UN Security Council Bickers Over Ukraine

A meeting of the UN Security Council

This past Friday, the UN Security Council held a meeting to discuss once again the conflict in Ukraine. And unsurprisingly, the most that was accomplished was the United States and Russia accusing the other of fueling the unrest and a stalling of any meaningful solution to the situation in the country, Reuters reports. This comes two years after the initial Euromaidan protests against Former President Viktor Yanukovich began, thus marking the second birthday of the conflict.

The accusations were nothing that has not been seen before. The Western Members of the Security Council, although in particular the United States, accused Russia of suppressing information of the Conflict and backing the armed separatists in the east of the Ukraine, both of which are true, and Russia accused the United States of destabilizing Ukraine and playing a “destructive role”, which is an exaggeration. Although many the state-controlled Russian media often states the US of spreading misinformation and it was in fact a CIA-backed coup that took out Yanukovich in Ukraine, the US’s actual role in Ukraine has largely been limited. Although the US supports the pro-Western Ukrainian government both politically and militarily, it, along with the other Western countries, could honestly be doing much more to help Ukraine purge its rampant corruption and manage its crippling economy. The fact that they have done very little on this front is troubling, as it could lead to the Ukrainian population losing sight of the European Dream, and once again swinging the country back into Russia’s influence. Of course, any constructive role that the US or the EU will try to play in Ukraine will be seen by Russia as “destructive.”

Probably one of the more interesting moments of the UN Security Council meeting was when it was delayed for half an hour due to Russian objections for a human rights briefing on the situation in both Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. The Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin stated the reason was that the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights should instead save his briefing for the Human Rights Council in Geneva, and not present it to the Security Council. Of course, one can guess the real reason: Russia is currently doing as much as possible to suppress information on the human rights abuses in Donbass and Crimea. As the rule of law is largely nonexistent in the regions held by the separatists, killings, torture, and overall ill-treatment are often present in allegations against the pro-Russians in the East. And in Crimea, many individuals that are against the Russian annexation live in fear; entire ethnic groups, such as the Crimean Tatars, are treated with suspicion by the Russian government. It should be noted that there are allegations of arbitrary detention torture against the Ukrainian Government over the course of the conflict as well. But they pale in comparison to the allegations of abuses on the Russian side.

Today, when Russian and US officials meet, there are usually two talking points: Ukraine and Syria. And increasingly, one topic has been dominating the discussions between them. As we have discussed in previous articles, it is advantageous for Russia to find an end to the Syrian Civil War, even if it means working with the West. The Islamic State poses a very real and serious threat to Russia, as a separatist Jihadi group in Russia’s Northern Caucasus region has pledged allegiance to the group. Recently, President Putin claimed that the Russian Air Force has helped the Free Syrian Army rebel group in addition to Syrian Government forces; whether these claims are true or not does not necessarily matter, but it shows that the line between the FSA and Assad is growing smaller in Russia’s eyes, as an agreement between the West, Russia, and the Muslim World over the troubled country seems to be growing closer (despite the Turkish shootdown).

However, in terms of Ukraine, Russia sees no need to rush an end to the conflict; in fact, it may benefit more from its elongation. The longer the unrest continues, the more dissatisfied the Ukrainian population will be become, and the likelier they will vote in another Eurosceptic government that will move the country closer to Russia. So it benefits Russia to continue to provide assistance to the separatists and veto any UN Security Council resolution that attempts to do anything meaningful in Ukraine. The most that Russia could benefit from an end to the conflict is better relations with Europe and the West, but as many European countries (notably Italy, which has pushed back an EU decision on whether to extend Russian sanctions or not) are already tiring of the sanctions against Russia, if Russia is patient and instead focuses its energy on solving the civil war in Syria, then many countries may decide to turn a blind eye on Ukraine and remove the sanctions.

This must not be allowed to happen. Cooperating with Russia on Syria is good, but Ukraine must not be forgotten by the West. Not only should the Western Countries remain firm in their opposition to Russian interventionism in Ukraine, they should increase their support, not only militarily and politically, but economically, for Ukraine. The current government in Ukraine is corrupt, inefficient, inept; the same day as the UN Security Council meeting, a fight even broke out in the Ukrainian Parliament. This is not the sign of an effective government. Ukraine needs the help of the successful liberal democracies of the world to help build a real democracy for their own. It is certainly a daunting task, but it is imperative that the West at least tries; otherwise, they risk losing the good favor of the Ukrainian people, and it would take a long time to get it back. Ukraine must not be forgotten, under any circumstances.

Armenians Approve Sweeping Reforms to Constitution

President Serzh Sarsgyan of Armenia, whose second term ends in 2018

A constitutional referendum was held in Armenia last weekend on December 6th which could transform Armenia into a parliamentary republic, the BBC reports. And as many political analysts predicted, it passed overwhelmingly with 63.5% of voters voting in favor of the proposed amendments, with a turnout of over 50%, making the vote legitimate. However, many Armenians feel suspicious that the referendum is only meant to extend the rule of the country’s president, Serzh Sargsyan.

Now, there have been many claims of fraud in this referendum to push the “yes” vote forward, and more than likely this is true. As Armenia’s democratic process is severely flawed (although better than some other countries in the post-Soviet region, where democracy can be non-existent), it is sadly unsurprising that any such vote would have major irregularities. It should be noted that for this vote in particular, reports of voting irregularities from both those opposed to the referendum and European observers has exceeded most other Armenian votes, with many sources citing electoral fraud, vote-bullying, and even violence to secure a “yes” vote. However, with the referendum ending in a “yes” vote and most members of the National Assembly in favor of the amendments, it is very likely that these changes will be enacted. Let us take a moment to go over the potential implications of this referendum.

The Armenian Referendum is supported by the ruling Republican Party of Armenia and many other major parties in the National Assembly, as well as President Sargsyan. Assuming the results of the referendum are respected, the National Assembly will enact a variety of amendments to the Armenian Constitution, most notable of which being that the government of Armenia will shift from a semi-presidential republic to a parliamentary republic. This will transfer most of the powers that the current President of Armenia has to the Prime Minister of the country instead, and the president would largely become a ceremonial figurehead of the country. It will also have the President, who becomes stripped of most of his obligations, be elected by Armenia’s parliament, the National Assembly, rather than through direct election. The Prime Minister will thus become the commander-in-chief, not the president.

Supporters of the referendum and proposed changes to the Constitution argue that these changes to Armenia’s Constitution are meant to strengthen and bolster democracy in the country. However, opposition groups claim otherwise, stating that the changes are only meant to extend the rule of the current president. As president, Sargsyan is limited to two five-year terms; his second term will expire in 2018. However, some predict that, once again assuming that the Constitution is changed, Sargsyan will simply become the Prime Minister of the ruling Republican Party. While Sargsyan does not officially claim membership to this party as he is forced to be independent, the Republican Party of Armenia has largely backed his presidency since the beginning. And if he does become prime minister, then he would have a new list of broad powers that he basically had as president. Sargsyan and other supporters deny that this scenario will occur, and constantly stress that Sargsyan does not seek a third term, although suspicions remain abound.

Most of the parties in the National Assembly support the amendments; however, citing these aforementioned allegations, three parties are not in favor: the Armenian National Congress party, the Heritage party, and the Rule of Law party. These groups combined make up a walloping 14 seats out of Armenia’s 131 legislative branch. No matter what, they will not be able to do much to stop this. However, they are not the only one suspicious: in fact, many Armenians saw this referendum simply as a mode for Sargsyan to extend his rule. And with the overwhelming reports of increased irregularities occurring in favor of a “yes” vote, it is only looking even more likely that the government has some sort of ulterior motive in pushing for a referendum that would strip the president of nearly all of his powers. For measures that are supposed to “strengthen democracy” in Armenia, the vote itself was not very democratic at all.

The proposed constitutional changes are not necessarily bad on their own. There are many parliamentary republics around the world that have very respected and high-functioning democratic systems. But with the current corrupt system that is in place in Armenia right now, there is so much room for abuse, particularly by the ruling party and President Sargsyan. If the conduct of the referendum is any indication for how these new changes will be implemented, then we must remain weary of them.

With a Troubled Economy, Kazakhstan Joins the WTO

The Kazakh Capital of Astana

This week, after nearly two decades of negotiations, the Central Asian nation of Kazakhstan officially joined the World Trade Organization, Russian news agency TASS reports. Kazakhstan becomes the 126th country to join the prestigious organization which regulates international trade. Nearly all of the countries once part of the Soviet Union are now part of the organization, with the exception of Belarus, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan (all of which are observers which wish to join the WTO at some point), and Turkmenistan. Russia joined the WTO in 2012, becoming the last major economy to join it.

Kazakhstan’s accession to the Organization comes at a time when the Kazakh economy is dramatically slowing down and its currency, the tenge, is devaluing at a troubling rate. Over the past year, Kazakhstan’s economy has been showing signs of stress due to the weakening of the Russian economy and the drop in oil prices. On its own, Russia’s economy worsening due to international sanctions would have been bad enough. Russia is a major economic partner of Kazakhstan, and Russia still maintains a lot of influence in the country. So if Russia fails, Kazakhstan and other countries dependent on Russia also fail.

However, with the drop in the oil market, Kazakhstan is hit even worse. Like most Central Asian nations, Kazakhstan’s economy largely depends on its natural resources due to its lack of development; and with petroleum exports making up 56% of its total export market, its oil fields in particular are a key part of its economy.

Kazakhstan’s authoritarian President, Nursultan Nazarbayev, once had very high expectations for his country. Although economically tied to Russia, he has also expanded trade with China and other countries. He even set an ambitious plan in place in 2012, known as “Kazakhstan 2050”, in which he has said he will make his country among the top 30 top economies in the world. He wanted his country to become the next biggest market for investors. Earlier this summer, Kazakhstan’s capital of Astana was even a contender for the 2022 Winter Olympics (it was beaten by Beijing). It is these high ambitions that has led Kazakhstan to continuously push for WTO membership, and, this week, this has finally happened.

However, due to the looming economic concerns, Nazarbayev has since tempered his expectations, and instead of trying to figure out ways on how his country can grow, he is trying to stop his country from spiraling out of his control. For one measure, oil production in the country has decreased. The Kazakh tenge has also been de-pegged from the US dollar. Kazakhstan is also starting a privatization program in an attempt to lure foreign investors, a policy which is making investors even more weary if anything on how privatization will be implemented. Not to mention the fact that corruption still remains widespread in the country, warding many investors away.

With little foreign investment, and with inflation predicted to go up next year, an economic troubles seem likely to continue and even grow worse next year. So Nazarbayev has also turned his attention to his people, bracing himself for the fallback of public discontent due to the oncoming crisis. His solution? Oppress his people even more. Kazakhstan has never been a bastion for human rights. Nazarbayev has ruled the country since Soviet times, and was most recently “elected” for yet another term with a suspicious 97% of the vote. He has cracked down on freedom of press and religious expression in the Muslim-majority country. Although he increasingly says that some of these measures are temporary and are only needed so that Kazakhstan can eventually become a democratic, developed country, many human rights groups fail to see the connection between the two.

However, over the past year, many groups have said that human rights in Kazakhstan have been worse than they ever have been in the country’s recent history. Practicing Muslims in the country feel increasingly under pressure from the government, Nazarbayev has cracked down even more harshly on dissent, and, most recently, the internet in Kazakhstan is becoming monitored. The Verge reports that the government will begin to intercept encrypted data sent to and from foreign servers, basically a dumbed-down version of China’s firewall system. This leaves a lot of room for Kazakhstan to tighten its restrictions on the internet, and knowing Nazarbayev’s record, it would be surprising if he did not do something like that.

Both on the social and economic scale, Kazakhstan is in trouble. The Kazakh media is likely to play up the country’s accession to the WTO as a major step for Kazakhstan on its road to becoming a major economy. But do not be fooled. For even as it takes one step forward, at the same time it is taking ten steps back.