As the Russian invasion of Ukraine enters its fourth week, we, as a nation, should be paying close attention to the continuing violation of the integrity and sovereignty of this state. There are several reasons for this, some blatantly obvious, some subtle, and others underlying, as to why we should be monitoring the developments taking place approximately 6,000 miles away on a minute-to-minute basis.
Most importantly, with no apologies whatsoever to the international relations experts and political spin doctors, this is an invasion of one sovereign state by another sovereign state, in any language, and a clear violation of international law. The apologists for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s reckless decision, amidst cries and fears of NATO’s expansion – in fact, Putin suspected weakness in NATO, hence his actions – can save their rhetoric.
Here we are a relatively small country with limited military power, fending off a serious threat to our territorial integrity by a desperate neighbour, Venezuela, in the International Court of Justice in the Hague, the outcome of which they are likely to repudiate once it’s not in their favour. We should also bear in mind the Maduro government’s close ties to Putin’s Russia to which they have allegedly pawned oil futures to in order to cling to power. Back in August, 2019, a Russian Federation spokesperson issued a far-fetched statement that “Guyana and the United Kingdom are jointly stoking the fires of an ongoing insurrection against the Maduro administration in Venezuela, using an unnamed island in the Essequibo River to train “sabotage and spy groups” for reentry into the country” (SN editorial Moscow’s tall tale, 20th August, 2019).
Of equal concern, has been the failing of leading members of the international community to condemn Putin’s ruthless actions. On Monday, 28th February, five days after the incursion by Russian forces into Ukraine, the UN held a rare emergency special session of the General Assembly to discuss the crisis. It was only the tenth such occasion since 1950 that the Assembly had met to resolve a matter of international peace and security as the Security Council was unable to act due to a lack of unanimity among its five permanent members – China, France, the United Kingdom, the United States and Russia – who have the power of veto. As expected, Russia had executed its veto card the previous Friday when the Security Council met, while China, India and the United Arab Emirates abstained on the vote.
“The violence must stop. Humanitarian law and international humanitarian law must be respected,” Assembly President Abdulla Shahid pleaded to the member states, of which more than 100 addressed the gathering on the catastrophe. On Wednesday, 2nd March, as Shahid struggled to read the results of the vote of the resolution demanding Russia immediately end its military operations in Ukraine, the UN Ambassadors started applauding, then rose to their feet. Of the 191 UN Member states, 141 had voted in favour, five were against and, inexplicably, 35 had opted to abstain.
It’s hoped that Takuba Lodge has duly taken note of the nay votes and the abstainers, since we can expect a repeat of this cowardly act if ever our situation arrived at a similar juncture. This is clearly a black and white matter, there isn’t any grey area here. An abstention in this instance is the equivalent of a nay vote. The world may appear not to appreciate Putin’s actions, yet 20 per cent of the UN Assembly either supports Russia behind closed doors or don’t have the gall to condemn it in public.
All of the five naysayers: Russia, Belarus, Eritrea, North Korea and Syria are considered to be authoritarian, and voted true to form. Disappointingly, China and India, leaders on the world stage, once again chose to abstain. China is Russia’s largest trading partner, and its abstention at the Security Council vote came as a surprise to international observers, who had expected its opposition to the motion all along with its intentions in relation to Taiwan. Whereas, India, our Commonwealth partner, which shares a 2,167-mile border with China that has been in dispute since 1962, opted to sit on the fence, and “try to maintain the balance between the West and Russia, since it has strategic partners on both sides.”
Guyana has enjoyed cordial relations with both India and China for decades, and has benefited from substantial investments, but the time has arrived to ask the crucial question; will they vote unconditionally with us on the border controversy, if, and when the time arrives?
All manner of reasons, theories, and excuses are being bandied about to justify Putin’s wanton invasion of his neighbouring state. Cutting to the chase, at the heart of the matter is that Putin is a power-crazed leader whose track record reveals his actions. Since ascending to power, Putin has orchestrated the changing of the Russian Constitution, placing it above international law, and paving the way for him to legally remain in power until 2036. Having successfully annexed Crimea in 2014, he probably assumed that he had carte blanche to reconstruct the Warsaw Pact in his eyes. Putin’s apparent egotistic obsession with his place in history as one of the greatest Russian leaders has clearly spiralled, but he misjudged the international response.
In the words of Brian Klass, Professor of Global Politics at the University College, London,
“[Putin]… is not a savvy genius, he’s irrational, and he’s behaving irrational because he has fallen into the dictator trap. …to stay in power, dictators do things that ultimately and eventually cause their downfall because they construct fake realities and they make mistakes based upon those fake realities…” Having fallen into the dictator trap, Putin has no logical avenue out of this quagmire other than to continue on the path of plunder and destruction. How and when this mindless war, which will be responsible for the unnecessary deaths of many innocent people, will end no one can predict since the man at helm no longer appears capable of logical thought, and will press on by any means necessary to achieve his lofty ambitions.
In the classic, Crowds and Power, the 1981 Nobel Laureate Elias Canetti wrote, “The satisfaction in survival which is a kind of pleasure can become a dangerous and insatiable passion. It feeds on occasions. The larger and more frequent the heaps of dead which a survivor confronts the stronger and more insistent becomes his need for them…” History can identify many despots who aptly fit this description. To that list add the name Vladimir Putin.
So far we have garnered two valuable lessons from this invasion. Firstly, when it is crunch time our international friends are quite capable of finding answers to justify their voting actions or inaction, and we should not count on their unconditional support on matters of principle, since it might conflict with their own vested interests at the precise moment when their vote is most required. Secondly, we do not require any further evidence of what can potentially occur when a country’s constitution is amended to allow one person to hold the reins of power, seemingly in perpetua. We have already survived one challenge to create such a reality, we should heed the warning signs.
With no foreseeable end in sight to this regrettable human tragedy unfolding in front of our eyes, there will be more lessons for us.
