Ukraine: a global flashpoint

S P SETH

Even though the self-proclaimed Islamic State has understandably created international headlines because of, among other things, the graphic images of the brutality of its perpetrators, the crisis in Ukraine has the potential of starting another big war.   The rhetoric emanating from there at times, one hopes it is no more than rhetoric, has been so over the top that it is quite frightening. For instance, President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine said only recently, “Today we’re talking about the fate of Ukraine [said to be under Russian attack]; tomorrow, it could be for all Europe.” To quote another European Union leader and NATO member, Dalia Grybauskaite, President of Lithuania: “We need to help Ukraine…to defend its territory and its people, and to help militarily… because today Ukraine is fighting a war on behalf of all Europe.” The other day, Ukraine’s prime minister said that Putin “is trying to take all of Ukraine. He wants to re-form the Soviet Union.” He added, “ NATO in this particular circumstance is the only vehicle to protect Ukraine.”

Jose Manuel Barrosso, president of the European Commission has said that, “we are in a very serious…dramatic situation… where we can reach the point of no return.” Did he mean that unless Moscow allowed Kiev to finish its task of crushing the separatists in east Ukraine, it might lead to a serious military confrontation between Russia and NATO? And it doesn’t just seem rhetoric when at the recent NATO meeting it was decided to create a rapid reaction force, with pre-positioned weaponry in member countries on Russia’s borders, to be put into action against a Russian attack. There was even loud talk of letting Ukraine become a NATO member, which mercifully has not materialized as yet. Such irresponsible talk of a potential war between Russia and NATO will be a catastrophe for the world. And when one factors in Russian President Putin’s warning earlier cautioning the US and Europe not to mess with his country that has a powerful nuclear arsenal, the consequent destruction and devastation that might follow is hard to imagine. Even at the level of sheer rhetoric, it is extremely dangerous as this has a way of creating a self-generating momentum to a “point of no return.”

No one is suggesting that Russian President Putin is any angel. But the kind of aggression let loose, until recently, by Kiev on its own people in the country’s eastern region is no solution to Ukraine’s internal crisis. By describing the rebels as terrorists to justify a full scale military onslaught is no way to reconcile a ruptured nation. Therefore, the only sensible way is for Kiev and the separatists in the eastern region to start negotiating seriously about how best to put their country together. And that will only be achievable by granting the country’s southeast region a reasonable degree of autonomy.

By any measure, the solution will eventually come through negotiations and not through war cries. The proposed creation of a NATO rapid reaction force, with pre-positioning of weapons and equipment in countries bordering Russia, is inviting trouble sooner or later. A mix of expanded sanctions against Russia, combined with the threat of rapid military response, is supposed to deter Russia from creating more instability on NATO borders. What if it doesn’t, as Moscow sees threat(s) to its security from NATO’s expansion? Will it mean war? That is dreadful to even think about.

Russia certainly will be economically hurt by western sanctions. In this respect, it is being treated like Iran. But it is no Iran. And if Iran has been able to withstand US-led sanctions since the eighties, it is likely that Russia would respond more robustly. There is even talk of making Ukraine a NATO member, formally or informally. And if that were to happen, it will be covered under NATO’s Article 5 inviting a military response to Russian attack on one of its member states. That could lead to war because Moscow has already been accused of aggression against Ukraine. From the deliberations at the recent NATO summit, despite President Petro Poroshenko’s attempt to drag in NATO into his internal conflict, he settled for ceasefire and negotiations with the rebels. Whether or not the ceasefire will last, and if it will be followed up with substantive talks leading to regional autonomy, would remain to be seen. And if not, it will be trouble all over again with the potential of a flare up between NATO and Russia.

The expansion of NATO right to the Russian borders, in contravention of an understanding against it at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, is at the root of much of the trouble. This has made Russia edgy while, at the same time, emboldening its neighbours to act tough under NATO protection. Moscow has decided to make a stand on Ukraine against its incorporation into NATO. And it seeks leverage for this by supporting substantial autonomy for eastern Ukraine. The western argument, on the other hand, is that Ukraine is a sovereign country and should have the right to choose its friends and allies. Moscow is not prepared to accept such logic, clearly seeing a strategic threat from NATO expansion to include Ukraine.

In an article in the Foreign Affairs journal titled “Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault”, Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago has argued that the western strategy “to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West” has sought to ignore realpolitik. Which is that: “great powers [Russia in this case] are always sensitive to potential threats near their home territory [and] states that ignore it, do so at their own peril.” The veteran US diplomat and policy maker, George Kennan, reportedly cautioned against the expansion of NATO to the Russian borders.  He said at the time, “I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies.” And he was quite prescient. Unless a sensible policy of backing off from deliberately provoking Russia is devised, there is no knowing where it might all end.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au

   

Indonesia confronts its future

S P SETH

Indonesia will soon have a new president following presidential elections in that country. In a bitterly contested and controversial election, Joko Widodo (popularly known as Jokowi), the presidential candidate of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), finally prevailed. And it was a convincing win by a margin of over 6 percentage points, more than 8 million votes. His rival, Prabowo Subianto, a former general and son-in-law of the discredited dictator Suharto, who was overthrown in a popular uprising in 1998, didn’t take his defeat kindly. And he contested it in the Constitutional Court, but lost. Jokowi will now take over the presidency in late-October.

It is as well that an unsavoury and ruthless character like Subianto didn’t win. During the time he was a general in the army under his father-in-law’s rule, Parabowo Subianto was accused of kidnapping and killings to help perpetuate Suharto’s dictatorship when it was in a terminal stage. Having unsuccessfully tried to contest presidency before, he was hoping to make it this time. It was felt that the Indonesian people were hankering for a strong man in the image of his father-in-law, Suharto, who had ruled for over 30 years, because the country’s democracy had become flabby and discredited with large-scale corruption and all round venality. And he projected himself as the strong man that the country needed and hopefully was looking for. In other words, he was the right man at the right time. But it didn’t work.

Prabowo was flushed with money, his election financed by his billionaire brother. He is a rich man in his own right. But he under-estimated his rival, Jokowi, who came out as too ordinary to be taken seriously. And he also reportedly had the support of elements in the army at local and higher levels. The bias for Prabowo in the army, despite denials, must have been quite serious as to warrant the sacking of the army chief, General Budiman, a day before the election result was announced. Subianto tried to muster and engineer wide protests to put pressure on the Constitutional Court to invalidate Jokowo’s victory but it all proved futile. That a discredited general, accused of gross violation of human rights, could be a serious presidential candidate, securing as much as 46 per cent of the votes, indicates that Indonesia’s democracy still needs careful nurturing. It also shows that important segments of the army still hanker for the ‘good old Suharto days’.

Widodo’s election will mark a sharp break, hopefully for the better, in Indonesia’s polity. So far all the post-Suharto presidents have had old political and army association with that past. The outgoing, but popularly elected, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, was a Suharto-era general. Widodo will be the first Indonesia president with no connection to the sordid Suharto-era. He is self-made, starting almost from scratch to become a successful small businessman. He started his political career as a small town mayor of Solo where, by all accounts, he did a creditable job and without any taint of corruption and venality, a highly unusual trait in a politician. His next stop was the governorship of Jakarta, a much more challenging job. He apparently wasn’t as successful in the country’s capital but, at the same time, there were no scandals about him.

Indonesia very badly needs an honest and accessible man as president with a common man image. And Jokowi has these attributes. It is was this persona that got Jokowi the presidential nomination of Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), led by Megawati Sukarnoputri, the daughter of the country’s leading freedom fighter and its first president. She would much rather have wanted the presidency for herself but didn’t seem likely to win. Jakowi was a rising political star and his sponsorship seemed the only way for the Sukarno dynasty to make a political comeback of sorts.

But that is where the problems might arise. First, Jakowi is not part of their patronage network. He is an outsider picked up for his popular appeal. The question then arises: will he or will he not do their bidding? Second, Megawati’s daughter, Puan Maharani, is said to be politically ambitious, and they (PDI-P leadership) won’t be comfortable about Jokowi becoming too settled in his presidential role. Third, Jokowi’s PDI-P doesn’t command majority in the national parliament. That would make his task of governing effectively and purposefully quite onerous. The consequent wheeling and dealing among the same set of corrupt politicians might rub off the shine from Jokowi’s fresh and untainted image.

Therefore, unless Jokowi can establish himself, early on, as his own man to deliver on people’s expectations that are quite high, he might not only lose popular appeal but, more importantly, it will further damage Indonesia’s democratic polity and system. And with people like Probowo and his cronies waiting to pounce on a perceived image of self-seeking, corrupt and grubby politicians, one cannot rule out an even greater nostalgia for the distorted (but even more corrupt) past of strong arm rule of the Suharto era.

One redeeming feature, though, is the unbounded optimism of Jokowi. In his victory speech, he sought to enthuse people with a new sense of confidence and said, “This presidential election has provoked fresh optimism in the Indonesian nation. An independent soul and sense of political responsibility blossoms in…the new generation. Their enthusiasm—which had sunk into torpor—has now returned.” He added, “It is now our responsibility to prove to ourselves, to other nations and especially to our children and our grandchildren, that politics is full of fun; politics has some wisdom. Politics is freedom.” 

At the present time, though, Indonesia seems unsure of its future. Precisely at such a time a relatively fresh face, untainted by the past and with a strong sense of optimism, might become the circuit breaker. By tapping and instilling popular enthusiasm, Jokowo might be able to break through the political strait jacket that is tying down Indonesia. 

Note: This article first appeared in the Daily Times

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au