifting of political
unipolarism to bipolarism.
The Syrian Case, the Edward
Snowden Case and the newly born Ukrainian Case proved to the world how Russia
is determined to leverage the international political order which has been in
the hands of western hegemony.
The military intervention
by Russia to protect the Russian speaking in Ukraine has not only caused
political shiver to the EU and US but also political confusion, as seen by the
level of sanctions being imposed as a global isolation strategy. Rationally, one would advise the EU and US
that a military threat should attract a military respond, a threat of sanction
will unlikely shake Russia, but consolidate its quest to be seen as a powerful
21th century political force.
Some quotas might believe
that the political reaction by Russia is based on its interest to exploit gas
in Crimea, but this is just a molecule in an element; the issue is about
broader interests that are premised on the future security of Russia.
To grasp the current
actions by Russia, there is need to take a step back to the Cold War era and
also understand Russia‘s foreign policy objectives from that period. To mention
but a few, Russia strives by all cost to protect smaller states through the
doctrine of non interference.
Politically, the events which are believed to
have been funded by the West were leading to the Ukraine joining the EU with
Crimea included; this was believed to have weakened Russia both militarily,
politically and economically. Ukraine is not the last target for this ‘Western’
strategy, currently Venezuela is on fire. Politically Russia cannot just watch
while its interest being thrown into political oblivion.
The Russian position on
Ukraine might be morally justified but legally wrong, as compared to the
similar illegal intervention by United States America in other independent
territories such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya among others. USA has shorter
memory of its illegal interventions in sovereign states in search of unfounded
nuclear or hides behind the pretext of terrorism.
United States of America
is on a free-fall, this is a naked reality, many smaller states support U.S.A not
because of its romantic foreign policy but because of fear, political intimidation come from their motto which goes
by saying, ‘If you are not with us, you are against us’. However the fall of
USA does not make Russia a better devil, it will remain an extremist country
whose policies are dangerous to international relations.
Russia is also taking
advantage of the Obama party ideology (the Democrats) which has an anti-war
doctrine. The previous Bush‘s Republican
Party was using war as a means of communication. It is important to note that U.S
will never fight Russia directly; it will implore strategies such as proxy
wars, economic isolation among others. However with the 21st century
globalisation, Russia has many partners to do business with.
The fall of USA is also being
fast -tracked by its decreased support from EU countries, US has been fingered
in spying EU countries using advanced technology, this king of betrayal to
allies warrant long term punishment, in the near future countries such as
Germany might take over the role of the falling U.S and balance world power
with extremist counties such Russia and China.
There is a widespread
debate on the legality of Russia‘s military intervention in Ukraine, the
Security Council met eighty times and Russia vetoed against the US proposal,
with China abstaining, while the remaining council members voted in support of
Ukraine on its right to territorial integrity.
Self-determination challenges
the ides of sovereignty and territorial integrity of a state. The legitimatization of
the principle of national self-determination in the 1990s has led to a growth
in the number of intra-state conflict where sub-groups have sought greater
self-determination and sometimes, even full secession. Accordingly,
international reaction to these new movements has been uneven and has often
been dictated more by politics than by principle.
Self-determination is a jus cogens or a peremptory norm and therefore cannot be legitimately made to stand
derogation from. This is because it is sourced in customary, treaty and
case international law with a vested right to protect the human rights of
people united together in expressing their sovereign right to independence.
Self-determination is an important right as far
as humanity is concerned, yet it is a contentious, principle of International
Law. It emerged as a powerful subject and a critical right seeking to usher
independence of many peoples, most significantly the independence of colonial
peoples. The right to self-determination
is comprised of different elements and it has several aspects. The most
sagacious element is the fact that it is linked to the fundamental principles
of Public International Law and that it incarnates the concept of the right of
peoples to determine their own destiny without outside interference or
subjugation, presupposing all peoples are equal.
This means trust and
non-self-governing territories must naturally be granted a right to
independence, self-expression and actualisation of their independence once it
can be collectively proven that they possess the capacity for economic, social
and political self-sustenance.
The granting of the right to
self-rule has proven contentious as the secession of a territory connotes an
embarrassing internal fractionalisation which is not usually permissible for
socio-political and economic reasons in many single-unit, self-governing
entities.
There is
conflict in international law with regard to territorial integrity and the
doctrine of self-determination. The United Nations Declaration on Friendly
Relations stipulates that there shall not be dismember or impair, totally or in
part the integrity or sovereignty of an independent state. Paragraph 6 of the UN Resolution 1514 also
aired that, any attempt aimed at partial or total disruption of the national
unity and the territorial integrity of a country incompatible with the purposes
and principles of the United Nations Charter is not
permissible.
The above notion heavily contradicts
with the concept of self-determination. The United Nations enacted two
important legal texts to explain human rights and as an enforcement mechanism
for United Nations Charter that is the International Covenant on Political and
Civil Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (ICESCR), both of the
two covenants, adopted in 1966. Self-determination is a critical component in
these documents, Article I of ICCCPR and ICESCR stipulate that the peoples are entitled to the right to
self-determination and by virtue of that right they are free to pursue their
economic, cultural, social and political development.
Having brought forward the different
declarations and international law instruments, what remains a question is
whether the Russian‘s military intervention in Ukraine is permissible under
international law. It has to be noted that the use of force to acquire an independent
territory is prohibited within the context of international law; let alone the
invasion of an independent state such as Ukraine, it is not justifiable to
invade another independent state in the pretext of protecting ethnic speaking nationals
of that sovereign state.
It is as saying South Africa invading
Zimbabwe to protect the Zulu speaking Zimbabweans in Zimbabwe; it does not make
a legal sense. The referendum in Crimea could have been legitimate if it was
supervised under Ukraine government with the guidance of United Nations.
The modern international law articulates clearly
that annexation by force is in serious violation of Article 2(4) of the United
Nations Charter, in this regard there was no justiciable right for the Russian
government to erode the sovereignty of an independent State, Ukraine.
Even though the people of Crimea have the right to
self-determination, the manner in which the annexation was done cannot be
binding under international law. Russia‘s move is an act of war not to Ukraine
but to fellow super powers, it’s a clear message of a rising super power that is not only seeking
to balance the world power, but also to protect certain interests.
The role of China in this game should
not be overlooked, China abstained in the Security Council, as a permanent
member with a veto vote, this is an indirect support for Russia‘s rise to fame.
However, China cannot directly support the right to self-determination as this
will create internal chaos in its land, were many independent ‘states’ are
seeking the same right.
China has for long suppressed
minority territories that were once independent, the case of Tibet which is led
by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Hong Kong among other. So China will be very
cautious in the manner in which it renders support to Russia, in order to avoid
international strife from its suppressed colonies in its own land , that are
seeking the right to self-determination. Apart from that, during the time
Russia is using aggression to the West and in return received sanctions, China
is on a US –EU tour to strengthen relations, this must be a message to Russia.
Self-determination
movements remain vibrant in such
areas of the world. Some regions possess de-facto
independence, for instance Taiwan, North Cyprus, Kosovo, and South Ossetia, and the recent is Crimea in Ukraine, it is of great
fundamentality to note that the quest and legitimate claim of independence is
vastly disputed by some states. There are also other movements that have a
history to fight for their rights such as that of Kurdistan the State of Palestine
and Chechnya.
Even
in Zimbabwe, there is a group of individuals calling itself Mtwakazi Liberation
Front that is seeking the right to self-determination, however this groups lacks
basics understanding of international law which is used to grant the right in
question. If not so, it’s just a strategy to seek attention.
The recent meeting between Lavrov and
Kerry in Paris is a game of diplomacy; Russia seeking dialogue with USA after
its interest has been achieved in Crimea, what a strategy.
Vladimir Putin ‘s compass
on Crimea has taken off side, the long run of him might be of no happiness,
neither the Russians should celebrate this pot of Cold war 11 or World War 111 in their back
yard, if not before that, a humiliation in the international political order. I
don’t think Russia is ready for war with the western world but it is seeking
the balance of power which brings with it political, economic, social and
cultural respect.
It’s a game of mind and diplomacy.
Let’s wait
and see
Misheck Gondo is an International
Relations Expert with the University of Zimbabwe (U.Z)
