What’s the Matter With Russia?

If both Washington and EU wants a world order in which states by and large respect international agreements and borders, then they need to do something to stop Russian’s intransigence.

The crisis in Ukraine is a sobering reminder of the character of Vladimir Putin: he is the kind of leader who always think about the past. Unfortunately for the Russians, the hard cold fact remains that, by focusing on history, Putin is bound to impoverish them in the long run. Start with Crimea(Zakaria, 2014).

The current Russia-Crimea crises spurs a recollection of some lessons from Russian history. In 1783, the Russian wrested  Crimea from the Ottoman Empire. This feat marked the rise of Russia to great power status. By taking control of Crimea during that era, Russia enjoyed a privilege it never had: a direct access to the Mediterranean and the rest of the wider world. Even though Russia lost the Crimean War in the 19^th century(1853-1857), it maintained its hold on the Crimean region. In addition, it controlled the region’s growth after it claimed it from the Nazis in early 1944 – almost a century later. Then came the strange and fateful twist in 1954 when the Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev – a self-styled Ukrainian – created the Autonomous Crimean Soviet Socialist Republic and transferred legislative control to the Ukranian SSR,  basically giving Crimea  to Ukraine (Lonely Planet, 2014; Zakaria, 2014).

The above simple explanation is merely history. According to Henry Ford, and American industrialist who was the founder of Ford Motor Company,  history is nothing but bunk(Lockerby, 2011).  When he said that, he meant that the people of the world – particularly the world leaders – should not allow themselves to be trapped by history. This doesn’t imply that history is unimportant. It simply means that people should think and look forward to future instead of going backward. Henry Ford’s exact words are as follows:

History is more or less bunk. It’s tradition. We don’t want tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker’s damn is the history we make today(Chicago Tribune,  1916).

By taking over Crimea last week, Russia’s Putin seems to be still trapped by history, tradition and geography. The natural question to ask at this time is this: What has Russia gained by this political stance? To this very day, Russia has continued along its path as an oil-dependent country.  Russia’s action during the past two decades also indicates that it has remained an authoritative state which has failed to develop its economy and civil society. It is thus not surprising that it had continued to bully almost all the former Soviet countries, particularly, Ukraine.

The West’s Reactions

During the  cold war which lasted for 45 years, from 1946 to 1991 (National Archives, 2006) the politicians in Europe and United States worried that their countries were at a disadvantage because they are not willing to put up with the inconvenience victory might require at the time.  Russia’s annexation of Crimea (a   Ukraine’s territory) last week – a behavior that is typical of the former Soviet Union – brought with it a revenant of the same feeling from both the neighboring  European countries and the European Union in general:  That the West is not willing to pass meaningful sanction against members of Vladimir Putin’s government because they are too greedy for Russian’s money. This is true because Russia has close economic ties with Britain and the rest of the European Union(EU), as can be seen from table 1. With the EU ranking as Russia’s number one trading partner – accounting for almost 41 percent of all Russia’s international trade(see Table  1) – any trade and financial sanctions are likely to hurt both sides. This explains EU’s lukewarm attitude to the issue of enforcing trade and

Table 1 – Russia’s Top Trading Partners, 2012

Country	Value(€ Billions)
European Union	267.5
China	64.1
Ukraine	24.3
Belarus	24.1
United States	18.9
Japan	17.0
Turkey	17.0
South Korea	16.1
Kazakhstan	15.5
Switzerland	7.9

Source: BBC, 2014

political sanctions on Russia.  More evidence of this European attitude abound. For instance, the EU  did nothing when all evidence was pointing to Russia’s involvement in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in a London sushi restaurant in November 2006. In addition, there was a lack of response from the EU  to the war in 2008 between Russia and Georgia. The unhappy truth is that the targeted measures taken by the EU after  Russia’s annexation of Crimea has yet to banish the suspicion that the former are unserious about punishing the later.

In line with its argument that the pro-Russian referendum in Crimea has no legitimacy, the US government announced sanctions against 11 prominent Russians and Ukrainians  on March 17. The EU was less aggressive than US  in going after the members of the Russian government even though they issued a longer list consisting of 21 people. Those named on each list will have all the assets they hold in US and EU frozen. In addition, they will be unable to travel  to US and EU. According to the US Treasury Department, this strategy  will  also hurt those Russians who do not have assets in United States, for two reasons. First, they will be unable to use dollars in any transactions. Second, international banks will become wary of attracting the attention that may come from trading with them(The Economist, 2014).

More important, though, is that the lukewarm attitude of the EU  do reflects the union’s internal divisions. For instance, EU countries like Poland, Sweden and the Baltic States are hawkish. Cyprus position is very understandable – it is still in recession after the collapse of its offshore banking system, which caters heavily to wealthy Russians. For a country like Greece, the prospect of economic sanctions that might keep Russian tourists away is a cause of much worry because it is desperately seeking new growth to revamp its economy.

In Europe and the United States, the current popular views among the politicians and policy makers is that the above measures are just a start and hence can be extended, depending on Russia’s reactions and future actions. But what is clear is that even if the European Union and United States lengthen the lists to include the families of the main targets, the effects of the sanctions on Russia’s economy may not be as harsh as that of a similar sanction imposed on Iran,  for the simple reason that they were comparatively easy to put in place  on the later, at the time it was already cut off from the world economy.  Unfortunately, this is not the case for Russia: Imposing tough sanctions on Russia means saying to corporations  like Siemens, Boeing, Shell, Exxon, BP, Chevron, and others that they can’t do business in Russia. According to the available published evidence, this will damage both western governments as well as their companies(The Economist, 2014). But then, that doesn’t mean that the EU should do nothing: They should not allow Putin’s  illegal annexation of Crimea. Otherwise Putin will become more emboldened to be a force for instability and strife, bending international agreements and ignoring borders at will.

It is really a  shame that there is no certainty that the EU will impose tougher measures that would rein Russia’s intransigence. It is ridiculous that Western governments are not willing to sacrifice much for Ukraine. For the moment, the feeling in Washington, Brussels and Berlin appears to be that registering a serious protest over Crimea does not worth it since isolating Russia would do real harm to the world economy. However, if both Washington and EU wants a world order in which states by and large respect international agreements and borders, then they need to do something.

 

 

 

References

BBC (2014): Russia’s Trade Ties With Europe. Retrieved March 30, 2014 from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26436291

 

Lockerby P.(2011): Henry Ford Quote – “History is Bunk”.  Science 2.0. Retrieved March 30, 2014 from http://www.lonelyplanet.com/ukraine/crimea/history

 

Lonely Planet(2014): Crimea – History. Retrieved March 30, 2014 from http://www.lonelyplanet.com/ukraine/crimea/history

National Archives(2006): The Cold War – An Eye Witness Perspective. Retrieved March 30, 2014 from http://www.archives.gov/research/foreign-policy/cold-war/symposium/cleveland.html

The Economist(2014): The West’s Sanctions – Follow the Roubles. Retrieved March 30, 2014 from http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21599409-how-america-and-europe-hope-put-pressure-russia-follow-roubles

 

Zakaria F.(Producer).(2014): Global Public Square[Motion Picture]. Atlanta, GA: CNN

A Scorecard for the British Commonwealth, Seven  Decades Later

What’s the point of having a Commonwealth, anyway?

Our world is teeming with people or agencies who fail to practice what they preach:  doctors who smoke 40 cigarettes a day; teachers who cheat on grades; politicians who accept bribes; accountants who forget to file their tax returns; financial institutions that launder cash for terrorist organizations; and the UN Security Councils that fails to intervene decisively in a political crises. The British Commonwealth of nations is no different.  When people talks about the British Commonwealth they are usually referring to the association of countries consisting of the United Kingdom and several former British colonies  who still pay allegiance to the British Crown even though they are now sovereign states(The Commonwealth, 2014; The Royal Household, n.d.). With fair justification, the  only remarkable thing about the club of former British colonies is that it exists at all. It is important to note here that the countries who are members of the British Commonwealth(which comprises of almost a third of the  world’s population) are 53 in number,  excluding Burma and Aden.

 

The big question, of course, is whether the citizens of its member nations actually knows its purpose. For instance, when asked who is the head of the Commonwealth, about a quarter of Jamaican citizens will reply that they are ready to bet  that it is Barack Obama(The Economist, 2013). Even some of the enlightened citizens of the member nations would probably cite the Commonwealth games, which is normally held every four years, as a proof of the club’s active involvement in the affairs of its members.  From a functional point of view, the club member nation’s most important concessions was that it runs a good scholarship program and development projects for its poorest members, particularly those of them in Africa, Caribbean  and Asia. The British Commonwealth also runs a tangled and ineffective bureaucracy, including the Secretariat, Commonwealth Foundations, Royal Commonwealth Society, and 67 other organizations, which appears to exist  mainly to provide extravagant trips and celebrations for a well-heeled Commonwealth elites in Britain, Canada and other rich member nations.

 

If the experience of the past five decades teaches us anything, it is that the British Commonwealth has, in most cases,  actually failed in fulfilling its obligations to its member nations. The facts speaks for themselves:  The organization has a poor record of enforcing  its members’ commitment to human right and the rule of law. The latest embarrassment for the organization occurred when it allowed Sri Lanka’s abusive regime – a regime that has the autocratic and corrupt  President Mahinda Rajapaksa as its Tsar – to host a biennial Commonwealth leaders’ meeting in November 2013(The Telegraph, 2014). There are, however, similar instances that showcases the organization’s failures with respect to ensuring that its member nations follow its rules. For instance, even though the Commonwealth partially suspended Nigeria in 1995 after it hanged Ken Saro-Wiwa  - a human rights activist - on that year, it showed little interest on the abuse of the Ogoni people who were doomed on an oil-rich Niger Delta area of Nigeria,  and whose plight motivated Ken Saro-Wiwa’s human rights campaign(BBC, 1995). Also, the organization suspended Pakistan in 1999 after the coup that occurred that year but showed little interest about the habitual abuses against religious minorities and women in that country.  In spite of these, the club do share some beneficial British legacy: The members are bonded by a common language – that is, English – a common legal code and aspects of shared cultural norms. In a sense this advantages had , to some extent, helped some of the members, particularly those African members,  to prosper: the African members of the clubs, including Nigeria and Kenya, are conspicuously better-off than their non-commonwealth neighbors, such as Central African Republic, Liberia and Sudan. This, more than anything else, explained  why a country like Rwanda, which was not colonized by Britain but by Germany and Belgium, chose to join the Commonwealth in  2009(The Royal Household, n.d.).

Commonwealth’s Future – Back to Basics

It would be logical to suggest here that a more focused and agile Commonwealth could do more to reinforce those advantages within the member nations. According to the available published evidence, some right-wing Eurosceptics in the British Conservative Party are suggesting that the club be transformed to become an alternative free-trade zone to the European Union(The Economist, 2013). Even though this type of “Commonwealth Dream” may never come to pass, it will definitely be a good idea to gear the club towards trade and economic development. When done the right way, the two would become mutually reinforcing in the long run. From an entirely practical standpoint, achieving this important feat will take better leadership than the Commonwealth has so far enjoyed during its eight decades of existence.  What is certain is that insidious post-colonial  politics means that Britain and other rich members, such as Canada and Australia, are not be willing to provide this kind of leadership. Hence the onus is on the developing countries who are members of the club, chiefly  India, South Africa and Nigeria, to push for this kind of Commonwealth reform. The unhappy truth, however, is that they, on their current political state and  form, are leery about taking on such a role in a club that they appear to find not only endearing and somewhat useful, but also faintly embarrassing. But that does not alter the basic fact that the British Commonwealth needs to implement serious reforms in these key area – reforms that can be induced by agitations from the developing member nations .

References

BBC(1995): 1995 – Nigeria Hangs Human Rights Activists. Retrieved March 3, 2014 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/10/newsid_2539000/2539561.stm

The Commonwealth(2014): About Us. Retrieved February 27, 2014 from http://thecommonwealth.org/about-us

The Economist(2013, November): The Economist Explains. Retrieved March 2, 2014 from http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/11/economist-explains-12

The Royal Household( n.d.): Commonwealth Members. Retrieved March 3, 2014 from http://www.royal.gov.uk/monarchandcommonwealth/commonwealthmembers/membersofthecommonwealth.aspx

The Telegraph(2014): Britain “Timid” Allowing Sri Lanka to Host Commonwealth Summit. Retrieved March 3, 2014 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/srilanka/10383546/Britain-timid-allowing-Sri-Lanka-to-host-Commonwealth-summit.html