Some Thoughts on Ukraine/Russia

A friend asked me recently to explain the situation happening in Russia/Ukraine. Having tried to write a 'summary' several times- struggling to do so in each instance, it's clear that the current situation is too complicated to neatly box up.

Moreover, as someone who doesn't speak Russian or Ukrainian (relying on translations, edits and other reporters to summarise information) there's always the danger of inaccuracies, cultural biases and unreliable sources.

So I'm going to try my best to summarise what's going on in Ukraine from a journalist's perspective, and hopefully link out some pieces with far more insight.

As a primer, I'd highly recommend Buzzfeed's 35-step guide to understanding the current crisis. It starts from the fall of the USSR- where Ukraine became an independent state. There's an interesting part in Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations in which he predicts conflict between Russia and the Ukraine to be low, because they were part of the same 'civilization' block. Huntington's thesis held a lot of clout in the 90's. So much so, that Ukraine's first president Leonid Kravchuk actually got rid of his nuclear weapons via Russia, and was considered Boris Yeltsin's most powerful ally in the Balkans. There's a second, important component to this too.

The Budapest Memorandum, signed in 1994, was an agreement that guaranteed the independence of Ukraine in exchange for the destruction of the nuclear weapons (Ukraine had the third largest stockpile at the time). With the invasion of Crimea, the US and possibly EU member states are using the document as the foundation of any economic or military action in the future.

The first question is really a legal one; Was Putin right to send forces to Crimea?

Pro-Russian reports conversely argue that such reports are proof of American power games. In a press conference held last week, Putin told journalists that he did not want a war with Ukraine, and that any action in Crimea were designed to protect ethnic Russians (more than 80% ) from radicals in the rebel forces. He acknowledged that Yanukovych had lost his legitimacy- but he refused to recognise the interim government that's taken its place.

As Cambridge University professor Marc Weller acknowledges, Russia is allowed to have a limited military presence in Crimea under the friendship agreement, but any action- whether in development or escalation, has to be done in consultation with Ukraine (as referred to in the 1997 agreement).

 But as stated before, Putin doesn't recognise the interim government as legitimate. In his mind, radical minority groups ousted a democratically elected president and filled powerful posts with "crooks", who pose a threat to Ukranian Russians. Additionally under UN rules (Article 2(4)), until active military action takes place, the occupation doesn't constitute an armed attack (one which might necessitate the need for a military response). Chatham House's Ruma Mundal similarly lays out a grey area of international law- notably relating to authority. While acts of aggression certainly violate Article 2(4) and there isn't enough evidence to constitute a self-defence counterargument, from Putin's perspective he doesn't need to seek authority from Ukraine's interim parliament. Yanukovch might not have a future in Ukraine (Putin's words) but that doesn't remove his 'democratic legitimacy' when he writes a letter calling for Putin's help.

Final piece worth reading is Ashley Deeks' in The New Republic, which goes through the legal remits of self-defense and counter attacks in the event that Russia does declare war. 



Should Britain Intervene? And why won't it?

One word: Money.

One of the most remarkable things that's happened over the past few weeks in the silence of Foreign Secretary William Hague. Speaking in the Commons last week, he said that there were no plans to impose economic sanctions, and that attending the G8 summit in Sochi was still on the cards. Other cabinet ministers have kept quiet on the Russia/Crimea front too, stating only that 'it was a very complex situation with many factors' (though I suppose with Libya it was just a cakewalk, right?)

Much of this decision has to do with the way the country's been structured since the 1980's- a time when former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher sang the banker's praises, revelled in the fruits of deregulation and unfettered foreign investment. It was a mentality that continued throughout the New Labour years- where London's luxury markets became similar to offshore tax havens. And throughout this period, London became more filled with management consultants, hedge fund managers and corporate lawyers, working in sectors linked to powerful oligarchs.

Which is why everyone knows Russian black money circulates the economy through London, but nothing is done about it. So despite the fact that targeted economic sanctions would be the best way to tame Putin, government mandarins have gone as far as to write up documents urging MPs not to close off the City.

Generally, the legal arguments are contentious- it's all about perspective: recognition of legitimate governance and what would constitute a breach of the Ukrainian constitution. It's worth noting too that Putin invoked the Right to Protect (R2P) principle too, drawing parallels with the US intervention in Kosovo to oust Milosoviec. In the game of diplomatic rhetoric, Putin's trying (and in my view, succeeding) at removing the West of any moral authority needed to stage a credible form of intervention.




Media Wars

As things change hour-to-hour, we've relied on the media to try make sense of what's going on.

The original media narrative in the West went a little something like this: Peaceful protests against Yanukoych's rejection of EU integration, led to physical, and now armed conflict. There are two sides; the 'Pro-EU' good guys, and the 'Pro-government (and therefore Putin)' bad guys. The latter have the evil Russia behind them, controlling the oil and natural gas supplies, while the good guys just have hope. It's tragic there's no US military presence, says ultimate good guy John Mccain.

So when Abby Martin and Liz Wahl, two Russia Today journalists, publicly resigned over Putin's actions in Ukraine, many took it as a sign of Putin's nearing defeat. Anchors from the UK and the US took the public resignations as a sign that Putin was losing his power- so much so that even the Kremlin-funded RT were turning against him.

But there is an over-arching theme to this; that the conflict in Ukraine is not just a revolt, or a military battle- but one fought over the internet and on television. 

The media war is summed up quite nicely by Salon , though particularly in its charity to the accuracy of Russian reportage. Indeed, it's noted that while Putin certainly doesn't see the interim government as a legitimate or recognisable body on the diplomatic stage, he does publicly propose fresh elections in Ukraine, and sets out the precondition that Washington doesn't align itself with Ukraine's interim. There's a really interesting narrative taking place too; Considering the Nuland tapes (in which the assistant US secretary of state says "F the EU") set out a desired roadmap  for Ukraine,  it seems as if the US are trying to use the Ukraine crisis- and a stand off with Russia, to assert a strong foreign policy at a time when there isn't much faith in the Obama administration.

Of course, the media significance didn't really come about until anchor rebellion.  RT wrote an interesting op-ed on these incidents, claiming that (1) perception of the conflict is culturally dependent and (2) that RT journalists have editorial independence and the right to their own opinions.

Whether that's true or not is up for debate (RT won't entertain the discussion, however) but it does show that news coverage is also verging into old cold-war style paradigms. Which is great for proprietors, though not necessarily the public.



Concluding Points

Which brings me back to where I started- noone really knows what's happening in Ukraine, which is probably why there's a lot less coverage now than a few weeks ago.

The Guardian's Simon Jenkins best sums up the current dilemma: The Western world has pronounced its moral indignation, but it's rife with double standards. Last years' Syria vote (remember, it was a vote on the principle of R2P) wasn't just about the Middle East, but the wider sea change of public attitudes to military action overseas. 

So with the military option no longer valid, diplomats are taking over the debate with empty slogans along the lines of "Obama must show he's strong, Putin cannot be allowed to continue and NATO must act". All of these terms are contradictory, and don't fit into any coherent foreign policy response.

In the meantime, Obama is hosting Ukrainian PM Arseniy Yatsenyu in Washington (a move that is pretty much unprecedented), continued to threaten Russia with sanctions and slowdowns of natural gas production. Meanwhile, Russia continues to stock troops and artillery on the Crimean border, as the protectorate prepares for a referendum on joining Russia (something the US will refuse to acknowledge).

It's now expected that a mix of sanctions and over-reaching Russian ambition will make sure Putin kicks himself in the face, but while the move is certainly a gamble on the Kremlin's part, I wonder whether this prediction is more of a hope, than something that's necessarily calculated. 

My prediction is that the West will reluctantly let Putin take Crimea, while they build relationships with a post- revolution Ukraine. Europe's dependence on Russian money, oil and gas are too great for any significant sanctions to effectively work, which of course will also direct US foreign policy objectives too.  Meanwhile. unless the US starts exporting natural gas leverage will still be awarded to Russia- it's something that policy makers are urging, but considering the fastest that they can start distributing energy is in 2015, it might not be quick enough to stop Putin.

Nigel's refugee clawback shows he's just another politician

As the year ends, spare a thought for a group of Britons whose hopes and dreams have been crushed. A group who will continue to be ridiculed, ignored and oppressed, even by those who once promised them Jerusalem itself.

Of course, I'm talking about the poor members of UKIP, who upon hearing of their leader Nigel Farage claim that the UK should 'welcome Syrian refugees', came up in arms (at least on their Keyboards) to denounce the act of treachery.

“You're a shill, just like the rest of 'em” said one man on the party's official Facebook account. “Charity begins at home, let's start here first!” said another. In fact, since Farage made the statement last Sunday, the party's page has been filled with reactions similar to another rattled up member, who eloquently put it: “They can sort out their own shite”.

Admittedly, I was quite impressed by Farage's statement. Perhaps because I'm a liberal Britain hater by UKIP's standards, but the fact that he was able to justify the proposition under the United Nations 1951 declaration on Refugee status illustrated a certain maturity of the party- one that's hard time shaking off negative images of racism and under-informed policy.  

It also said something about Farage's character. Arguably the most charismatic man in modern British politics (with London mayor Boris Johnson a close second), Farage has always been known for his defiant speeches at the European parliament, an unrelenting stance to the European union, and generally achieving what most politicians can't- being rather good on TV. I half expected that the man likely to lead the 2014 elections would have the resilience to do what was morally right, even if a section of his party weren't too chipper about it.

But yesterday, Farage retracted his initial statement, stating that he actually meant Syrian Christians (otherwise known as 'the good ones'). Beyond the sheer offensiveness of the comment- and the inherent implication that religion is an accurate determinant of one's life, it's worth thinking about what this actually says about Farage himself.

Bear in mind that a significant part of the Farage 'brand' lies in marketing himself as an outsider- the 'honest broker' in a land of crooks- something that his supporters often lament in when they talk about 'spineless' politicians. Indeed, just type his name into Youtube, and you'll find plenty of videos attacking the 'LibLabCon' establishment, claiming that the party 'best represents the working class' through addressing its concerns around immigration. Essentially, the Farage brand has been constructed as the antithesis of mainstream politics, accommodating viewpoints that Liberals, Conservatives or Labour could never acceptably get away with.

Farage has been able to get away with this 'free pass' for a while, and it's allowed a great deal of inconsistency in the process. Prior to his statement to help Syrian refugees, he referred to the UK as a 'soft touch' for trickster asylum seekers, while the party's flagship policy, the 5 year immigration freeze, has generally gone unchallenged by the mainstream press.

Meanwhile, its campaigners and supporters seem to pay little attention to its policies outside of immigration and the EU; Indeed, it still confuses me that a party that calls for corporation tax cuts, meanwhile statements made by the party's former economics spokesman, a certain Godfrey Bloom, has been on the record claiming that the unemployed and public sector workers should be 'stripped of their voting rights'.

Perhaps the issue is that we don't really know what Farage stands for. Once a strength, his dream of UKIP becoming a formidable force in British politics is coming with consequences- notably, a greater demand for accountability. That might mean Farage will have to stop playing the political maverick, and act more like a politician.

Whether Farage believes his revised statement, is of course questionable. But what this obvious scaling back does show is that even without a Westminster seat, he knows that he requires a core foundation of votes to even stand a chance in the next election. And being a self-cultivated brand, he might find that defying the congregation is much more difficult.

*An interesting comment piece : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10542611/Does-Nigel-Farage-want-to-join-the-Conservatives.html

The 'gender segregation' debate has ignored Muslim women

It turns out that British Universities are further bowing to Shariah Law (at least according to some bloggers) by 'enabling' gender segregation. The issue comes in light of a recent report by UniversitiesUK (now retracted) suggesting that 'gender separation is not alien to our culture'.

There's been enough columns denouncing forced separation by gender; pretty much every national newspaper, magazine and digital news outlet have argued that such requests are akin to coercion, demean freedom and equality, and may even suggest that religious sensitivities have taken precedence in secular institutions.

Generally I agree with the sentiments; I personally don't believe segregation achieves what it is designed for, nor is it particularly great for the purposes of public intellectual inquiry. I also feel that a lot of Islamic societies across the country will bear the brunt of rash accusations; my own university's Islamic Society (ISOC) didn't do segregation in public debates, and neither did the others I attended as a guest.

But I do believe that Muslim women have been short-changed in this highly publicised debate- particularly when it came to media reporting. For while representatives of LSE's atheist & secular society, Student Rights and IERA were given air time- the opinions of ISOC attendees- particularly Muslim women, were given much less attention. And if we are to seriously have a debate or impose terms like 'patriarchy', 'misogyny' and 'medieval' , then it's probably not the best idea to shut out the people who have been portrayed as the victims in all of this.

I decided to speak to three Muslim women over the weekend. All, who wish to remain anonymous for privacy reasons, are students at London universities, where they play active roles in their Islamic societies.

During the interviews, what surprised me was how they viewed the separation by gender, an Islamic custom that is observed by pretty much all Mosques across the world. Soumaiya, a 20 year-old engineering student said to me : "I'm uncomfortable with the term 'segregation' because it implies force. None of us were forced to sit away from males, it was a choice that we made- one that we're actually more comfortable with."

Over the course of our correspondence, we talked further about Islam and feminism, where she went on to say: "This whole debate is a lot like the issues regarding the Hijab (headscarf) and the Niqab (veil). One the one hand you have a group of people arguing that it supresses women into acceptance and submission. On the other, a growing wave of feminist Muslims are using it to empower themselves, and to build gender identities on their own terms.

"To me this is the same thing. I don't agree that people should be forced to do anything, but if I feel more comfortable sitting alone, or with fellow women, then why should I be told it's wrong? Isn't it all a bit counter-intuitive?"

Halima agrees. A 19 year old Mathematics student and former treasurer of her Islamic society, she says: "A lot of the arguments flung around talk about how sitting separated reinforces patriarchy and male superiority, but no-one really asks what the females think. It's ironic really- they complain that girls in Islam are ignored and unrecognised, and then they completely ignore them when discussing gender rights!"

That's not to say that all Muslim women- or even men- find the current system of segregation to be perfect. Indeed, as young, liberally-educated Muslims go to UK universities, they often have a mindset which is at odds with old-school preachers and culturally dogmatic ways of thinking. Noor, a Chemistry student from my alma mater tells me: "Segregation the way that it's currently done might not work as intended, because the disparity between the Isoc and the outside world are polar opposites.

"How can you be in an environment where you have total separation in Islamic events, and then you're forced to mix and interact with the opposite gender outside? Sitting at the back of a room won't improve the way that anyone interacts with the opposite sex- in some cases it might make it even worse."

Noor also tells me that ISOCs do need to develop in order to address the key issues surrounding gender segregation suggesting that they need to create a space where "boundaries exist, because they are part of a wider principles that we believe in and are embedded within us and not because they are enforced by a sign that says "brothers left and sisters right".

This leaves the question of whether gender segregation is 'legitimate' in British universities. I'd argue that while I don't believe an external speaker should be able to dictate terms of a public event (and this would apply whether it's race, socio-economic disposition or political affiliation) and nor should people be forced into arrangements without their consent, there is also something to be said about respecting choices regardless of how distasteful we might find them. Such is the libertarian position of Legal theorist David Bernstein, who explains in his paper ["Sex Discrimination Laws Versus Civil Liberties”] that "guarding the freedom of choice for men and women is more important than preventing such sex segregation since methods of prevention can often cause more harm than good for both sexes."

To conclude- hastily, I do think that the debate surrounding gender segregation on British campuses, while important, has been poorly debated on. There has been far less discussion, particularly from female viewpoints, on the values of choice, liberty, religious identity and legitimate boundaries of self expression. Instead, we've heard far more misogynistic assumptions from Islamic groups who have been given a platform to speak on gender rights, and commentators that have fallen into the same trap of pushing forward a dogmatic and incorruptible strand of liberalism.

Even if campaigners ultimately succeed in preventing societies from holding events where segregation is permitted, I fear that it will, unfortunately, do little to advance the gender equality of female Muslim students.

How the police and senior management are trampling on student dissent

nus.org.uk

The news that Michael Chessum, president of the University of London Union (ULU) was arrested earlier this week under section 11 of the Public Order Act 1989 is the latest event in a series of efforts to quell dissent on UK university campuses. It further illustrates a worrying trend in the future of student politics as well as the fate of public universities themselves.

Under S.11, the police had every right to arrest Chessum on the grounds that he had failed to give prior notice of the demonstration, held to counter management's continuing plan of dismantling the largest students' union in Europe, opting instead to outsource services and dilute both accessibility and public accountability for its students.

Yet the claim rests on shaky grounds, for several reasons. First, as reported by the London Review of Books,  Chessum was arrested almost immediately after his meeting with a member of senior management, who had previously written to him advising: ‘review your personal and institutional responsibilities and liabilities in leading protesters into physical danger and unlawful action'. While the University of London claim they have nothing to do with the protest, complains from union staffers suggest that the correspondence might amount to a clear threat taken in this context.

There's a bigger issue at hand, however; an ongoing trend in which authorities have actively clamped down on student dissidence in campuses across the country- and have gotten away with it.

Consider that even after the 2010 student protests in London, the metropolitan police continue to taunt students with letters 'reminding' them not to engage in 'disruptive, anti-social behaviour as Farah-Al-Nahda reports.  The crackdown hasn't just been limited to mass protests either. Just a few months ago, another student at the University of London was arrested for a 'chalk protest' highlighting the University's aims at altering levels of pay to outsourced low-wage cleaners.

That isn't all, of course. On the same day that Chessum was arrested, secret footage published by The Guardian showed that the police were attempting to bribe students at Cambridge University into spying on activists on the campus. According to the tapes, the police weren't just searching for activists who may pose a risk to national security, but rather 'union-stuff', as "the things they discuss can have an impact on community issues."

While Chessum has now been released from Holborn police station, he, as have the rest of union members, has been banned from staging any more protests on any of the London campuses until further notice. Meanwhile, the University of London will continue the plans to disband ULU, only this time with little threat of resistance.

Finally- it's worth reading this piece on OpenDemocracy.net. It's an interesting article on the uses and abuses of security services in our universities, and the ways in which other forms of protests- including those against arms manufacturers, are also being trodden on.

What this says about how universities are changing is debatable, though the way I see it, arbitrary arrests, gagging orders and the increased erosion of transparency make it clear that public institutions are becoming more corporate, less accountable to their student bodies and disturbingly, more welcome on campuses.