In 1648, the Peace of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years' War by introducing the concept of sovereignty. After decades of destructive religious conflict, the nations of Europe decided that another country's internal affairs were no longer a valid causus belli. World leaders would, at least on paper, no longer meddle in neighboring countries and recognize each others' respective jurisdictions.
"Sovereignty" is of course derived from the word "sovereign," which indicates the political climate that codified the concept, a world dominated by kings and emperors. But soon an alternative notion of "national sovereignty" would be introduced by liberal political philosophers, suggesting that the people of a country should be its ultimate authority, rather than the subjects of an all-powerful ruler.
The gulf between these notions of sovereignty, I believe, is the source of the current conflict between Russia and the West over Ukraine. It's not just a matter of conflicting national interests, but incompatible worldviews.
The United States and the rest of Europe are proponents of national sovereignty. To them, the protests against the now-ousted President Yanukovich were unfortunate, but legitimate. The government of Ukraine was no longer responsive to the will of the people, as seen when Yanukovich abandoned an economic deal with the European Union at the last minute to strike a deal with Russia instead. Any legitimacy Yanukovich had was lost when he resorted to force to remain in power, and between his attempts to repress the Euromaidan and general corruption, he is a wanted criminal, not a country's president. Ideally, Ukraine's political process would have been able to see his ouster through a nonviolent election, but if that process is compromised by corruption, sometimes revolution is the only way for the people to express their will.
Russia, or more specifically Putin, is a proponent of sovereign-based sovereignty. To him, the methods President Yanukovich used to take and wield power are unimportant, and legitimate. The people of Ukraine had no right to break the law and governmental process with their complaints over their leader's policies. A sovereign has the right to use whatever means necessary to preserve order and stay in power, and even though armed mobs have forced Yanukovich to take shelter with his ally, he is still his country's only legitimate president. Ideally, Ukraine's citizens would be content to wait until the next election to make their voices heard, but if the government's authority is threatened by rebellion, sometimes violence is the only way to prevent anarchy.
Of course, both sides are also waffling when it suits them. America and the West was quick to greet the post-Yanukovich regime as the legitimate government of Ukraine, an expression of the people's will. But when a similar revolt played out in Crimea, taking over the government and rallying for a merger with Russia, they refuse to recognize it. Similarly, the pro-Western revolution in Kiev is decried as fascists by Russia, but the pro-Russia revolution in Crimea is of course legitimate.
Russia thinks the "popular" revolution in Kiev was purchased by NATO, but insists that the thousands of soldiers with Russian-style equipment, using Russian tactics, and driving trucks with license plates from the Black Sea Fleet, are simply local "self-defense" forces - and anyway, if Russian forces were in the Crimea, they have a treaty allowing a certain number of troops in the region. The West scoffs at the notion of a legitimate national referendum taking place with those "self-defense" forces holding Crimea in a stranglehold, and overtly Russian troops doing exercises on Ukraine's border. Proper democracy could be ensured with international observers and activists, the West declares, and of course those local "self-defense" forces are unwilling to let foreign agents in to subvert Crimea's government and population.
It's an impasse, modern popular liberal internationalism colliding with pre-revolutionary absolute sovereignty. Both sides have make some good points and are ignoring others when it suits them. Which one you support will probably depend on whether you think it's better to have someone like Yanukovich or al-Assad in power, or run the risk of Ukraine's neo-Nazis or Syria's al-Qaeda taking over. Whether you'd prefer to live in the 21st century, a world of international norms and governance, citizens using new technology to make increasing demands of their governments, and interdependence among countries, or a world of almighty sovereigns who are expected to mind their own business and ignore what their neighbors do to their subjects.
It would be nice to think that the 21st century should automatically win out, that Putin needs to get with the times. Except freedom is no longer on the march, and the world is getting less democratic. So the West's challenge in Ukraine is to find a way to reverse that trend, avoid a potentially dangerous conflict, and somehow bridge the centuries-wide divide between it and the new czar in Moscow. Or in other words, convince that czar that he ought not to have so much power.
I foresee a protracted, unpleasant stalemate. At least until Russia has a new leader.
No comments:
Post a Comment